Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-27-17 TC Agenda Packet
The Regular Meeting of the Town of Westlake Town Council will begin immediately following the conclusion of the Town Council Work Session but not prior to the posted start time. Mission Statement Westlake is a unique community blending preservation of our natural environment and viewscapes, while serving our residents and businesses with superior municipal and academic services that are accessible, efficient, cost-effective, and transparent. Westlake, Texas – “One-of-a-kind community; natural oasis – providing an exceptional level of service.” Page 1 of 6 TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS Vision Statement 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. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 27, 2017 1500 Solana Boulevard Building 7, Suite 7100 1st Floor, Council Chamber Westlake, TX 76262 Workshop Session: 5:00 p.m. Regular Session: 6:30 p.m. Page 2 of 6 Work Session 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager b. Section 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation: Cause No. 348-290326-17 - Neil and Janelle McNabnay, Colin and Melanie Stevenson, Yair and Sandra Lotan, Jay and Jana Still, Biswajit and Chandrika Dasgupta, Michael and Michelle Granfield, Michael and Stef Mauler, Rudy and Christy Renda, David and Jenn Riley, Joseph Mohan and Maria De Leon, Roberto Arandia, and Patrick and Erin Cockrum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") vs. Town of Westlake c. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada d. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 e. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Water contract f. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Solana Public Improvement District’s Service and Assessment Plan g. 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 Page 3 of 6 Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan 5. RECONVENE MEETING 6. COUNCIL RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION 7. ADJOURNMENT Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST: Mayor and Council Reports on Items of Community Interest pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.0415 the Town Council may report on the following items: (1) expression of thanks, congratulations or condolences; (2) information about holiday schedules; (3) recognition of individuals; (4) reminders about upcoming Town Council events; (5) information about community events; and (6) announcements involving imminent threat to public health and safety. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Council on any matter whether or not it is posted on the agenda. The Council cannot by law take action nor have any discussion or deliberations on any presentation made to the Council at this time concerning an item not listed on the agenda. The Council will receive the information, ask staff to review the matter, or an item may be noticed on a future agenda for deliberation or action. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below are considered routine by the Town Council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence. a. Consider approval of the minutes from the meeting on October 30, 2017. b. Consider approval of the minutes from the meeting on November 6, 2017. c. Consider approval of Resolution 17-38, Approving the 2018 Meeting Schedule. d. Consider approval of Resolution 17-39, Amending and updating the Facility Use Policy. e. Consider approval of Resolution 17-40, Approving United HealthCare as the Town’s Health and Vision insurance carrier and MetLife as the Town’s dental insurance carrier for 2018. f. Consider approval of Resolution 17-41, Entering into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Roanoke for the provision of drinking water quality analysis in the Town of Westlake and further authorizing the Town Manager to execute the agreement. Page 4 of 6 5. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION ORDINANCE 838, UPDATING THE SOLANA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND ASSESSMENT ROLL. 6. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ORDINANCE 839, APPROVING A TEMPORARY CONCRETE BATCH PLANT TO BE LOCATED AT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3, PLANNING AREA 5B (PD3-5B) ALSO KNOWN AS CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATE CAMPUS, AN APPROXIMATELY 71.4 ACRE SITE. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH FO THE STATE HIGHWAY 170 AND STATE HIGHWAY 114 INTERACTION, NORTH OF JT OTTINGER ROAD, AND WEST OF WESTLAKE PARKWAY. 7. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 17-42, APPROVING A FINAL PLAT FOR PHASE III OF QUAIL HOLLOW. THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE FINAL PLAT IS A PORTION (33 ACRES) OF THE 188.28 ACRE PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED AT 1755 DOVE ROAD, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE FM1938/DOVE ROAD INTERSECTION. 8. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 840, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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. 9. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE 841, APPROVING 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. 10. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 17-43, TO CAST (2) VOTES FOR NOMINEES FOR THE TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPERTY TAX CODE. 11. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 17-44, TO CAST ONE (1) VOTE FOR NOMINEES FOR DENTON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPERTY TAX CODE. Page 5 of 6 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager b. Section 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation: Cause No. 348-290326-17 - Neil and Janelle McNabnay, Colin and Melanie Stevenson, Yair and Sandra Lotan, Jay and Jana Still, Biswajit and Chandrika Dasgupta, Michael and Michelle Granfield, Michael and Stef Mauler, Rudy and Christy Renda, David and Jenn Riley, Joseph Mohan and Maria De Leon, Roberto Arandia, and Patrick and Erin Cockrum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") vs. Town of Westlake c. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada d. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 e. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Water contract f. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Solana Public Improvement District’s Service and Assessment Plan g. 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 13. RECONVENE MEETING 14. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. Page 6 of 6 15. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Any Council member may request at a workshop and / or Council meeting, under “Future Agenda Item Requests”, an agenda item for a future Council meeting. The Council Member making the request will contact the Town Manager with the requested item and the Town Manager will list it on the agenda. At the meeting, the requesting Council Member will explain the item, the need for Council discussion of the item, the item’s relationship to the Council’s strategic priorities, and the amount of estimated staff time necessary to prepare for Council discussion. If the requesting Council Member receives a second, the Town Manager will place the item on the Council agenda calendar allowing for adequate time for staff preparation on the agenda item. 16. 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., Building 7, Suite 7100, Westlake, TX 76262, November 22, 2017, by 5:00 p.m. under the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. _____________________________________ Kelly Edwards, TRMC, Town Secretary If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the Town Secretary 48 hours in advance at 817-490-5710 and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. Town Council Item # 2 – Pledge of Allegiance Texas Pledge: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible." Town Council Item # 5 – Reconvene Council Meeting EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager b. Section 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation: Cause No. 348-290326- 17 - Neil and Janelle McNabnay, Colin and Melanie Stevenson, Yair and Sandra Lotan, Jay and Jana Still, Biswajit and Chandrika Dasgupta, Michael and Michelle Granfield, Michael and Stef Mauler, Rudy and Christy Renda, David and Jenn Riley, Joseph Mohan and Maria De Leon, Roberto Arandia, and Patrick and Erin Cockrum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") vs. Town of Westlake c. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada d. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 e. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Water contract f. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Solana Public Improvement District’s Service and Assessment Plan g. 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 Town Council Item # 4 – Executive Session Town Council Item # 5 – Reconvene Council Meeting COUNCIL RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION Town Council Item # 6 – Council Recap / Staff Direction Town Council Item # 7 – Adjournment Work Session ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST: Mayor and Council Reports on Items of Community Interest pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.0415 the Town Council may report on the following items: (1) expression of thanks, congratulations, or condolences; (2) information about holiday schedules; (3) recognition of individuals; (4) reminders about upcoming Town Council events; (5) information about community events; and (6) announcements involving imminent threat to public health and safety. Westlake Community Tree Lighting Thursday, November 30, 2018; 6:00 – 8:00 pm Solana Plaza – 1301 Solana Blvd. -Fun-filled hometown event brought back this year with a new location in Solana’s Plaza! Join us as we kick off the holiday season together with carriage rides, reindeer petting zoo, K-LUV radio broadcast, cake-walk, local flavors from area restaurants and returning favorites…cookie decorating, hot cocoa & cider, musical performances, photos with Santa, and other visitors from the North Pole! Coffee & Conversation with the Mayor/Board President Monday, December 4, 2017; 8:00 – 9:30 am Marriott Solana Hotel – Great Room Board of Trustees Workshop/Meeting Monday, December 4, 2017*; 5:00/6:00 pm Westlake Council Chambers, Solana Terrace, Bldg. 7-Suite 7100, First Floor Danish & Dialogue with Westlake Academy Leaders Thursday, December 7, 2017; 8:00 – 9:00 am WA Campus-Lee Fieldhouse Classroom -This month’s topic: State Accountability Date Dive Town Council Workshop/Meeting Monday, December 11, 2017*; 5:00/6:30 pm Westlake Council Chambers, Solana Terrace, Bldg. 7-Suite 7100, First Floor Public Art Competition Advisor Committee Meeting Monday, December 18, 2017; 11:00 – 1:00 pm Westlake Council Chambers, Solana Terrace, Bldg. 7-Suite 7100, First Floor Westlake Municipal Offices will be closed in observance of the Christmas holiday Friday, December 22 – Monday, December 25, 2017 -Trash & recycling services delayed one day the week of Christmas; Collections will take place on Saturday, Dec. 30, instead of regular Friday schedule. This one-day delay will also occur the week of New Year’s Day – collections on Sat., January 6, 2018. (Westlake Academy closed Thursday, December 21 - Friday, January 5, 2018; Students return Monday, January 8, 2018) *For meeting agendas and details on calendar events, please visit the Town’s website. Town Council Item # 2 – Items of Community Interest CITIZEN COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Council on any matter whether or not it is posted on the agenda. The Council cannot by law take action nor have any discussion or deliberations on any presentation made to the Council at this time concerning an item not listed on the agenda. The Council will receive the information, ask staff to review the matter, or an item may be noticed on a future agenda for deliberation or action. Town Council Item # 3 – Citizen Comments CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below are considered routine by the Town Council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence. a. Consider approval of the minutes from the meeting on October 30, 2017. b. Consider approval of the minutes from the meeting on November 6, 2017. c. Consider approval of Resolution 17-38, Approving the 2018 Meeting Schedule. d. Consider approval of Resolution 17-39, Amending and updating the Facility Use Policy. e. Consider approval of Resolution 17-40, Approving United HealthCare as the Town’s Health and Vision insurance carrier and MetLife as the Town’s dental insurance carrier for 2018. f. Consider approval of Resolution 17-41, Entering into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Roanoke for the provision of drinking water quality analysis in the Town of Westlake and further authorizing the Town Manager to execute the agreement. Town Council Item # 4 – Consent Agenda Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS TOWN COUNCIL MEETING October 30, 2017 PRESENT: Mayor Laura Wheat, Council Members: Michael Barrett, Alesa Belvedere, Carol Langdon, Rick Rennhack and Wayne Stoltenberg. ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager Thomas Brymer, Assistant Town Manager Amanda DeGan, Town Secretary Kelly Edwards, Town Attorney Stan Lowry, Director of Public Works Jarrod Greenwood, Fire Chief Richard Whitten, Deputy Chief John Ard, Director of Information Technology Jason Power, Director of Planning & Development Ron Ruthven, Building Official Pat Cooke, Development Coordinator Nick Ford, Director of Finance Debbie Piper, Director of Communications Ginger Awtry, Director of Facilities & Parks Troy Meyer, Director of Human Resources Todd Wood and Communications Manager Jon Sasser. Joint Work Session with the Planning & Zoning Commission 1. CALL THE TOWN COUNCIL TO ORDER Mayor Wheat called the Town Council work session to order at 5:04 p.m. 2. CALL THE PLANNING & ZONING TO ORDER Vice Chairman Lee called the Planning and Zoning Commission work session to order at 5:04 p.m. Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 2 of 8 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wheat led the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States and Texas flags. 4. JOINT DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Discussion of Current PD-1 Zoning Provisions and the effect of the Comprehensive Plan on the PD-1 Zoning. Mayor Wheat provided an overview of the discussion. Director Ruthven provided a presentation, overview and history of Planned Development PD-1. Discussion ensued regarding the platting and site plans approved for PD-1, the 10% coverage statement, development requirements, building setbacks, non-existing design guidelines, the difference between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, grading of the property, parking, possible number of employees if office building was built, various definitions open space, open space labeled on the Comprehensive Plan, Transfer Development ordinance, the predictability of the Comprehensive Plan, proposed residential zoning, commercial tax revenue, impact on the Academy of proposed residential development, the meaning of down zoning, and possible tree mitigation if the property is developed commercial. 5. ADJOURN THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Vice Chairman Lee adjourned the Planning and Zoning Commission work session to order at 7:01 p.m. Mayor Wheat recessed the work session at 7:01 p.m. Mayor Wheat reconvened the work session at 7:09 p.m. Work Session continued 6. DISCUSSION ITEM a. Presentation and discussion of an agreement with Core Construction for a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $9,657,721 for the construction of the Westlake Fire-EMS Fire House 1 project and authorize town staff to make funding changes not to exceed $25,000.00 on this project. Director Meyer provided a presentation and overview of the item. Discussion ensued regarding value engineering and the foundation. Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 3 of 8 b. Discussion regarding the proposed 2018 meeting schedule. Town Secretary Edwards provided an overview of the proposed meeting schedule. c. Presentation and discussion of an update to the Town’s facility use policy and guidelines. Assistant Town Manager DeGan provided a presentation regarding the proposed revisions to the facility policy. Discussion ensued regarding smoking locations at Town offices, service animals, and communicating the Use Policy to the residents. d. Standing Item: Presentation and discussion of development projects per Staff report September 2017 Entrada report from the Developer and projects in Planned Development PD 3-5. Director Ruthven provided an update regarding the following projects: Charles Schwab: foundation and on-going construction. Entrada: construction on the retail corner, residential permits for Block E, gas pad parking, the Plaza site plan, communicating the time line for the projects, and signage. Signals: signal project was placed on hold due to water and poor soil conditions, which prevented the last signal pier from being installed at Dove Road and Davis Boulevard. Single Family permitting. 7. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. No additional discussion. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council did not convene into executive session. The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation: Cause No. 348-290326-17 - Neil and Janelle McNabnay, Colin and Melanie Stevenson, Yair and Sandra Lotan, Jay and Jana Still, Biswajit and Chandrika Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 4 of 8 Dasgupta, Michael and Michelle Granfield, Michael and Stef Mauler, Rudy and Christy Renda, David and Jenn Riley, Joseph Mohan and Maria De Leon, Roberto Arandia, and Patrick and Erin Cockrum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") vs. Town of Westlake b. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada c. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 d. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Water contract e. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Solana Public Improvement District’s Service and Assessment Plan f. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager 9. RECONVENE MEETING 10. COUNCIL RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION FAQ regarding Planned Development 1 (PD-1), timelines regarding developments, revisions as discussed regarding the facility policy, and construction updated regarding the signal at Dove Road and Davis Boulevard. 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Wheat adjourned the work session at 7:52 p.m. Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 5 of 8 Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wheat called the regular session to order at 7:52 p.m. 2. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST Director Awtry provided an overview of the upcoming events including the Open House at Town Hall. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Daniel Bennett, candidate elect for the Tarrant County Appraisal District, spoke regarding his candidacy. 4. CONSENT AGENDA a. Consider approval of the minutes from the meeting on September 25, 2017. b. Consider approval of Resolution 17-37, Authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Core Construction for Construction Manager at-Risk services to provide a guaranteed maximum price of $9,657,721 for the Fire–EMS Station No. 1 project. MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Council Member Langdon seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 5. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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. Mayor Wheat provided an update regarding items 5 and 6 on the agenda. Mayor Wheat opened the public hearing for both items 5 and 6 on the agenda. Scott Bradley, 1 Paigebrooke, Westlake, TX 76272, spoke in opposition of both items. Colin Stevenson, 1823 Broken Bend, Westlake, TX 76262, spoke in opposition of both items. Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 6 of 8 MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion to table and continue the public hearing on November 27, 2017. Council Member Langdon seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 6. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING 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. MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion to table and continue the public hearing on November 27, 2017. Council Member Barrett seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council convened into executive session at 8:10 p.m. The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation: Cause No. 348-290326-17 - Neil and Janelle McNabnay, Colin and Melanie Stevenson, Yair and Sandra Lotan, Jay and Jana Still, Biswajit and Chandrika Dasgupta, Michael and Michelle Granfield, Michael and Stef Mauler, Rudy and Christy Renda, David and Jenn Riley, Joseph Mohan and Maria De Leon, Roberto Arandia, and Patrick and Erin Cockrum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") vs. Town of Westlake b. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 7 of 8 c. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 d. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Water contract e. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Solana Public Improvement District’s Service and Assessment Plan f. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager 8. RECONVENE MEETING Mayor Wheat reconvened the meeting at 9:51 p.m. 9. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. No action necessary. 10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Council Member Rennhack - review open space and flood plain management policies to prevent flooding as Town matriculates to full development. Council Member Stoltenberg seconded this request to discuss this topic during a future work session. Town Council Minutes 10/30/17 Page 8 of 8 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Wheat asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Langdon seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Mayor Wheat adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 27, 2017. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor _____________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Town Council Minutes 11/06/17 Page 1 of 2 MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS TOWN COUNCIL MEETING November 6, 2017 PRESENT: Mayor Laura Wheat, Council Members: Michael Barrett, Carol Langdon, Rick Rennhack, and Wayne Stoltenberg. ABSENT: Alesa Belvedere OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager Thomas Brymer, Assistant Town Manager Amanda DeGan, Town Secretary Kelly Edwards, Director of Information Technology Jason Power, Director of Planning & Development Ron Ruthven, Director of Communications Ginger Awtry, and Communications Manager Jon Sasser. Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wheat called the regular session to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE SOLANA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND ASSESSMENT ROLL. Town Manager Brymer provided an overview of the item stating that the annual assessment role provided by MuniCap, Inc. is not ready for approval after discussions with the Town’s Bond Counsel. Mrs. Petty and Mr. Abdi Yassin also provided the status of the assessment. Discussion ensued regarding the timetable of assessments, advising property owners of the anticipated assessment and timeframe for approval of the updated assessment. Town Council Minutes 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION Council convened into executive session at 7:12 p.m. The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada - Project Emerald 4. RECONVENE MEETING Mayor Wheat reconvened the meeting at 7:24 p.m. 5. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. No action necessary. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Wheat asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Langdon seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0. Mayor Wheat adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m. APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 27, 2017. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor _____________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider approval of a Resolution adopting the 2018 Meeting Schedule of the Town Council and Board of Trustees. STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Strategic Alignment Vision, Value, Mission Perspective Strategic Theme & Results Outcome Objective Informed & Engaged Citizens / Sense of Community Citizen, Student & Stakeholder Exemplary Service & Governance - We set the standard by delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services at the lowest cost. Increase Transparency, Accessibility & Communications Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives Time Line - Start Date: October 30, 2017 Completion Date: November 27, 2017 Funding Amount: 00.00 Status - Not Funded Source - N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) From time to time, the Council/BOT regular meeting schedule requires modification due to holidays and other events that may create a conflict for Council/Board Members and staff to attend Council/Board meetings. There are 3 days it will be necessary to conduct both a Council and Trustee meeting. Several factors have been taken into consideration as staff prepared the 2018 meeting calendar, including national holidays, school holidays, early voting, Planning & Zoning meetings and annual training conferences. Due to the increase in development over the recent years, we have found it is necessary to schedule a Planning & Zoning meeting each month prior to the Town Council meeting. Please notice the Trustee meeting in October will move to Tuesday, October 2, 2018, due to the scheduling of the Baja event at the Vaquero Club. Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2018 Meeting Calendar. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2018 Meeting Calendar Resolution 17-38 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION NO. 17-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING REGULAR MEETING DATES AND PROCEDURES; SETTING THE 2018 MEETING DATES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Local Government Code allows the governing body of a general law municipality to establish regular meetings of the governing body by the passage of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that it is in the best interest of the Council and the Town’s residents that the Council shall establish regular meetings at a convenient date, time, and place; and WHEREAS, the 2018 available regular meeting dates are hereby established in accordance with attached Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interest of the citizens of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, all matters stated in the Recitals hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: The Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, and Westlake Academy Board of Trustees shall conduct regularly scheduled meetings on dates and times as established by the Town Council. All Mondays shall be established as a day available for regular meetings as needed. Special meetings shall be called in accordance with Section 22.038(b) of the Texas Local Government Code. Meetings shall be held at the Town Hall offices located at 1500 Solana Boulevard, Bldg. 7, Ste. 7100, Westlake, Texas 76262, or a meeting room close by, or another location designated by the Town in the meeting notice. The exact time of each meeting will be determined prior to the notice of said meeting. SECTION 3: The Town Council hereby sets the 2018 regular meeting schedules as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”. Resolution 17-38 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 4: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. SECTION 5: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. ___________________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney January 2018 1 February 2018 2 March 2018 3 S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 April 2018 4 May 2018 5 June 2018 6 S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 July 2018 7 August 2018 8 September 2018 9 S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 October 2018 10 November 2018 11 December 2018 12 S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa S M T W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 School Board School & Town Holiday Budget / Meeting Retreats Town Council School Holiday Town Holiday New Council/BOT Orientation Election Day /First/Last Day School Planning & Zoning Meetings Special Meeting to Canvass Returns 01/08/18 Special TC to call the Election 01/03/16 Student Holiday 06/01 Last Day of School 02/20/17 Student Holiday 06/02 Senior Commencement 03/05 Special TC Audit 08/09 TC Budget Wkshp 12-5:00 03/12-03/16 Spring Break 08/17 First Day of School (TBD) 05/05 Election Day 08/22 & 08/29 TC if necessary (tax) 6:00 p.m. (DP check days from 1st PH) 05/15 Canvass if Election 5/21 too late 09/10 BOT/TC meeting to approve the BUDGET 05/17 TC/BOT orientation (if necessary)09/23-09/26 ICMA 05/31 TC/BOT Planning Retreat - All Day 10/09-10/12 TML Town of Westlake DRAFT 09/2017 Meeting Schedule Resloution 17-38 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consideration of an update of the existing parameters of the Town’s Facility Use policy. STAFF CONTACT: Troy Meyer, Director of Facilities / Parks and Recreation Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Amanda DeGan, Assistant Town Manager 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. Municipal & Academic Operations Exemplary Service & Governance - We set the standard by delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services at the lowest cost. Maximize Efficiencies & Effectiveness Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives Time Line - Start Date: November 27, 2017 Completion Date: N/A Funding Amount: $ Status - Funded Source - N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) The Town of Westlake has recently expanded the physical footprint of either our owned or leased space on the Academy campus and through the relocation of Town Hall. As a result, we have made available various rooms on campus, and on a limited basis, the Council Chambers for use by residents or affiliate groups. The attached policy and guideline documents are intended to update the list of available spaces as well as provide a more comprehensive overview of the complexities of owning and managing our municipal space. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the policy update for the available rooms/fields in Westlake for public use. ATTACHMENTS Resolution with Policy Resolution 17-39 Page 1 of 6 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION NO. 17-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE FACILITY USE POLICIES FOR THE TOWN HALL AND WESTLAKE ACADEMY CAMPUS FACILITY USE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES. WHEREAS, there is a need in the community for meeting / function space; and WHEREAS, Westlake Academy, a Town owned and operated facility, has been identified as a community asset, which includes buildings and grounds that may be utilized by Westlake residents on a limited basis; and WHEREAS, the municipality leases office and meeting space for the Town Hall administration; and WHEREAS, Town staff and the Westlake Academy staff have identified uses and limited and conditional availability for renting the facilities; and WHEREAS, Westlake desires to engage its citizens; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that renting the facilities benefits the public and is in the best interest of the citizens of Westlake, and WHEREAS, rental fees will be collected and will offset operational and repair cost associated with the use of the facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: All matters stated in the Resolution above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: The Town Council of the Town of Westlake hereby approves the amending of the rental of identified space at Town Hall and the Westlake Campus through the Facility Use Policy and Guidelines Exhibit “A”. SECTION 3: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. Resolution 17-39 Page 2 of 6 SECTION 4: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. ____________________________________ ATTEST: Laura Wheat, Mayor _________________________________ ____________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Resolution 17-39 Page 3 of 6 Policy Number: TC-0XX Category: Facilities Subject: Town Hall and Westlake Academy Facility Use Policy and Guidelines Effective Date: Policy Purpose To ensure safe use of Town/Academy owned facilities and provide for equitable access to those available for use to the public. The Town of Westlake owns or leases various types of buildings for government administration, public safety, and educational use in our community. As such, the Council has reviewed the available space and made a portion of the buildings available for rental use by residents. This policy addresses each location according to the type/use of the facility along with a broad overview of the associated rules, processes and guidelines for use. Town staff will post applications, access, deposits, fees, cleaning, and other site specific items within the Facility Use Guidelines on the Town’s website and in the main lobby of the municipality. Westlake Academy / Civic Campus Facility At this campus, the buildings are owned and operated by the Town of Westlake. The facility’s primary purpose is for use as an educational campus for our students in grades K-12. In certain instances, a portion of the campus/buildings may be available for rental by Westlake residents. Deposits for the available locations on campus will not exceed $2,000 per rental request (based on room requested and length of rental period) and are refundable provided that no damage has occurred to the facility or fixtures (upon review by the applicant and Town representative at the conclusion of the use period). The renter must also follow all facility use guidelines, policies and Town ordinances during the event in order to be eligible for a refund. The deposit will be returned within 14 days from the rental date and will be mailed to the applicant. Fees to be assessed according to the request and duration of reservation: a. $350 – Three (3) hour rental of cafeteria area b. $475 – Three (3) hour rental of cafeteria and Performance Hall c. $100 – Each additional hour rental of cafeteria area d. $150 – Each additional hour rental of cafeteria and Performance Hall e. $150 –Three (3) hour rental of the sports field f. $ 50 – Each additional hour rental of the sports field g. $325 –Three (3) hour rental of the gym Resolution 17-39 Page 4 of 6 h. $ 95 – Each additional hour rental of the gym i. $475 – Three (3) hour rental of the Multi-purpose Hall j. $150 – Each additional hour rental of the Multi-purpose Hall Food/Drink – in certain instances, refreshments are allowed in the rental areas of the campus facility. Food and drink are not allowed in the gymnasium. Tables for the cafeteria may be provided (upon prior request) for those individuals who are hosting a catered event. Decorations – may be used with the caveat that they do not cause damage to the walls, ceilings or any other part of the room, furniture or fixtures and must be removed at the end of the reservation period. Applicants should consult the Facility Use Guidelines for further information. Tobacco and Alcohol Use and Pet Policy – No smoking, use of tobacco products or alcoholic beverages are allowed on any Town owned or leased property. No pets are to be in the facility during the rental period. Service animals assisting the disabled are welcome. Insurance Requirements – Proof of insurance is required for all vendors, organized programs of athletic competition, including but not limited to basketball, soccer, softball and little league groups. Insurance is not needed for individuals or groups of residents who use the athletic fields on a one-time-use basis. Applicants should consult the Facility Use Guidelines for further information. Town Hall This location is leased by the Town of Westlake and is subject to certain conditions and requirements as a component of our contractual obligations with the owner of the facility. The building may have other tenants, besides the municipality and as such, we must comply with use and access according to our lease. The Council Chambers/Courtroom may be available at certain times (Tuesday thru Thursday only) for use based on the current calendar for this location. Any resident requesting this space should contact the Facility Director or his/her designee to determine if availability exists. Deposits for the room will be $1,000 per rental request and are refundable provided that no damage has occurred to the facility or fixtures (upon review by the applicant and Town representative at the conclusion of the use period). The renter must also follow all facility use guidelines, policies and Town ordinances during the event in order to be eligible for a refund. The deposit will be returned within 14 days from the rental date and will be mailed to the applicant. The room rental rate is $50 per hour for the additional use of HVAC based on our current lease. Staff will not be available for room setup or takedown and no on-site audio visual is available in this location. This room is not available for long term rental or designed to be available for on-going meeting space. It is offered on an intermittent basis due to the limited space and the schedule required for Resolution 17-39 Page 5 of 6 town and school administration. Residents should consult the Facility Use Guidelines for further information. Tobacco and Alcohol Use and Pet Policy – No smoking, use of tobacco products or alcoholic beverages are allowed on any Town owned or leased property. Service animals assisting the disabled are welcome. Decorations – are not allowed in the Council Chambers. Nothing may be affixed to the wall or the dais bench. Post-it pads may be affixed to the glass surfaces (windows, door areas) only. Staff will update and publish this information in the Facility Use Guidelines on an as needed basis. General Policy Requirements for All Locations Individuals and organizations utilizing the facility are required to abide by all applicable Town ordinances, state laws and reservation policies. If a group fails to comply with the requirements of the policy, forfeiture of the facility deposit may occur and future use of any facility may be denied. Primary Purpose of Meeting Space – The meeting rooms and available space at any municipal location serve the primary purpose of holding meetings and discussions for the Town Council, Board of Trustees, school classrooms, public administration, etc. In the event a resident has scheduled a rental space, every effort will be made to avoid a conflict. However, in certain circumstances unforeseen use of a space may be required for municipal business and a reservation may be cancelled. Staff will notify the resident as soon as possible and offer additional availability according to the meeting calendar. The municipality will also not be responsible for any outside fees incurred by the resident should a rental reservation be cancelled. Political Activity Campaigning, Logos, & Endorsements Town owned and leased facilities are not available for use as a campaign location or for other political activity. Any use of a Town owned or leased facility does not constitute nor should it be construed as supporting the discussions or views of the participants of any given meeting. Residents should refrain from publishing or advertising any material that states or implies an endorsement. Use of any Town or Westlake Academy logos is prohibited unless the applicant is an officially recognized affiliate. Audio/Visual Technology – is generally not available in Town rental space(s). An exception may be granted for those requesting a long term rental on the Academy campus. Should staff be necessary to support audio/visual needs for long term commitments, additional fees may apply. Non-public Areas of Building/Facility – in the event a resident utilizes a portion of Town owned or leased facilities, access is limited to the space available and notated in the agreement. Non- Resolution 17-39 Page 6 of 6 public spaces such as offices, kitchens, storage closets, classrooms, etc., will not be available for use by the resident. Sales and Fundraising – are prohibited on Town owned/leased property unless the event is town sponsored or conducted by a Town or Academy affiliate group. This includes for profit groups/businesses or advertisement of goods or services. Damages and Cleaning – Individuals and organizations reserving any of the available rooms/facility are responsible for the costs associated with repairing the building or replacing items that are damaged during the rental period. Failure to remit the required repair/replacement fees for the damages will result in the loss of future reservation privileges and any deposit. The resident is responsible for cleaning the facility at the conclusion of the rental. The reservation must include the necessary time for these activities. Insurance Requirements – shall be required per the conditions of our leasing agreement with the facility owner. Please refer to the Facility Use Guidelines for more information. Liability – When using any Town owned or leased space, the user agrees to hold harmless the Town and its employees/representatives from and against any claims for damages to persons or property arising out of any use of the facility and its premises by the user. Users are responsible for their guests adherence to the policies herein described. In addition, the Town shall not be responsible for damage or loss of property or materials during a rental period. This includes items left in common spaces of any facility. Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider approval of a Resolution approving United HealthCare as the Town’s Health and Vision insurance carrier and MetLife as the Town’s dental insurance carrier for 2018. STAFF CONTACT: Todd Wood, Director of HR & Administrative Services Strategic Alignment Vision, Value, Mission Perspective Strategic Theme & Results Outcome Objective Fiscal Responsibility Fiscal Stewardship Exemplary Service & Governance - We set the standard by delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services at the lowest cost. Attract, Recruit, Retain & Develop the Highest Quality Workforce Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives Time Line - Start Date: January 1, 2018 Completion Date: December 31, 2018 Funding Amount: $559,130 Status - Funded Source - General Fund EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) Staff recently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for our annual health insurance plan, effective January 2018 through December 2018. The Town received bids from five (5) insurance carriers, and these bids were evaluated using criteria from our employee benefit survey to determine the best selection. Factors that were considered included the following: • Premium cost (employer and employee) • Coverage for major items and preventative care • Provider Network Quality • Schedule of Plan benefits Page 2 of 2 • Stability/experience of the company providing the insurance • Out-of-pocket expense exposure to employee The options included plans from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna, Humana, United Health Care, and Scott & White. The Municipal Leadership Team recently met to discuss these health plan options. The team felt it was important to maintain a proper balance between providing the best coverage that meets our needs while exercising fiscal responsibility during the selection process. The renewal of our current health plan from United Health Care reflected a rate increase of 21.5%, and is consistent with the average increase of other small groups. After review of this bid and those from other carriers, staff recommends continuing with United Health Care as our health insurance provider, with some changes to our plan design. Our current health plan includes only one option, and the Leadership Team recommends a three-tier plan offering, which would mitigate costs for the Town and employees with dependents by offering more affordable choices. This tiered option would feature health plans with varying levels of coverage. The highest cost plan would be our current plan (21.5% increase above current), with other options priced at 12.3% and 6.4% above current rates. The fiscal impact of this approach will ultimately be determined by actual enrollments; however, staff estimates the aggregate employer cost to be $529,080. The total annual estimated cost of the plan, including employee contributions for dependent coverage, is estimated to be $632,302. Dental insurance was also evaluated, utilizing quotes from our current carrier as well as the quotes that were included with health insurance bids. After evaluation of these bids, staff recommends retaining the current dental plan with MetLife, at a rate increase of 3% for 2018. The approximate annual cost of the MetLife dental plan is $30,059 for the Town, and the total annual estimated cost of the dental plan including employee contributions for dependent coverage is $36,017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the resolution of United HealthCare as the Town’s Health and Vision insurance carrier and MetLife as the Town’s Dental insurance carrier for 2018. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Resolution 17-40 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION 17-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, APPROVING RENEWAL OF UNITED HEALTH CARE AS THE TOWN’S HEALTH AND VISION INSURANCE CARRIER AND APPROVING RENEWAL OF METLIFE AS THE TOWN’S DENTAL INSURANCE CARRIER FOR THE 2018 CALENDAR YEAR. WHEREAS, Town of Westlake desires to maintain a comprehensive health and dental insurance benefits for its employees that is competitive to surrounding cities; and WHEREAS, the leaders of the Town of Westlake desire to exercise exceptional levels of stewardship with all financial resources; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interest of the employees and citizens of the Town of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, all matters stated in the recitals hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: That, the Westlake Town Council hereby approves United Health Care as the Town’s health and vision insurance carrier for a twelve (12) month period, beginning January 1, 2018, with an estimated annual employer cost of $529,080. SECTION 3: That, the Westlake Town Council hereby approves the renewal of MetLife as the Town’s dental insurance carrier for a twelve (12) month period, beginning January 1, 2018, with an estimated annual employer cost of $29,183. SECTION 4: If any portion of this resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. Resolution 17-40 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 5: That this Resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27TH DAY NOVEMBER, 2017. ___________________________________ ATTEST: Laura Wheat, Mayor ________________________________ ___________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider a Resolution approving an Inter-Local Agreement with the City of Roanoke for the provision of drinking water quality analysis in the Town of Westlake and further authorizing the Town Manager to execute the agreement. STAFF CONTACT: Jarrod Greenwood, Public Works Director/Assistant to the Town Manager Strategic Alignment Vision, Value, Mission Perspective Strategic Theme & Results Outcome Objective Planned / Responsible Development Municipal & Academic Operations Exemplary Service & Governance - We set the standard by delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services at the lowest cost. Preserve Desirability & Quality of Life Strategic Initiative Contract with Qualified Consultants Time Line - Start Date: November 27, 2017 Completion Date: November 27, 2017 Funding Amount: $17,000.00 Status - Funded Source - Utility Fund EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) As you may recall, staff presented a contract with Hardin Associates to Town Council at the February 26, 2016 Council meeting in order to fulfill a new monitoring requirement by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). This unfunded mandate that took effect on July 30, 2015 requires water systems to develop a Nitrification Action Plan (NAP), include it as part of its Monitoring Plan, and maintain a copy on-site and made available to the TCEQ if requested. Over the last year, staff worked with Hardin Associates to develop our Chloramine Effectiveness Monitoring Plan Requirements, also referred to as the Nitrification Action Plan (NAP). Page 2 of 2 Public water systems (PWSs) in the US are required to maintain minimum Chlorine/Chloramine disinfectant levels throughout the distribution system to protect public health. In addition, a PWS should be careful not to exceed the maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs). We are required to perform daily testing of our disinfectant levels, which includes weekends and holidays. In the past, this required staff to come in on their days off to perform these tests. With the development of the Chloramine Effectiveness/Nitrification Action Plan, we are able to utilize automated disinfectant samplers for our weekend and holiday reporting requirements, while providing consistency of testing and eliminating the staff overtime. Unfortunately, we are not able to utilize automated testing for all of the remaining state and federal mandated water quality testing as sampling sites are located throughout the distribution system with samples being taken at the meter. The approval of the proposed Interlocal Agreement with the City of Roanoke will provide for a select portion of the water quality testing to include personnel and equipment necessary to fulfill the Nitrification Action Plan developed by Hardin Associates. Staff believes this regional cooperative service delivery model is a more efficient and effective way to maintain regulatory compliance. Staff has investigated options for outsourcing to the private sector, however, there are no companies providing this testing at this time. The only alternative option would be for Town staff to purchase equipment and supplies to perform the testing. The proposed ILA with Roanoke will not require a budget amendment. With the amount of attention that has been raised about the levels of lead in public drinking water, staff wants to make note that these mandates are not associated in any way with the testing of lead. Testing for lead and copper is done through the state testing laboratory based on each systems’ testing results. Westlake’s lead and copper testing is conducted every 3 years at 10 single family residences based on our historically low levels of lead and copper. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement with Roanoke. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17-XX Attachment - Proposed Interlocal Agreement with Roanoke Resolution 17-41 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION NO. 17-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROANOKE TEXAS FOR THE PROVISION OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS IN THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE. WHEREAS, the Town owns and operates a public drinking water system; and WHEREAS, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality requires public drinking water systems to perform water quality testing to protect the life, safety, and welfare of the public; and WHEREAS, Westlake encourages Interlocal government/regional cooperation for provision of certain service deliveries; and WHEREAS, Westlake desires to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Roanoke to perform the required Chloramine Effectiveness/Nitrification Action Plan water quality testing within the Town of Westlake; and WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke is willing and has the personnel and equipment necessary to perform the Chloramine Effectiveness/Nitrification Action Plan testing within the Town of Westlake; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proposed Interlocal Agreement promotes regional cooperation and provides sound infrastructure maintenance and planning; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proposed Interlocal Agreement with the City of Roanoke benefits the public and is in the best interest of the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, all matters stated in the Recitals hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety SECTION 2: That the Town of Westlake Town Council does hereby authorize the Town Manager to enter into the Interlocal Agreement, attached as Exhibit “A”. Resolution 17-41 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 3: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. SECTION 4: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura L. Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ ______________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Page 1 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS IN THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF TARRANT § THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Town of Westlake, Texas, a Type A general law municipal corporation, located in Tarrant County, Texas (hereinafter referred to as "Westlake") and the City of Roanoke, Texas, a home rule municipal corporation, located in Denton County, Texas (hereinafter referred to as "Roanoke''). WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, authorizes city governments in the State of Texas to contract with one another for the provision of various governmental functions and the delivery of various governmental services, including those in the area of public health, sanitation, and utility services; and WHEREAS, to ensure Public Water Systems are providing safe drinking water, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has implemented requirements for all Public Water Systems to test drinking water to determine the effectiveness chloramine disinfection; and WHEREAS, the provision of safe and reliable water throughout the Town of Westlake is of vital importance to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Westlake; and WHEREAS, Westlake desires to secure and maintain adequate water quality resources to ensure for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Westlake; and WHEREAS, Chloramine disinfection effectiveness testing requires special laboratory equipment and training; and WHEREAS, the Westlake desires to foster and promote region cooperative efforts; and Page 2 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 WHEREAS, The Town of Westlake has requested assistance from the City of Roanoke to provide the chloramine effectiveness testing; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke is desirous of furnishing the chloramine effectiveness testing services to the Westlake; and WHEREAS, Westlake and Roanoke have concluded that this Agreement fairly compensates the performing party for services being provided hereunder; and NOW, THEREFORE, for the mutual consideration herein stated, Westlake and Roanoke agree as follows: 1 Water Quality Analysis Services Roanoke agrees to provide all personnel, equipment, and supplies necessary to perform the chloramine disinfection effectiveness testing approved by applicable state and federal regulatory standards. Chloramine disinfection effectiveness testing will be conducted in accordance with “Exhibit A”. 2 Billing Roanoke shall bill Westlake monthly for the costs of services provided according to the rates prescribed in “Exhibit B”. Roanoke shall document in an itemized monthly invoice the number of hours spent by staff, including equipment and supplies used when conducting chloramine effectiveness testing on behalf of Westlake. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the itemized bill, Westlake shall remit payment to Roanoke. Page 3 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 Westlake will pay Roanoke for actual costs (direct labor, employee benefits, equipment rental, materials and supplies, utilities, permits, and administrative overhead costs) for the services provided by Roanoke as set forth in “Exhibit B”. Administrative overhead costs for each work item shall be charged at a rate of 10% percentage of direct labor costs. Roanoke shall receive compensation for the performance of services and its duty related to chloramine effectiveness testing in accordance with of this Agreement. 3 Payment for Services Each party paying for the performance of governmental functions or services hereunder shall make those payments from current revenues available to the paying party. 4 Applicable Law This Agreement and any of its terms and provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. This Agreement is fully performable in Denton County, Texas, and in the event that any cause of action is filed by either party arising out of the terms of this Agreement, the exclusive venue for said lawsuit shall be in Denton County, Texas. 5 Severability In the event that any portion of this Agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. Page 4 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 6 Authority Each party certifies that the undersigned officers and/or agents of the parties hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions or orders extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. 7 Term and Termination of Agreement The term of this Agreement shall begin on January 1, 2018 and shall be effective for twelve (12) months from that date, and it shall renew automatically thereafter for another twelve (12) months, said renewals continuing indefinitely, PROVIDED, that any party herein shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at the end of any calendar year only, for any reason whatsoever, upon giving the other party a minimum of ninety (90) days written notice in advance of the date sought for such termination. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed sufficient if given in writing and sent by registered or certified mail to the official mailing address of Westlake or Roanoke. 8 No joint enterprise No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to create any type of joint ownership of any property, to create a partnership, joint venture or other agreement of any kind, or to create any right of partial control, ownership of or equity in the other municipalities’ facilities described herein. Furthermore, the parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the doctrine of respondent superior shall not apply between the municipalities. Page 5 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 9 Notice Any notice, communication or request provided or permitted to be given by either party to the other party must be in writing and addressed as follows: If to Roanoke: City of Roanoke Attn: City Manager 108 S Oak Street Roanoke, Texas 76262 Telephone: (817) 491-2411 Facsimile: (817) 491-2411 and to: City of Roanoke Attn: Director of Community and Business Development 265 Marshall Creek Roanoke, Texas 76262 Telephone: (817) 491-6099 Facsimile: (817) 491-3114 If to Westlake: Town of Westlake Attn: Town Manager 1500 Solana Blvd., Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, Texas 76262 Telephone: (817) 430-0941 Facsimile: (817) 430-1812 and to: Town of Westlake Attn: Director of Public Works 1500 Solana Blvd., Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, Texas 76262 Telephone: (817) 490-5717 Facsimile: (817) 430-1812 or to such other addresses as may be provided for in writing from time to time. Page 6 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 10 Other agreements unaffected This Agreement shall govern the provision of all chloramine effectiveness testing performed by Roanoke for Westlake. All other interlocal agreements between Westlake and Roanoke not changed in whole or in part by this Agreement shall continue in effect. 11 No waiver of immunity or defenses This Agreement is made pursuant to Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither municipality waives nor shall be deemed hereby to waive any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising in the exercise of governmental powers and functions, or any damage limitation or other protection provided to municipalities under any applicable law. This section shall be liberally construed to carry out the intent of each municipality’s governing body, and the municipalities do hereby invoke said governmental immunity to the extent possible under the law. 12 No third party beneficiaries It is understood by the parties that this Agreement is entered into for the mutual convenience and public purposes of the municipalities which are parties hereto, and it is the parties’ intent that no other parties shall be construed as beneficiaries of this Agreement, including the owners, residents, or operators of property connected to the N-1 collection main, regardless of whether such persons are provided wastewater services under this Agreement. Page 7 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 13 Section or Other Headings Section or other headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 14 Amendment This Agreement may only be amended, altered, or revoked by written instrument signed by both parties. 15 Interpretation Regardless of the actual drafter of this Agreement, this Agreement shall, in the event of any dispute over its meaning or application, be interpreted fairly and reasonably, and neither more strongly for nor against any party. 16 Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals. 17 Force Majeure If, by reasons of Force Majeure, any party will be rendered wholly or partially unable to carry out its obligations under this Agreement after its effective date, then such party will give written notice of the particulars of such Force Majeure to the other party or parties within a reasonable time after the occurrence of such event. The obligations of the party giving such notice, to the extent affected by such Force Majeure, will be suspended during the period of the inability, Page 8 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 provided that both parties agree to use good faith and exercise reasonable efforts to remove and overcome such inability. 18 Mutual Assistance The parties hereto agree to take all reasonable measures which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement and to aid and assist each other in carrying out such terms and provisions. 19 Exhibits All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes wherever reference is made to the same. Approved as to form and legality CITY OF ROANOKE _________________________ Scott Campbell, City Manager ___________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: ____________________________ April S. Hill, City Secretary _________________________ Date TOWN OF WESTLAKE _____________________________ Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager ___________________________ Stanton L. Lowry, Town Attorney ATTEST: _____________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary ______________________ Date Page 9 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 Exhibit “A” Westlake Chloramine Effectiveness Sampling Plan 1. Chloramine Effectiveness Sampling Rule Basis: Additional activities for source water under chloramine effectiveness requirements (30 TAC §290.110(c)(5)(A)) are reported in an attached Nitrification Action Plan (NAP) (30 TAC §290.46(z)). Frequency: To establish baseline date for ammonia, mono-chloramine, nitrite and nitrate (all measured as nitrogen), the monitoring will occur at the following frequency determined from the NAP and process management criteria. Additional parameters such as temperature and pH will be determined from the NAP. Sample Frequency at Source Water Total Chlorine Daily Mono-chloramine Weekly Free ammonia Weekly Nitrite and Nitrate Weekly Temperature Weekly pH Weekly After baseline data is determined for ammonia, mono-chloramine, nitrite and nitrate (all measured as nitrogen), the monitoring will occur at the following frequency determined from the NAP and process management criteria. Additional parameters such as temperature and pH will be determined from the NAP. Sample Frequency at Source Water Total Chlorine Daily Mono-chloramine Weekly Free ammonia Weekly Nitrite and Nitrate Monthly Daily Test shall be completed by Westlake as mandated by the State. Roanoke will conduct this test weekly in concurrence with all other test. Page 10 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 Location The location of sample sites for chloramine effectiveness testing is contained in the table below. Chloramine Effectiveness Sample Site Location Table Disinfectant Residual Number Address (Suggested subdivision, mapsco, etc.) Reason for Representative Site RT-1 2203 Kingfisher Vaquero “Located at a residence on an 8-inch distribution loop representing average water age.” RT-2 13345 Thornton Southwest “Located on an 8-inch line in an area of relatively low water age, one of the first subdivisions near the Fort Worth interconnect.” RT-3 1810 Broken Bend Glenwyck Farms (Low PP) “Located in the Low PP furthest from the Fort Worth I/C and represents a relatively high water age.” RT-4 2341 Ottinger Rd. Centrally located in the Town “Located in an older rural area, off an 8-inch line representing average water age.” RT-5 2111 Cedar Elm Vaquero South “Located on an 8-inch distribution lateral representing a water age greater than the average age.” DR-1 1900 Us Hwy 377 POE Point of Entry – automated Cl readings DR-2 1481 Knox Keller EST centrally located in distribution system – automated Cl readings DR–3 Hwy 377 PS Pump Station Discharge header at Pump Station Page 11 of 11 Town of Westlake Res 17-41 Exhibit “B” City of Roanoke Rate Schedule Utility Maintenance Technician ………………………………. $40/hr x 2 Utility Maintenance Supervisor ……………………………….. $80/hr x 2 Laboratory equipment/supplies………………………………… $9.57/sample x 8 samples Administrative Overhead……………………………………….. 10% Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider an Ordinance to Update the Solana Public Improvement District Service and Assessment Plan and Assessment Roll STAFF CONTACT: Tom Brymer, Town Manager Jarrod Greenwood, Public Works Director/Asst. to the Town Manager Debbie Piper, Finance Director Strategic Alignment Vision, Value, Mission Perspective Strategic Theme & Results Outcome Objective Fiscal Responsibility Fiscal Stewardship Exemplary Service & Governance - We set the standard by delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services at the lowest cost. Increase Transparency, Accessibility & Communications Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives Time Line - Start Date: November 6, 2017 Completion Date: November 27, 2017 Funding Amount: N/A Status - N/A Source - N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) The Solana Public Improvement District (PID) for the Entrada development was created by Resolution 14-07 by Town Council on February 24, 2014. In order to levy the assessment on property within the PID required to service the PID bonds, Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 741 approving the Solana Pubic Improvement District Service and Assessment Plan and Assessment Roll. Page 2 of 2 Sections 372.013 and 372.014 of the Public Improvement District Assessment Act, Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code (the “PID Act”) require that Service and Assessment Plans (SAP) and Assessment Rolls to be reviewed and updated annually which requires Council approval. Council approved Ordinance752 that provided the first annual update to the SAP at the September 21, 2015 Regular Council meeting. The second update to this SAP was approved by the Council via Ordinance 796 on September 19, 2016. This would be the third such annual SAP Update which is necessary prior to the issuance of the 2017 PID invoices to property owners for PID assessments due January 2018. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approving the proposed Ordinance accepting the Service Assessment Plan as will be presented. ATTACHMENTS As of the time of finalizing this agenda, staff is still in discussions with the Town’s PID Administrator to finalize this 2017 Update to the Solana PID Service Assessment Plan (SAP). Supporting materials for this agenda item will be presented at the meeting or sent to Council by separate cover. Ordinance 838 Page 1 of 3 TOWN OF WESTLAKE ORDINANCE NO. 838 SOLANA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND ASSESSMENT ROLL. A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE UPDATING THE SOLANA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND ASSESSMENT ROLL. WHEREAS, by Resolution 14-07 adopted on February 24, 2014, after notice and a public hearing in the manner required by law, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas approved a resolution authorizing the creation of the Solana Public Improvement District of the Town of Westlake; and WHEREAS, the Town Council, pursuant to Section 372.016(b) of the Public Improvement District Assessment Act, Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code (the “PID Act”) PID Act, published notice of the Levy and Assessment Hearing on December 22, 2014, in The Star-Telegram, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town; and WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, after notice and a public hearing conducted in the manner required by law, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 741 approving the Solana Public Improvement District Service and Assessment Plan and Assessment Roll and the levy of assessments on property in the District; and WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, the Town Council convened the Levy and Assessment Hearing and adopted Ordinance No. 743, authorizing the issuance of bonds secured by the assessments levied pursuant to the Assessment Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Service and Assessment Plan and Assessment Roll is required to be reviewed and updated annually as described in Sections 372.013 and 372.014 of the PID Act; and WHEREAS, the Town Council now desires to proceed with the adoption of this Ordinance for the Annual Service Plan Update and the updated Assessment Roll attached thereto, in conformity with the requirements of the PID Act; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds the passage of this Ordinance to be in the best interest for the citizens of Westlake. Ordinance 838 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That all matters stated in the preamble are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: That the Solana Annual Service Plan Update and updated Assessment Roll attached hereto as Exhibit A are hereby accepted as provided. SECTION 3: If any portion of this Ordinance shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Ordinance without the invalid provision SECTION 4: That this Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other Town Ordinances and all other provisions of other Ordinances adopted by the Town which are inconsistent with the terms or provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake, and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed the sum of Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 6: It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, that sections, paragraphs, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared legally invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such legal invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Ordinance since the same would have been enacted by the Town Council of the Town of Westlake without the incorporation in this Ordinance of any such legally invalid or unconstitutional, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section. Ordinance 838 Page 3 of 3 SECTION 7: This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage as the law in such case provides. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. _____________________________ ATTEST: Laura Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ ______________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Page 1 of 4 ESTLAKE TOWN COUNCIL TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider recommendation/approval of a Specific Use Permit for a temporary concrete batch plant to be located at Planned Development District 3, Planning Area 5B (PD3-5B) also known as the Charles Schwab Corporate Campus, an approximately 71.4 acre site. The property is generally located south of the State Highway 170 and State Highway 114 intersection, north of JT Ottinger Road, and west of Westlake Parkway. STAFF CONTACT: Nick Ford, Development Coordinator Strategic Alignment Vision, Value, Mission Perspective Strategic Theme & Results Outcome Objective Strong Aesthetic Standards 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) In May 2017, the Town Council approved the site plan for the first phase of the Charles Schwab Corporate Campus, which sits on a 33-acre tract of land just south of the Highway 114 – Highway 170 interchange. The following item for consideration is a Specific Use Permit for a temporary concrete batch plant for the Phase 1 construction of the Charles Schwab campus that will reside on the future Phase 2 portion of the project. The Charles Schwab Corporate Campus is currently undergoing pre-vertical construction. The temporary concrete batch plant will mostly be used during the vertical construction process for the tunnels, foundations, piers, and other concrete provisions on the site. The scope of this temporary concrete batch plant is not for the construction of Schwab Way. Page 2 of 4 Temporary concrete batch plants allow for the manufacturing of concrete on-site instead of concrete being delivered to the site. This increases the rate at which construction can be conducted, reduces costs of delivery, and reduces traffic in the area with less delivery trucks on the road, especially when given the size and scope of project like the Schwab Corporate Campus. The temporary concrete batch plant will be for on-site use only, and will be removed after the completion of Phase 1 of the Charles Schwab Campus. Some additional points to consider for temporary concrete batch plants are the following: TCEQ/EPA Regulations: Concrete batch plant should comply with all TCEQ regulations for batch plant. Some items that are to be regulated include: • Limiting any internal combustion engine used to power the mixer to 25 horsepower or less; • Cleaning up spilled raw materials, waste products, or finished products on a daily basis; • Controlling dust in transfer system, stockpiles, work areas, storage, and truck unloading areas; and • Meeting the general conditions stated in 30 TAC Section 106.4 Hours of Operation & Noise: Due to the location of the Schwab Campus, staff is under the impression the noise will not need to be regulated as much as a batch plant that would be located near residential subdivisions. If noise becomes an issue at any point during operation, Town staff have the ability to take appropriate corrective action. ZONING Ordinance 770, approved February 22, 2016, establishes allowed uses and development standards for PD 3-5B. Temporary concrete batch plants are an allowed use through a Specific Use Permit that must go through the public hearing process and be considered by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this item subject to the following conditions: 1. Hours of Operation & Noise. Hours of operation are regulated by the noise produced during operation. Daytime noise levels in Westlake are limited to 56 decibels at a residential property line, dropping to 49 decibels between 7:00pm and 7:00am. Given the proposed location of the temporary batch plant and the relatively low level of noise produced by related equipment, sound issues are not anticipated to be a problem. If noise becomes an issue at any point during operation, Town staff have the ability to take appropriate corrective action. 2. TCEQ Requirements. Concrete batch plant should comply with all TCEQ regulations for batch plants. Provide a copy of the compliance checklist as required by the TCEQ along with a copy of registration of the plant with TCEQ. If the batch plant is operating under permit by rule (PBR) under title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code and defined by TCEQ, no registration is required; however, a check list and record keeping as Page 3 of 4 outlined by TCEQ should be kept onsite and up to date. Batch plant exhaust/filter equipment must located at least 100 feet from any property line. TCEQ requirements should be fulfilled before operations begin with the batch plant 3. Removal of Batch Plant. The temporary concrete batch plant must be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any/all buildings for the Phase 1 portion of the Charles Schwab Corporate Campus. ATTACHMENTS 1. Overall Location Map 2. Ordinance xxx 3. Exhibit “A” Batch Plant Location Page 4 of 4 Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Ordinance 839 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF WESTLAKE ORDINANCE NO. 839 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AT THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATE CAMPUS PHASE 1, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3, PLANNING AREA 5B, A 71.4 ACRE SITE, CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATED SOUTH OF SH 170 AND SH 114 INTERSECTION, NORTH OF JT OTTINGER RD AND WEST OF WESTLAKE PARKWAY. PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Town of Westlake, Texas is a general law municipality; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake finds it necessary for the public health, safety and welfare that development occur in a controlled and orderly manner; and WHEREAS, an application was made for a Specific Use Permit to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council for a temporary concrete batch plant to be located at the Charles Schwab Campus (PD3-5B), currently under construction and located south of the intersection of SH 170 and SH 114, north of JT Ottinger Road, and west of Westlake Parkway; and WHEREAS, the area known as Planning District 3, Planning Area 5B, requires an Specific Use Permit for temporary concrete batch plants ; and WHEREAS, all legal requirements of state statutes and Town ordinances of the Town of Westlake, as well as all legal requirements and legal notices and prerequisites having been complied with; and WHEREAS, following provision of proper legal notice, including written notice to owners within 200 feet of the subject property, published notice and posted notice in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act of public hearing, a public hearing was held on November 13, 2017 by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) whereby the Commission recommended to the Town Council approval of said Specific Use Permit request with conditions; and WHEREAS, following provision of proper legal notice, including written notice to owners within 200 feet of the subject property, published notice and posted notice in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act of public hearing, a public hearing was held on November 27, 2017 by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and after a public hearing, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, is of the opinion that it Ordinance 839 Page 2 of 4 is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens that said Specific Use Permit request should be approved and granted with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That all matters stated in the preamble are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: That the Specific Use Permit for a temporary concrete batch plant to be located at Planning District 3, Planning Area 5B (as shown in “Exhibit A”) also known as the Charles Schwab Corporate Campus (currently under construction) and located is south of the intersection of SH 170 and SH 114, north of JT Ottinger Road and west of Westlake Parkway, is hereby granted with the following conditions: 1. The batch plant must comply with all existing TCEQ and EPA regulations for concrete batch plants. 2. The applicant must acknowledge compliance with all TCEQ and EPA regulations for concrete batch plants. 3. Noise (measured from property lines) must not exceed the decibel limits established by Town Ordinances. 4. The batch plant must be removed from the site before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any one building located on the Charles Schwab Corporate Campus Phase 1 construction. 5. No concrete shall be used for projects other than for the Charles Schwab Corporate Campus Phase 1 without specific approval from the town. SECTION 3: That this Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other Town Ordinances and all other provisions of other Ordinances adopted by the Town which are inconsistent with the terms or provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake, and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 5: It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, that sections, paragraphs, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared legally invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such legal invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Ordinance since the same would have been enacted by the Town Council of the Town of Westlake without the incorporation in this Ordinance of any such legally invalid or unconstitutional, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section. Ordinance 839 Page 3 of 4 SECTION 6: This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage as the law in such case provides. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. __________________________________ ATTEST: Laura Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ __________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Ordinance 839 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Location of Temporary Batch Plant for Charles Schwab Campus Phase 1 construction estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Conduct a public hearing and consideration of a recommendation regarding a Final Plat for Phase III 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 FM1938/Dove Road intersection. STAFF CONTACT: Nick Ford, Development Coordinator Jarrod Greenwood, Public Works Director 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) As Council may recall, the Final Plats for Phase I and Phase IIA of Quail Hollow were approved in December of 2016 and the final plat for Phase IIB in August, 2017. The Final Plat of Quail Hollow Phase III generally comports with the Preliminary Plat that was presented at the March 21, 2016 regular meeting that P&Z recommended Town Council approval, which was approved by the Town Council at the March 28, 2016 regular meeting. The Preliminary Plat for the area in Phase III consists of 16 residential lots. In total, the preliminary plat for all of Quail Hollow subdivision shows 92 residential lots. The Final Plat for Quail Hollow Phase III consists of 16 residential lots on 33 acres of land. With all of the final plats summed together Quail Hollow will have a total of 96 lots. As a reminder, the SUP for Quail Hollow, Ordinance 780, was approved by Council at the March 28, 2016 regular Council meeting and provided for the number of lots to increase or decrease by no more than 10%. All lots are greater than the 1-acre (43,560 sf) minimum lot size for R1 Zoning. This intended use comports with the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan, which defines the area surrounding this property as Pastoral Community, a use that stresses “compatibility with existing high-end residential development” and lots “generally an acre or larger”. PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATIONS All of the staff comments/recommendations (below) included in the Preliminary Plat have been addressed: Specific Use Permit (SUP) – An SUP is being considered for the proposed development to allow private streets that may be gated, and regulated; number of lots; deed restrictions; perimeter fence requirements; view corridor preservation; and modifications to existing lake dam on north end of property. Thoroughfare Plan – The development will only tie into FM 1938, a Town arterial roadway. The traffic counts generated by this subdivision would not require modifications to FM 1938. Land Use Plan – Land Use is not changing and is consistent with the “Pastoral Community” designated recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan regarding Land Use. Open Space & Trail plan – The proposed development satisfies recommendations in the adopted 2015 Comprehensive Plan including: the view shed corridor; large lots; street alignment; and “The Trails Plan”. Lot 28X will be dedicated as public open space/parkland that will be privately owned and privately maintained through the HOA. Parkland dedication – The dedication of one acre of Parkland is required for every thirty residential lots. This requirement will be satisfied with the final platting of PH 2 of the proposed development through dedication of Lot 28X, approximately 3 acres of land, on Dove Road near the Dove Road/Randol Mill intersection that could be used as a trailhead. Lot 28X will be dedicated as public open space/parkland that will be privately owned and privately maintained through the HOA. Right-of-way dedication – All required right-of-way dedications are included in the proposed Preliminary Plat and will be dedicated with the Final Platting of each phase of construction. This includes Right-of-Way for future widening of Dove Road or the addition of bicycle lanes alongside Dove Road. The proposed Preliminary Plat includes dedication of right-of-way for Randol Mill Road within the City of Southlake consistent with Southlake’s right-of-way dedication requirements. Tree mitigation – Tree mitigation will be satisfied through the landscape requirements for residential construction and will be addressed at the time of each single family residential building permit. Public Infrastructure/Utilities/Drainage – The developer has proposed the following conditions for public infrastructure: 1. Water will be dead end in Phase 1. The second connection across Davis will be completed with Phase 2 completing the loop. Phase 3 will be a long dead end with a flush. Possibly, the pipe size may be reduced to 6” to reduce retention time in the pipe for water quality 2. The proposed development may create pressure plane issues with water supply that will require the developer to submit additional engineering study to the Town engineer to determine the need for pressure reducing valves. 3. Detention evaluation has been provided to the Town engineer as part of the Preliminary Plat consideration and is currently being evaluated. The Town Engineer has not determined that detention is needed or required. Staff recommends adding a note to the Preliminary Plat that states: A Final Plat will not be filed until all staff drainage comments have been addressed. 4. Geotechnical Engineering Report on fill and recommendations for northern lake dam enhancement will be required by the Town prior to Final Plat approval. 5. The aerial electrical lines along FM 1938 will be buried. However, since the development will not be connecting to the electrical on Randol Mill, the developer will not be required to bury the electrical lines along Randol Mill. 6. Deotte Engineering Inc. will evaluate erosion issues along north dam and roadway but will not be the property owner’s or developer’s responsibility to mitigate. 7. Staff recommends adding a note to the Preliminary Plat that states: The Town will not be responsible for the integrity of either dam for any work performed within existing or proposed right-of-way. 8. Staff recommends the following note to be added to the Preliminary Plat: No easements will be allowed by separate instrument without written approval from the Town of Westlake. 9. The northern dam will be on private property as shown on Attachment B – Dam Section for Quail Hollow. As a reminder, staff comment #9 above that was included in the Preliminary Plat approval stipulated that the northern dam would not be within the Town right-of-way. This requirement was included to eliminate the Town from any responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of the damn and to prevent any future construction of Dove Road from compromising the structural integrity of the dam. ECONOMIC DEVELOPER AGREEMENT / DEVELOPER AGREEMENT As the Council may recall, the developer and economic agreement for the Quail Hollow subdivisions was passed by resolution 16-35 in October 2016 and subsequently amended by resolutions 17-16 and 17-17 in March, 2017. Some criteria in the development and economic agreements include the following: • The developer must show an Open Space, Lighting, and Landscaping Plan. o The developer is not required to pay a tree mitigation fee. o Tree mitigation will be the responsibility of the lot owner. • Subdivision signage will be maintained by the HOA • Culverts shall consist of stone masonry on the outside • The developer will maintain irrigation and landscape within any right-of-way • The developer must remit to the Town $5,000 for each residential lot at the signing of the final plat for each phase • Lot 26X will be dedicated as publicly accessible open space/parkland to be publicly owned by the Town and maintained by the Developer and/or HOA Town staff is comfortable the developer has satisfied all the criteria outlined in the economic development agreement and development agreement. CONCLUSION The Phase III final plat is the concluding final plat for the Quail Hollow subdivision. Staff is comfortable that this final plat and all previous final plats fulfill the requirements as set forth in the preliminary plat, economic development agreement, developer agreements and of the Town’s Code of Ordinances including the zoning requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat for Phase 3 of the Quail Hollow subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commissions recommended approval of the Final Plat for Phase of Quail Hollow on November 13, 2017 with the following outstanding comments from the Town Engineer: • Tax Certificates need to be provided • The plat needs to be sealed by a professional engineer or a registered land surveyor • The names of all property owners within 100 feet is required • The town boundary needs to be clearly shown and labeled • Clarification of the limits of the variable width drainage easement and 100 year flood plain needed • County must be provided in the preamble of the Metes and Bounds ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Location Map 3. Resolution 17-xx 4. Exhibit “A” Quail Hollow Phase III Final Plat Resolution 17-42 Page 1 of 3 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION 17-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR PHASE 3 OF THE QUAIL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION SHOWING 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF ONE-ACRE OR MORE IN SIZE. THE PROPERTY IS A PORTION OF APPROXIMATELY 188.28 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE FM 1938/DOVE ROAD INTERSECTION. WHEREAS, the Town Council approved The Estates of Quail Hollow Preliminary Plat at the March 28, 2016 regular Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the Final Plat for Phase 3 conforms with the Preliminary Plat of Quail Hollow; and WHEREAS, the development conforms with the goals and policies of the Town Comprehensive Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan incorporated therein; and WHEREAS, the Quail Hollow subdivision has a total of 96 residential lots; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interests of the citizens of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, all matters stated in the Recitals above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: That the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, after considering the recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 13, 2017, does hereby approve the Final Plat for Phase 3 of the Estates of Quail Hollow subdivision, attached as Exhibit “A” with the following conditions: a. Original Tax Certificates shall be provided prior to approval per the Checklist. b. The plat needs to be sealed by a professional engineer or a registered land surveyor. c. The names of ALL property owners within 100 feet is required. d. The Town boundary must be clearly shown and labeled. e. Minimum font size must be 10 point. f. Clarify what sets the limits of the Variable Width Drainage Easement and the 100 Year flood plain. These easements must be tied to established lines. Resolution 17-42 Page 2 of 3 g. The shading in Randol Mill Avenue (County Road 3035) needs to be lighter so that all text is legible. h. Provide the County in the preamble of the Metes and Bounds. SECTION 3: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. SECTION 4: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. _____________________________ ATTEST: Laura L. Wheat, Mayor _______________________________ ________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Resolution 17-42 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A The Estates of Quail Hollow Phase 3 Final Plat S43°47'33"W 257.83'N39°38'10"E 234.85'5/8" REBAR "HUITT ZOLLARS" ON LINE AT 322.62' 1/2" REBAR1/2" REBAR1/2" REBAR 1/2" REBAR "AREA SY" 1/2" REBAR 1/2" REBAR1/2" REBAR1/2" REBAR1/2" REBAR 1/2" REBAR 1" REBAR 5/8" REBAR 1/2" REBAR CRS CRS MNSX: 2373643.13'Y: 7037045.14' 5/8" REBAR "HUITT ZOLLARS" ON LINE AT 852.60' LOT 1, BLOCK A COWGIRL RANCH STATES INST.# D211222665 O.P.R.T.C.T. LOT 2, BLOCK 1 WILLIAM H. MARTIN NO. 1068 ADDITION CABINET A, SLIDE 3194 O.P.R.T.C.T.RANDOL MILL AVENUELOT 1 THE ENCLAVE CABINET A, SLIDE 10635 D.R.T.C.T. ENCLAVE COURT CABINET A, SLIDE 10635, D.R.T.C.T. RIGHT OF WAY VOL. 388-132, PG. 79 P.R.T.C.T. RIGHT OF WAY VOL. 388-132, PG. 79 P.R.T.C.T. JOHN KURECKA AND WIFE L. MARIE KURECKA VOLUME 8290, PAGE 168 D.R.T.C.T. LOT 1, BLOCK 1 HILLWOOD ESTATES CABINET A, SLIDE 284 P.R.T.C.T. LOT 1, BLOCK 2 HILLWOOD ESTATES CABINET A, SLIDE 284 P.R.T.C.T. PHEASANT LANE CABINET A, SLIDE 284, P.R.T.C.T. R.O.W. DEDICATION CABINET A, SLIDE 10635 D.R.T.C.T. R.O.W. DEDICATION CABINET A, SLIDE 10635 D.R.T.C.T. LOT 13 THE ENCLAVE CABINET A, SLIDE 10635 P.R.T.C.T. LOT 1, BLOCK 2 DOVE ACRES VOL. 388-132, PG. 79 P.R.T.C.T. 7' DEDICATION CABINET A, PAGE 284 P.R.T.C.T. MOCKINGBIRD VOL. 388-132, PG. 79, P.R.T.C.T.COUNTY ROAD 3035LOT 1, BLOCK 1 DOVE ACRES VOL. 388-132, PG. 79 P.R.T.C.T. 10'X40' SITE EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 284 P.R.T.C.T. 10'X40' SITE EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 284 P.R.T.C.T. 7' DEDICATION CABINET A, PAGE 284 P.R.T.C.T. BLOCK 1 REGAL OAKS ADDITION CABINET A, SLIDE 2815 P.R.T.C.T. LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3RANDOL MILL AVENUE 15' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 284 P.R.T.C.T. 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 284 P.R.T.C.T.40' B.L.CABINET A, PAGE 284P.R.T.C.T.40' B.L.CABINET A, PAGE 284P.R.T.C.T.20' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 2815 P.R.T.C.T. 10' PRIVATE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 2815 P.R.T.C.T. 20' B.L. CABINET A, PAGE 2815 P.R.T.C.T. BLOCK 1 SADDLE CREEK ESTATES CABINET A, SLIDE 9212 P.R.T.C.T. LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2 LOT 1 15' WATER LINE EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 9212 P.R.T.C.T. 5' UTILITY EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 9212 P.R.T.C.T. 5' UTILITY EASEMENT CABINET A, PAGE 9212 P.R.T.C.T.40' BUILDING SETBACK LINECABINET A, PAGE 9212P.R.T.C.T.BUILDING SETBACK LINE CABINET A, PAGE 9212 P.R.T.C.T. BUILDING SETBACK LINE CABINET A, PAGE 9212 P.R.T.C.T. COMMON ACCESS, UTILITY, LANDSCAPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT (VARIABLE WIDTH) CABINET A, PAGE 9212 P.R.T.C.T.R.O.W. DEDICATIONCABINET A, PAGE 9212P.R.T.C.T.SRI SOUTHLAKE VILLAS LLC INST.# D216074531 O.P.R.T.C.T. LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 30X William H. Martin Survey Abstract No. 1068 Heirs of Charles M. Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1510 QUAIL HOL L O W D R I V E LOT 1X, BLO C K 8 MEANDER I N G W A Y DR IV E LO T 1 X , B L O C K 8 L A K E S H O R E D R IV E LO T 1 X , B L O CK 8 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 9 LOT 29ZONE "AE"ZONE "X"APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF FLOOD ZONE AS SCALED FROM FEMA SHAPEFILE LOT 29 LOT 2 1.909 ACRES ±83,154 S.F. LOT 3 1.674 ACRES ±72,936 S.F. LOT 4 (MIN. F.F.= 631.00') 1.882 ACRES ±82,000 S.F. LOT 5 (MIN. F.F.= 631.00') 2.027 ACRES ±88,317 S.F. LOT 6 2.206 ACRES ±96,104 S.F. LOT 7 2.057 ACRES ±89,599 S.F. LOT 8 1.920 ACRES ±83,619 S.F. LOT 12 1.709 ACRES ±74,466 S.F. LOT 14X 0.803 OF AN ACRE ±35,000 S.F. LOT 9 1.524 ACRES ±66,371 S.F. LOT 8 1.443 ACRES ±62,846 S.F. LOT 4 2.150 ACRES ±93,650 S.F.LOT 5 1.712 ACRES ±74,575 S.F. LOT 6 1.888 ACRES ±82,239 S.F. LOT 7 2.014 ACRES ±87,730 S.F. LOT 10 2.014 ACRES ±87,715 S.F. LOT 11 1.607 ACRES ±69,994 S.F. VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. (TYPICAL) BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. BY THIS PLAT 15' W.S.E.G.D. (TYPICAL) BY THIS PLAT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION BY THIS PLAT36,609 SQUARE FEET THE ESTATES OF QUAIL HOLLOW PHASE II B INST.# D217200079 O.P.R.T.C.T. VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT 25.00'C20S64° 0 5 ' 1 0 " E 2 8 0 . 2 5 ' N86°24'12"W 413.20' S87°49'48"W 351.22'N2 6 ° 4 3 ' 1 5 "W 3 3 9 . 0 5 'N24°01'50"E 207.23'N05°52'09"E 187.23'L1C1 L2 C2 N12°45'37"W 153.88'L3 N39°41'14"E 730.05'L4 C3 L5 C 4 L6 S00°59'01"E 535.43'S32°16'01"W 463.22'L7S89°56'32"W 1392.59' C21 L28 C22 L29C23S32°17'15"W 156.16'C 2 7L33 L32C28C29 L38 L39 L=87.80' L41 L=26.71'N27°36'18"E 209.78'L=202.72'L4 2 L19L =202.44'L18L=6 9 .5 8 ' L17 C17 L=94.31'L45 L =8 6 .6 1 'L44 L =5 8 .3 8 'L43 L=241.26'S00°59'21"E 365.22'L36C30L37L=100.65' 27.97' 114.57'339.90'289.34'620.82'L15L14 N5 1 ° 4 0 ' 4 5 " W 1 8 1 . 2 2 ' L40 104.65'35.03'C14 C5N21°39'08"E 346.93'N40°42'46"E 219.84'N07°29'11"E 154.14'N36°49'21"E 218.48'N25°22'31"E 162.24'13 6 . 8 8 ' 138. 4 9 ' 148.15 'C251 2 7 . 3 6 '162.73'99.43'R54.5'R54.5'R54.5'LOT 29 GROSS AREA = 33.793 ACRES ±1,472,036 S.F. NET AREA = 32.9529 ACRES ±1,435,426 SQUARE FEET BF E 6 2 9 ' BLOCK 1 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SURVEY LINE LAKESHORE DRIVERIDG E C I R C L E VI S T A C O U R T 35 . 0 '35.0'35.0'X: 2372250.55' Y: 7037043.81' LOT 1X, BLOCK 8 LOT 1X BLOCK 8 LOT 1X BLOCK 8LOT 1X, BLOCK 8N16°48'35"E 192.88'N21°39'08"E 649.90'30.15'363.40'CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP ZONE "AE"ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"ZONE "X"APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF FLOOD ZONE AS SCALED FROM FEMA SHAPEFILE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF FLOOD ZONE AS SCALED FROM FEMA SHAPEFILE BLOCK 1 BLOCK 3 S68°2 0 ' 5 2 " E 3 4 1 . 7 6 'S27°36'18"W 134.09'L=49.14'L23C6 L8 C7 L9 C8 L10 C9 N27°36'18"E 209.78'C10N21°46'12"E 453.82'C12L16L20 L11 C11 L12 L13C15 L=18.80' L3 5L=157.64'C16C18 L30C19 L31 L=121.45'S4 7 ° 5 3 ' 2 8 " E 3 5 1 . 9 0 ' S 4 1 ° 3 9 ' 3 0 " E 3 2 8 . 6 3 'S15°45'53"W 272.51'S63° 1 1 ' 3 1 " E 2 5 0 . 2 5 'N21°46'12"E 161.25'L=134.70'L24 S5 1 ° 4 0 ' 4 5 " E 1 5 1 . 8 1 ' L=54.17'L=191.95'L=47.35'S21°46'12"W 137.04'S68°2 0 ' 5 2 " E 3 5 8 . 4 2 ' S69°3 0 ' 5 5 " E 3 9 3 . 8 8 ' S58 ° 4 8 ' 5 5 " E 3 8 3 . 9 6 ' C13L34 L22N21°46'12"E 263.56'L=77.02' L21S21°46'12"W 245.44'L56L57L58 L59L6 0 L61L62L63L64L65L66L67L68L69 C26 L70L46 L47L48L4 9 C24 L5 0 L51L52L53L54L55 N49°44'24"E 91.33' 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT (HATCHED AREA) 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT (HATCHED AREA) 15' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT (HATCHED AREA) 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT (HATCHED AREA) FUTURE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE PER LOMR-F PROVIDED BY DEOTTE, INC. ON AUGUST 9, 2017 (FEMA APPROVAL PENDING) FUTURE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE PER LOMR-F PROVIDED BY DEOTTE, INC. ON AUGUST 9, 2017 (FEMA APPROVAL PENDING) L=15.19' L=21.57' L=7.65' L=8.64'S43°47'33"W 255.05'7.5' ELECTRIC EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT15' WATER EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT L=124.31'L = 2 0 4.5 7'253.75'32.75'98.68'261.11'230.29'139.97'BLOCK 3 BLOC K 3 BLOC K 1 CRS CRS CRS CR S C R S C R S N24°56'19"E 240.83'N24°56'19"E 46.04' L=29.97' L26 L27 L25 N43°47'33"E 270.74'7.5 UTILITY EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT 40' BUILDING LINE BY THIS PLAT 40' BUILDING LINE BY THIS PLAT 40' BUILDING LINE BY THIS PLAT 40' BUILDING LINE BY THIS PLAT 40' BUILDING LINE BY THIS PLAT Line Data Table Line # L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Distance 139.68' 85.18' 72.50' 73.18' 84.68' 29.71' 160.58' 85.18' 105.93' 49.81' 77.16' 90.76' 37.00' 8.20' 37.00' 60.81' 105.93' 49.81' 75.69' 2.01' Bearing N40°01'13"E S84°21'18"E N70°32'41"E S49°21'56"E S87°20'32"E N89°00'59"E S00°35'36"E S84°21'18"E N72°49'50"E S88°50'25"E S68°23'49"E S86°02'54"E S03°57'06"W S72°48'41"E N17°11'19"E N45°41'30"E S72°49'50"W S88°50'25"E S27°36'18"W N44°18'30"W Curve Data Table Curve # C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 Arc 73.31' 40.29' 66.28' 163.02' 429.53' 84.91' 79.64' 63.98' 221.85' 50.92' 82.41' 354.89' 25.37' 92.21' 74.50' 121.14' 32.38' 97.13' 68.48' 126.07' 52.41' 44.49' 93.87' 20.08' 74.56' 23.06' 54.42' 62.26' 124.71' 197.45' Radius 132.50' 182.50' 100.00' 100.00' 300.00' 150.00' 200.00' 200.00' 200.00' 500.00' 267.50' 850.00' 54.50' 250.00' 54.50' 54.50' 182.50' 54.50' 54.50' 54.50' 54.50' 267.50' 290.00' 867.50' 290.00' 100.00' 54.50' 54.50' 54.50' 350.00' Delta 031°42'02" 012°38'55" 037°58'36" 093°24'03" 082°02'06" 032°26'01" 022°48'52" 018°19'46" 063°33'18" 005°50'05" 017°39'05" 023°55'18" 026°40'13" 021°07'56" 078°19'14" 127°21'32" 010°09'57" 102°06'31" 071°59'19" 132°32'04" 055°06'08" 009°31'47" 018°32'46" 001°19'35" 014°43'51" 013°12'38" 057°12'29" 065°26'57" 131°06'36" 032°19'20" Chord Bearing S68°30'17"E N89°19'14"E S68°21'14"E S40°38'30"E S34°57'32"E S68°08'17"E N84°14'16"E N81°59'42"E N59°22'56"E N24°41'15"E S77°13'21"E N33°43'51"E S72°42'47"E N62°14'43"W S60°23'29"W N40°30'26"E N77°54'48"E N74°13'35"W S18°43'30"W N14°10'52"W S79°38'14"W N68°02'48"W S08°17'01"W S36°54'43"W S24°55'20"W S80°44'13"E N30°46'26"W N30°33'16"E S51°09'57"E S16°07'35"W Chord 72.38' 40.21' 65.07' 145.56' 393.77' 83.78' 79.11' 63.71' 210.65' 50.90' 82.08' 352.31' 25.14' 91.69' 68.83' 97.70' 32.34' 84.77' 64.06' 99.78' 50.42' 44.44' 93.46' 20.08' 74.35' 23.01' 52.18' 58.93' 99.23' 194.84' 40' FRONT BUILDING LINE 20' SIDE BUILDING LINE20' SIDE BUILDING LINE40' REAR BUILDING LINE STREET SIDESTREET SIDELOT LOT 40' SIDE BUILDING LINE (ADJACENT TO ROW)40' FRONT BUILDING LINE 40' REAR BUILDING LINE LOT LOT Line Data Table Line # L21 L22 L23 L24 L25 L26 L27 L28 L29 L30 L31 L32 L33 L34 L35 L36 L37 L38 L39 L40 Distance 49.61' 14.12' 71.34' 13.26' 24.17' 14.61' 16.98' 8.20' 63.26' 118.37' 16.56' 116.46' 95.00' 90.76' 155.11' 112.00' 84.92' 12.08' 29.86' 49.96' Bearing N68°23'49"W N23°18'48"W S21°46'12"W N79°51'10"E S72°27'33"W N08°35'36"W N77°34'16"E N72°48'41"W S00°59'21"E S55°15'44"W S11°34'33"W S15°45'53"W S30°37'19"W N86°02'54"W N51°40'45"W S32°17'15"W S00°02'05"E S33°11'52"E S86°02'54"E S68°23'49"E Line Data Table Line # L41 L42 L43 L44 L45 L46 L47 L48 L49 L50 L51 L52 L53 L54 L55 L56 L57 L58 L59 L60 Distance 14.45' 99.56' 49.81' 105.93' 85.18' 70.35' 154.84' 206.11' 204.17' 205.57' 253.78' 185.74' 177.24' 56.81' 209.32' 20.00' 209.89' 104.38' 183.26' 20.00' Bearing N67°50'56"E N29°58'39"W N88°50'25"W S72°49'50"W N84°21'18"W S74°49'54"W S29°35'46"W S40°05'00"W S47°53'28"E N47°53'28"W S41°41'40"W S07°41'12"W S18°46'31"W S34°03'44"W S68°20'52"E S21°46'12"W N68°20'52"W S12°03'35"W S40°24'58"W N49°35'02"W Line Data Table Line # L61 L62 L63 L64 L65 L66 L67 L68 L69 L70 Distance 178.20' 113.10' 68.51' 172.61' 189.91' 269.83' 213.79' 161.33' 25.13' 34.25' Bearing N40°24'58"E N12°03'35"E N34°03'44"E N18°46'31"E N07°41'12"E N41°41'40"E N40°05'00"E N29°35'46"E N74°49'54"E S87°20'32"EJPHLaNd S u r v eying,Inc200'100' Scale: 1" = 100' 0 JPH Job No. 2016.200.001 Quail Hollow, Westlake - Phase III FINAL PLAT.dwg © 2017 JPH Land Surveying, Inc. - All Rights Reserved 807 Bluebonnet Drive, Suite C Keller, Texas 76248 Telephone (817) 431-4971 www.jphlandsurveying.com TBPLS Firm #10019500 #10194073 #10193867 DFW | Austin | Abilene ENGINEER DEOTTE, INC. 420 JOHNSON RD. SUITE 303 KELLER, TEXAS 76248 817.337.8899 WWW.DEOTTE.COM DEVELOPER ELLIOTT CAPITAL 935 W. DOVE RD. SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 214.435.3570 OWNER POLYGON ENTERPRISES 1755 DOVE RD. WESTLAKE, TX 76262 CONTACT: ROLAND ARTHUR 817.917.6042 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' SITE FINAL PLAT OF THE ESTATES OF QUAIL HOLLOW PHASE III BEING33.793 ACRES SITUATED IN William H. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1068 TOWN OF WESTLAKE TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS SHEET 1 OF 1 THIS PLAT IS FILED AS INSTRUMENT NO.______________________DATE________ PREPARED ON: JULY 24, 2017 STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF __________ § WHEREAS, Polygon Enterprises, Inc. according to the deed recorded in Volume 9339, Page 1071, of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas is the owner of that certain tract situated in the William H. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1068, Town of Westlake, Tarrant County, Texas; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a Mag nail with a metal washer stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set on the southeast corner of the said Polygon Enterprises, Inc., tract; THENCE SOUTH 89 degrees 56 minutes 32 seconds WEST, with the south line of Polygon Enterprises, Inc., tract, a distance of 1392.59 feet to a set 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying"; THENCE through the interior of Polygon Enterprises, Inc. tract, the following calls: 1. NORTH 40 degrees 01 minutes 13 seconds EAST, a distance of 139.68 feet to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set for the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the north (curve to the left), having a radius of 132.50 feet; 2. Southeasterly, along said curve, an arc length of 73.31 feet, (a chord bearing of SOUTH 68 degrees 30 minutes 17 seconds EAST, a chord distance of 72.38 feet), to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the end of said curve; 3. SOUTH 84 degrees 21 minutes 18 seconds EAST, a distance of 85.18 feet to 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the north (curve to the left), having a radius of 182.50 feet; 4. Easterly, along said curve, an arc length of 40.29 feet, (a chord bearing of NORTH 89 degrees 19 minutes 14 seconds EAST, a chord distance of 40.21 feet), to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the end of said curve; 5. NORTH 21 degrees 39 minutes 08 seconds EAST, a distance of 649.90 feet to a point for corner in a pond; 6. NORTH 12 degrees 45 minutes 37 seconds WEST, a distance of 153.88 feet to a point for a corner in a pond; 7. NORTH 70 degrees 32 minutes 41 seconds EAST, a distance of 72.50 feet to a point for a corner in a pond; 8. NORTH 16 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds EAST, a distance of 192.88 feet to a point for a corner in a pond; 9. NORTH 39 degrees 41 minutes 14 seconds EAST, a distance of 730.05 feet to a point for a corner in a pond; 10. SOUTH 49 degrees 21 minutes 56 seconds EAST, a distance of 73.18 feet to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the northeast (curve to the left), having a radius of 100.00 feet; 11. Southeasterly, along said curve, an arc length of 66.28 feet, (a chord bearing of SOUTH 68 degrees 21 minutes 14 seconds EAST, a chord distance of 65.07 feet), to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the of said curve; 12. SOUTH 87 degrees 20 minutes 32 seconds EAST, a distance of 84.68 feet to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the southwest (curve to the right), having a radius of 100.00 feet; 13. Southeasterly, along said curve, an arc length of 163.02 feet, (a chord bearing of SOUTH 40 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds EAST, a chord distance of 145.56 feet), to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the beginning of a reverse curve, concave to the northeast (curve to the left), having a radius of 300.00 feet; 14. Southeasterly, along said curve, an arc length of 429.53 feet, (a chord bearing of SOUTH 34 degrees 57 minutes 32 seconds EAST, a chord distance of 393.77 feet), to a 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set at the end of said curve; 15. NORTH 89 degrees 00 minutes 59 seconds EAST, a distance of 29.71 feet to a Mag nail with a metal washer stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set on the east line of Polygon Enterprises, Inc. tract (center line of Randol Mill Avenue); THENCE with east line of Polygon Enterprises, Inc. tract, the following calls: 1. SOUTH 00 degrees 59 minutes 01 seconds EAST, a distance of 535.43 feet to a set 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying"; 2. SOUTH 32 degrees 16 minutes 01 seconds WEST, a distance of 463.22 feet to a set 1/2 inch capped rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying"; 3. SOUTH 00 degrees 35 minutes 36 seconds EAST, a distance of 160.58 feet returning to the Point of Beginning and enclosing 33.793 acres (±1,472,036 square feet). NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT, Polygon Enterprises, Inc., do hereby adopt this plat, designating the herein above described property as The Estates of Quail Hollow Phase III , an addition to the Town of Westlake, Tarrant County, Texas and reserved for the purposes indicated. The utility and fire lane easements shall be open to the public, fire and police units, garbage and rubbish collection agencies and the public and private utilities specifically approved by the Town of Westlake for the use of a particular easement. The maintenance of paving or any other surfaces on the utility and fire lane easements is the sole responsibility of the property owner. No buildings, fences, trees, shrubs or other improvements or growths shall be constructed, reconstructed or placed upon, over or across the easements as shown. Said easements being hereby reserved for mutual use and accommodation of all public utilities specifically approved by the Town of Westlake. Any public utility specifically approved by the Town of Westlake to use a particular easement shall have the right to remove and keep removed all or part of any buildings, fences, trees, shrubs or other improvements or growths which in any way may endanger or interfere with the construction maintenance, or efficiency of its system on the easement and that public utility shall at all times have the right of ingress and egress to or from and upon the easement for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, inspecting, patrolling, maintaining and adding to or removing all or part of its system, subject to complying with all ordinances, rules, regulations and resolutions of the Town of Westlake, Texas. The Town of Westlake, Texas, and the public utility shall have the right of ingress and egress to private property for the purpose of reading meters, maintenance and service required or ordinarily performed by that utility. Water main and wastewater easements shall also include additional area of working space for construction and maintenance of the systems. Additional area is also conveyed for installation and maintenance of manholes, cleanouts, fire hydrants, water services and wastewater services from the main to the curb or pavement line. These additional easements herein granted shall be determined by their locations as installed. This plat approved subject to all platting ordinances, rules, regulations, and resolutions of the Town of Westlake, Tarrant County, Texas. WITNESS, my hand, this the_________ day of _______________, 2017. ________________________ ________________________ Polygon Enterprises, Inc. Print Name/Title STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF __________ § BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared ___________________, of Polygon Enterprises, Inc. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and who acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and considerations expressed therein. Given under my hand and seal of office this ____ day of ________________________, 2017. _________________________________ Notary Public, State of Texas SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: I, Robert W. Bryan, a Registered Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Texas, hereby state, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this plat hereby represents an on-the-ground survey performed by me or under my supervision and the property corners are marked as indicated. PRELIMINARY: THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE RECORDED FOR ANY PURPOSE AND SHALL NOT BE USED OR VIEWED OR RELIED UPON AS A FINAL SURVEY DOCUMENT. ~~RELEASED FOR REVIEW ON 08/02/2017 ~~RELEASED FOR REVIEW ON 08/10/2017 ~~RELEASED FOR REVIEW ON 11/06/2017 Robert W. Bryan Registered Professional Land Surveyor No. 5508 Email: robertb@jphls.com TBM(see surveyor's note 2) TBM (see surveyor's note 3) MONUMENTS / DATUMS / BEARING BASIS 1/2" rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set/found Mag nail & washer stamped "JPH Land Surveying" set/found Site benchmark (see vicinity map for general location) Corner in Pond - Not Set Monuments are found if not marked CRS or MNS. Coordinate values, if shown, are US.SyFt./TxCS,'83,NCZ Elevations, if shown, are NAVD'88 Bearings are based on grid north (TxCS,'83,NCZ) All areas and distances are based on surface measurements. Combined scale factor: 0.99984692. Convergence Angle 0°43'06". CRS/F MNS/F TBM CIP LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS United States Survey Feet Texas Coordinate System of 1983, North Central Zone North American Vertical Datum of 1988 Plat Records of Tarrant County, Texas Official Public Records of Tarrant County, Texas Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas Volume/Page/Instrument Number Point of Beginning/Point of Commencing Easement/Building Line Base Flood Elevation Graphically Depicted per FEMA Map Water, Sewer, Electric, Gas and Duct Bank Easement Building Line Minimum Finished Floor Elevation US.SyFt. TxCS,'83,NCZ NAVD'88 P.R.T.C.T. O.P.R.T.C.T. D.R.T.C.T. VOL/PG/INST# P.O.B./P.O.C. ESMT/BL BFE W.S.E.G.D. MIN. F.F. P.O.B. FLOOD ZONE CLASSIFICATION This property lies within ZONE(S) AE & X of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Tarrant County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, map no. 48439C0085K, dated September 25, 2009, via scaled map location and graphic plotting and/or the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Web Map Service (WMS) at http://hazards.fema.gov. Drafter: P.L. Drafter/Revision: Drafter/Revision: Drafter/Revision: Drafter/Revision: SURVEYOR'S NOTES: 1. This survey was performed with the benefit of a commitment for title insurance provided by Alamo Title Insurance, Commitment No. 6000181600323, and GF Number atd-18-6000181600323-SL effective March 31, 2016 and issued April 15, 2016. Complete copies of the record description of the property, any record easements benefiting the property, the record easements or servitudes and covenants affecting the property ("Record Documents"), documents of record referred to in the Record Documents, and any other documents containing desired appropriate information affecting the property being surveyed and to which the survey shall make reference were not provided to this surveyor for notation on the survey except for those items listed within Schedule B of said commitment. Therefore, easements, agreements, or other documents, either recorded, or unrecorded may exist that affect the subject property that are not shown on this plat. 2. The site benchmark is a mag nail set in concrete near the face of curb on the south end of median approximately 1366 feet south of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Dove Road. The benchmark has the following values X = 2,371,356.00'| Y =7,039,974.15' (Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone) | Z = 675.07' (NAVD'88). See vicinity map for general location. 3. The site benchmark is a mag nail set approximately 40 feet east of the centerline of Dove road, said mag nail being approximately 225 north of the intersection of Hidden Spring Court and Dove Road. The benchmark has the following values X = 2,373,155.14'| Y =7,039,995.61' (Texas Coordinate System of 1983, North Central Zone) | Z = 615.54' (NAVD'88). See vicinity map for general location. 4. No easements will be allowed by separate instrument without written approval from the Town of Westlake. 5. Easements shown within the bounds of this plat without recording information are hereby dedicated by this plat. 6. "X-LOTS" are to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association for open space or street purposes. 7. See typical building line detail for setback information. Setbacks shown hereon are subject to and superseded by the Town of Westlake Zoning Ordinance for the R-1 District (Ordinance No. 519, 5, 4-23-2007, section 102-124). 8. Interior lot corners are set 1/2" rebar stamped "JPH Land Surveying" (CRS). 9. All centerline intersections are set Mag nail & washer stamped "JPH Land Surveying" (MNS). DOVE RD. TYPICAL LOT BUILDING LINE DETAIL SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE # 7 APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS ON THIS THE_____DAY OF _________________, 2017. ATTEST: ______________________ _______________________ MAYOR TOWN SECRETARY REVIEWED BY: _______________________________ TOWN ATTORNEY _______________________________ TOWN ENGINEER APPROVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS ON THIS THE_____DAY OF ____________, 2017. ATTEST: ______________________ _______________________ CHAIRMAN TOWN SECRETARY Tri-County Electric Cooperative approves the location and abandonment of the electric easements shown on this plat ______________________________________________ Tri-County Electric Representative Date *LINES 46 THRU 70 ARE FOR THE 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT *C24 & C26 IS FOR 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Resolution 17-42 Resolution 17-42 Resolution 17-42 Resolution 17-42 Resolution 17-42 Resolution 17-42 Resolution 17-42 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Continuation of a public hearing and consideration of Ordinance XXX, amending 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) 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 on the community’s comprehensive plan necessitates 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 40.8 acres of open space, or 65.2% of the subject property area. The open space proposed by the applicant is broken down as follows: • Parkland Dedication (southeast Hill): 15 acres (36.8% of total open space) • Western and Southern Conservation 150 foot buffers: 20.6 acres (50.5% of total open space) All other open space: 5.2 acres (12.7% 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION On November 13, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this item by a (4-1) vote. 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 vote on this request should be consistent with the subsequent vote regarding the rezoning request. The Town Council’s options relative to actions regarding this case are: 1. Approve of the request as submitted; 2. Approve of the request with conditions; 3. Deny the request 4. Table the request and continue the public hearing to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS 1. Current/Proposed Land Use Exhibit 2. Ordinance XXX 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 Ordinance 840 Page 1 of 3 TOWN OF WESTLAKE ORDINANCE NO. 840 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN. THE CHANGES ARE LIMITED TO THE AREAS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A. WHEREAS, the Town of Westlake, Texas is a general law Town; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 1992, the Town Council approved Ordinance 199 adopting a Comprehensive Plan for the Town; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2015, the Town Council approved Ordinance 747 adopting a new Comprehensive Plan ("Forging Westlake") for the Town; and WHEREAS, Section 26-35 of the Town of Westlake Code of Ordinances requires that the zoning of properties be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Housing, Open Space, Economic Development and Land Use objectives of the Town will be furthered by the amending of the Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Westlake Planning and Zoning Commission on November 13, 2017, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens that this Ordinance should be approved and adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That all matters stated in the findings hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirely. SECTION 2: That the Town of Westlake hereby approves amendments to the Land Use Map, as shown in Exhibit A. Ordinance 840 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 5: That this Ordinance shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura L. Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary ______________________________ Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Ordinance 840 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Amendment Area Open Space CC2A– Community Commercial Ordinance 840 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Continuation of a public hearing and consideration of Ordinance XXX, approving 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) In order to continue the public hearing and accommodate the Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this item, the Town Council voted on October 30, 2017 to table this item and continue the public hearing to the meeting in November. 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 in 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 original proposal by the applicant, submitted in June 2017, has been amended several times and was recommended for approval, as detailed below, by the Commission on November 13, 2017 after being tabled on October 16, 2017 to allow the applicant time to meet with residents adjacent to the subject property and address their concerns. The attached letter dated November 16, 2017 provided by the applicant details these meetings. The original proposal included 65 lots. The revised proposal considered by the Commission on November 13, 2017 included 61 lots. The Commission ultimately recommended approval on November 13th with the condition that a 56 lot plan be forwarded to Council for approval. The 56 lot plan was presented by the applicant to the Commission at the November 13th meeting as a possible compromise plan between the Glenwyck Farms residents and the applicant as detailed in the attached November 16, 2017 letter from the applicant. It should be noted that the 56 lot plan includes a proposal for various fee waivers and developer obligations on the part of the applicant as detailed in the letter. The following is a general breakdown of the three different plans: 65 Lot Plan 61 Lot Plan 56 Lot Plan Gross Density 1.04 units/acre 0.98 units/acre 0.9 units/acre Total % Open Space 59.50% 65.30% 68% Solana Setback 100 feet 100 feet 50 feet Solana Trail Concrete Decomposed Granite Decomposed Granite Solana Tree Planting Yes Yes No Park Amenities Yes No No Private Open Space Amenities Yes No No Fee Waiver Proposal No Partial Full Maximum South Buffer Width 150 feet 400 feet 450 feet These three plans are attached for reference. As detailed below, staff has prepared the proposed PD ordinance containing the 61 lot plan with the condition that the total lots may be reduced administratively if proposed by the applicant. As noted above, the 61 lot plan proposes a waiver of the concrete trail reconstruction requirement along Solana Blvd., elimination of the private open space and public park amenities and a proposed reduction of any future developer contributions to Westlake Academy. PLEASE NOTE: In order to provide a historical context, the analysis below matches that which was provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission but also includes notations for the 56 lot plan. The purpose of this is to display the progression from the original submittal through to the 61 lot proposal and, finally the 56 lot proposal. Therefore, from this point forward until the “Platting” section: • Black text includes the text contained in the original 65 lot submittal included in the October 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission packet; • Red text contains revisions including additions and deletions based on the 61 lot plan included in the November 13, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission packet. Any notations concerning the 56 lot plan will include a caption entitled “NOTE: 56 Lot Plan”. Staff changes associated only with this memo are shown in blue. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL Since October 16, 2017, the applicant has conducted several public workshops and meetings with residents surrounding the subject property. As a result of those workshops and meetings, the applicant submitted a revised concept plan (attached). The revised plan shows a reduction of four lots to 61 from 65, shows an increased conservation area in portions of the development that ranges from approximately 360 feet to 150 feet, and restricts 17 of the 61 homes that are generally along the southern portion of the development to a single story. The following is a detailed description of the changes: • Total homes reduced to 61 from 65; • Increase in size of certain portions of southern buffer area; • Restriction of a maximum of one-story height to 17 homes along the southern portion of the development as shown on the revised concept plan. • Proposed community amenities eliminated; • Minimum lot width reduced to 40 feet for lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows; • Maximum lot footprint for a single story home is 5,000 square feet, also for two-story homes on larger lots; • Maximum height for single-story homes is restricted to 18 feet at the ridge-top; • Front yard building setback is 20 feet for lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows; • The trail along Solana Blvd. would remain in its current decomposed granite state; • Open space designation on the subject property has increased to 40.8 acres from 37.2 acres; • While the developer maintains a parkland dedication to the Town of the “Mayor’s Hill”, the developer proposes no park improvements. Any future improvements would be at the Town’s discretion and cost. • In addition to the “Mayor’s Hill”, the “buffer” areas adjacent to the Granada and Glenwyck Farms developments would be deeded to the Town as perpetual natural conservation areas; • Tree mitigation is proposed as follows: (1) “On each lot, the developer, lot owner, will only be allowed to remove trees in the designated building envelope and designated driveway area. In the side setbacks, any tree over 9 inches in diameter must be pre-approved for removal by the Town.” (2) “Any additional tree disturbance by a lot owner beyond the designated building envelope (and designated driveway area) will require further tree mitigation based on either a compensating payment based on a $100 per caliper inch formula for protected trees approved for removal by the Town, or replacement tree planting equal to the tree loss.” In the attached email to the Town, the developer proposes to mitigate for the reduction in total lots from 65 to 61 as follows: • Change to a $5,000 per lot contribution to the Town for Westlake Academy; • Elimination of concrete as an improvement to the Solana Blvd public trail; • Elimination of park improvements to the Mayor’s Hill; • Elimination of private amenities (pavilion, bocce court) within the development. Including the attachments noted above, the preliminary tree survey submitted by the applicant on October 13, 2017 is also attached for reference. The remainder of this report remains unchanged except to amend specific portions relative to the revision explained above and to account for any other changes. All changes are shown in a “mark- up” format in red text. The proposed development would include 65 61 single family detached units with an average lot size of 13,900 square feet. 59.5 65.3 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. NOTE: 56 Lot Plan: The total open space is 68%. 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 bold italics 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 61 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: 6165 residential lots measuring at least 10,000 square feet in area (approximately 80’ x 135’) or approximately 0.9761.04 lots per gross acre. NOTE: 56 Lot Plan: Density is 0.9 units per acre. Lot Size: Minimum lot size: 10,000 sf Minimum lot width: 80 feet, 40 feet for cul-de-sac and elbow lots (minimum 30 foot lot frontage along the street ROW) Lot Coverage: The maximum footprint for a home shall be limited to (i) the lesser of 47% of the entire lot area, or 5,000 square feet for a 1-story home and (i) the lesser of 43% for a 2-story residence. On certain larger lots, 2-story residences may have a maximum footprint of 5,000 square feet. 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 two-story structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Certain lots have been designated as being limited to a one-story building height, or 18 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 and elbow (partial 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 65.3 (NOTE: 56 Lot Plan: 68% open space) 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. A copy of the preliminary tree survey performed by the applicant is attached. The survey was submitted on October 13, 2017 and was subsequently reviewed by staff. A final tree survey is required as part of the review of the preliminary site evaluation provided the rezoning request is approved. 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 Donation of approximately 35.6 acres of open space to the Town (or its designee) including an area to be designated as a 100% wildlife natural preserve (non-disturbance classification) in the 150’ This land area encompasses setback areas that border on Granada, and Glenwyck Farms (other than a 25’ wide water line and trail easement cut-through to Dove Road)” and Solana Boulevard. The “Mayor’s Hill” land area may be improved at the Town’s discretion. • “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; • Except where exempted above, 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 2.04 acres is required for dedication as part of this development. The applicant proposes to dedicate approximately 35.6 acres to the Town as parkland in order to satisfy both the parkland dedication requirements and the tree mitigation requirements. 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 40.8 acres of open space, or 59.5% 65.3% 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% 36.8% of total open space) • Western and Southern Conservation 150 foot buffers: 11 20.6 acres (29.7% 50.5% of total open space) All other open space: 11 5.2 acres (29.7% 12.7% 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. NOTE: The proposed PD ordinance matches the applicant’s 61 lot proposal that the requirement for park amenities be removed. The above section has been amended to reflect the ordinance requirements and shown in blue above. 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”. As part of the mitigation proposed resulting from the reduction to the lot count, the applicant proposes no improvements to the existing decomposed granite trail along Solana Boulevard. 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. NOTE: The proposed PD ordinance matches the applicant’s 61 lot proposed that the requirement for a concrete trail be waived. The above section has been deleted to reflect the ordinance requirements. 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 forestland. 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 707 663 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 (curb back to curb back) including a mountable concrete curb on both sides. The proposed right-of-way width is 30 feet. 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 is referenced in the proposed 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 at a future date pending approval of the zoning request. 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 at a future date pending approval of the zoning request. 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. To date staff has received official correspondence opposing the request from 44 property owners, 16 of which are located within 200 feet of the subject property for a total of 19.49% of total land area opposed within the 200 foot notification area. Section 26-66(c) of the Code of Ordinances states that “whenever such written protest is signed by the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots or land included in such zoning change, or of the lots or land immediately adjoining the same and within the above-mentioned 200 feet radius, such change in zoning shall not become effective except by a favorable vote of three-fourths of all the members of the board.” Correspondence from three residents in favor of the request has been received as well in addition to a letter of support from the property owner. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION On November 13, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this item by a (4-1) vote subject to the following conditions: 1. That the 56 lot plan submitted by the applicant be approved; 2. That all staff recommendations contained in the agenda memo be met 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 percentages that are uncharacteristically high given that absence of any flood plain areas. Finally, the 61 lot proposal provides a design that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods and the topography of the property. As noted above, the proposed PD ordinance is drafted to accommodate the 61 lot plan but allows for administrative approval of any reduction in lots should the developer submit a proposal subject to certain terms. The following are the provisions of the proposed PD ordinance as drafted by staff: “Section 1 – General A. The purpose of PD6 is for a detached single-family residential development of no more than 61 residential lots. B. The development authorized by this ordinance shall be consistent with the Concept/Development Plan, attached as Exhibit B-1. C. Minor variations to the Concept/Development Plan are hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: 1. The variation must involve a reduction in the total number of residential lots. 2. The variation must include an increase to the total open space provided for the development and shall not include any encroachment into the conservation easement as shown on Exhibit B-2. 3. All other development requirements contained herein shall be met unless specifically noted below; 3. Any request for the variation shall be submitted to the Town Manager or their designee by the developer and shall include any drawings, information and supporting material required by the Town Manager or their designee. 4. Final approval of the variation shall be at the discretion of the Town Manager or their designee. Any denial of the request for variation by the Town Manager or their designee may be appealed as an amendment to this ordinance in the form a rezoning request. No application fee shall be required for an appeal under this section. D. Platting 1. The developer shall submit, and receive approval for, a preliminary site evaluation prior to any land disturbance activities; 2. Prior to the issuance of the notice to proceed, the developer shall submit, and receive approval for: (i) a replat that vacates the portion of the existing Lot 1, Block 3, Westlake/Southlake Park Addition Number One that includes the subject property; and (ii) a replat for the remaining portion of land that includes the existing commercial building within the existing Westlake/Southlake Park Addition Number One. 3. Prior to the final acceptance of public improvements, approval of private streets and release of residential building permits, the developer shall submit, and receive approval for, a final plat, which shall be platted as a single phase. 4. The final plat noted above shall be recorded with the County Clerk prior to the release of any residential building permits. 5. Prior to the approval of the preliminary site evaluation, the developer shall submit a development agreement for final approval by the Town Council per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances. E. Permitted Uses – The following are permitted principal and accessory uses: 1. Single Family Detached Homes 2. Open Space (including active, passive and conservation areas) 3. Private Streets 4. Public and Private Parks 5. Drainage facilities (including retention and detention ponds) 6. Guard houses 7. Accessory Uses (as authorized in the Town’s zoning regulations) F. Homeowner’s Association – The development shall be governed by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) that will be responsible for common area maintenance, private street maintenance, front yard maintenance and enforcing the HOA Design Guidelines for the community. Section 2 – Lot Dimension and Building Design Standards A. Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet B. Lot Width: The minimum lot width (measured at the front setback line) shall be: 1. 80 feet for standard lots 2. 40 feet for lots on cul-de-sacs and partial cul-de-sacs. 3. Lots on cul-de-sacs and partial cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum 30 feet frontage along the property line/ROW. C. Lot Coverage: The maximum building footprint for a home shall be limited to (i) the lesser of 47% of the entire lot area, or 5,000 square feet for a one-story home and (ii) the lesser of 43%, or 4,500 square feet for a two-story residence. On lots larger than 11,000 square feet, two-story residences may have a maximum footprint of 5,000 square feet. 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). D. Minimum House Size: All residences shall contain a minimum of 3,000 square feet of air-conditioned living space. E. Massing: For two-story structures, the second story shall not exceed 50% of the first floor footprint. F. Building Height: The maximum height of two-story structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Lots designated as being limited to a one-story building height as shown on the Concept/Development Plan shall be not higher than 18 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. G. Building Setbacks: 1. Front yard: 30 feet (20 feet on cul-de-sac and elbow lots) 2. Rear yard: 20 feet 3. Side yard: 10 feet 4. A 10 foot encroachment in the standard front setback is permissible for up to 26 feet of width of the residence. 5. A minimum 100 foot building setback shall be maintained along Solana Blvd. In order to accommodate a reduction in lots per Section 1(C) above, minor deviations in the setback of no more than 50 feet may be allowed per the approval process in Section 1(C). H. 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. I. 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. J. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls shall have horizontal and vertical articulation or architectural delineation on all elevations as further detailed in the development design guidelines. K. Design Guidelines: Prior to the approval of the preliminary site evaluation, the developer shall submit final design guidelines for approval by the Town Council that shall be recorded with the private deed covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said guidelines shall be considered and utilized by Town staff in reviewing building permit applications for compliance with the provisions above. Section 3 – Landscaping, Open Space, Tree Preservation and Parkland Dedication A. Landscaping: 1. 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. 2. A minimum of one (1), 3.5 inch caliper tree, shall be planted per 30 lineal feet roadway, one (1) on each side of the street, from an approved hardwood tree list. Existing trees may be utilized to satisfy this requirement. 3. At the time of building permit issuance, each lot shall plant at least two, 3.5 inch 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.\ 4. Prior to the final acceptance of public improvements, the developer shall plant pine trees in the portion of the Solana Boulevard median that is adjacent to the subject property. Said planting shall be in a configuration and size consistent with the median trees planted as part of the Entrada development and shall inspected by the Town Manager or designee for final approval. 5. Landscaping at the entry points into the development shall be consistent with Exhibit B-4. B. Tree Preservation – All protected trees shall require mitigation upon damage or removal except as amended below: 1. The following areas are hereby exempt from the requirements for tree mitigation and protection: a. Roadways; b. The residential building envelope; c. The designated driveway area; 2. Within side yard setbacks, any protected tree over 9 inches in diameter shall require pre-approval by the Town Manager or designee. Where a protected tree over 9 inches in diameter is located in a non-exempt area and the home will encroach on more than 25% of the critical root zone, the home shall utilize a floating post-tension steel concrete slab foundation to allow for minimal impact to tree root systems near each building envelope. Said system shall require the final approval of the Town Manager or their designee. 3. Conservation areas: All vegetation, including trees, understory and ground cover, within the designated conservation areas as depicted on Exhibit B-2 shall remain in an undisturbed state at all times. As determined by the Town Manager or their designee, adequate protection mechanisms including but not limited to temporary fencing and/or temporary buffer areas shall be utilized to protect all conservation areas during construction activities. Areas exempted from this requirement include approved trail corridors and public utility mains. Further terms concerning the maintenance of this area may be provided in the development agreement. 4. Open Space areas: All trees located within open space areas shall be preserved with the following exceptions: a. Diseased or damaged trees per the Code of Ordinances; b. Exempted species per the Code of Ordinances; c. Any tree less than 3 inches in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above the adjacent grade. d. Trees located in an approved permanent amenity footprint such as bike stations, sport courts, fountains, park buildings, etc. 5. Violations: Mitigation is hereby prohibited for any trees described in Sections 3 and 4 above. Any non-exempt tree removed from any area described in these sections shall constitute a violation of this ordinance. Furthermore, the Town Manager or designee may assess a commensurate civil penalty for each diameter inch removed which may be in the form of required tree replanting, payment into the Town reforestation fund or a combination of both. C. Open Space and Conservation Areas 1. As depicted on Exhibit B-2, land shall be designated and dedicated to the Town, or a private land trust dedicated to the preservation of natural open space as approved by the Town Manager or designee, as a conservation easement. The final plat shall depict the area as a “perpetual conservation easement” and shall contain the following note: “All vegetation, including trees, understory and ground cover, within the conservation easement shown herein shall remain in an undisturbed state at all times, except as authorized by Ordinance XXX”. 2. All open space not designated as a conservation easement/area shall be maintained by the HOA. 3. Open space, including conservation easements/areas shall be laid out per Exhibit B-1 and B-2. 4. A minimum 100 foot wide open space and tree preservation buffer shall maintained adjacent to and along Solana Blvd. Said area shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. In order to accommodate a reduction in lots per Section 1(C) above, minor deviations up to a maximum 50 foot reduction in said buffer width, may be allowed per the approval process in Section 1(C). D. Parkland Dedication – Parkland dedication as proposed by the developer in Exhibit B-3 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of the 15-acre southeast hill portion of the development for a public park hereby satisfies the community park requirement 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. 2. Maintenance responsibilities for the existing, pre-improved state of said property shall be the responsibility of the developer/HOA, which shall be further described in the development agreement described herein. Section 4 – Fencing A. Solana Boulevard frontage shall 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 per Exhibit B-4. Said fence shall be located at the northern boundary of the residential lots and open space adjacent to Solana Boulevard and shall be maintained by the HOA. B. All individual lot line fences adjacent to any open space 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. C. All homes shall have a back fence comprised of decorative 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. Section 5 – Streets, sidewalks/trails, parking and access A. Streets – An SUP is hereby granted for all community streets within PD6, which shall be private and constructed of asphalt with concrete outer bands and/or mountable curbs fronting the lots. Streets shall be no less than 27 feet in width (back of curb to back of curb) including a mountable concrete curb on both sides within a 30 foot private right-of- way. Street lighting shall be located at all corners and intersections. Lights shall be low pedestal type fixtures that comply with Town standards and Comprehensive Plan recommendations as well as follow the Town’s lighting standards. B. Sidewalks – Sidewalks are required on one side of the streets only. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet in width and shall be composed of concrete, stone, or pavestone. Sidewalks shall be constructed by the homebuilder at the time of new home construction. C. Trails - The internal sidewalk shall tie into the Solana Boulevard public Town Trail via gated connections at both entries. Any public trail construction (outside of the community) shall 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). The portion of the existing Solana Boulevard public trail that is adjacent to the development may remain as a decomposed granite trail or may be installed as a conc rete or asphalt trail, at the option of the developer initially and the option of the HOA ging forward, and shall be maintained by the HOA. D. 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. Parking space dimensions shall comply with the parking standards contained in the Code of Ordinances. Said parking shall be located within a public parking easement to be shown on the final plat and shall be maintained by the HOA. E. Access – Per Exhibit B-1 two vehicular access points into the development from Solana Blvd. are required. Said intersections shall align with the existing median cuts on Solana Blvd. Entry points into the development from Solana Blvd. shall be consistent with Exhibit B-4. Prior to final acceptance of public improvements, the developer shall construct a westbound left turn lane on Solana Blvd. at the easternmost intersection accessing the development. The final design and construction shall be approved and inspected by the Town Engineer. Section 6 – Utilities and Drainage A. Public Utilities – Water and sewer service shall be provided by the Town of Westlake to this development. The developer shall construct all water and sewer system improvements per Town standards. B. 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 Inspection for the home. C. Stormwater – Stormwater facilities shall be installed by the developer and employ a combination of bio-swales, detention pond(s), and connection to the existing public street storm water system along Solana Blvd.. Final location and design of said facilities shall require the final approval of the Town Engineer. Section 7 – Public Art A. As part of the development agreement noted above, the developer agrees to submit a public art plan that generally conforms to the provisions contained in Exhibit B-5 as proposed by the developer. The terms contained in said exhibit may be amended by the development agreement and included in the final plan.” The Town Council’s options relative to actions regarding this case are: 1. Approve of the request as submitted; 2. Approve of the request with conditions; 3. Deny the request 4. Table the request and continue the public hearing to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing Location Map 2. Developer Submittal: Wilbow – Town Council Submittal Letter – 11/16/2017 3. Developer Submittal: Proposed 61 Lot Plan 4. Developer Submittal: Proposed 56 Lot Plan 5. Developer Submittal: Original 65 Lot Plan 6. Developer Submittal: Revised Development Plan and Description 7. Developer Submittal: Materials Received on 11/13/2017 8. Developer Submittal: Original Submittal and Supporting Documents 9. Staff Exhibit: FAQ and Information Regarding PD1 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: Summary of Correspondence Received 14. Staff Exhibit: Letter of Support from Property Owner 15. Staff Exhibit: All Correspondence Received in Favor 16. Staff Exhibit: All Correspondence Received in Opposition 17. Ordinance XXX Z‐06‐19‐17 Davis Blvd. Dove Rd. November 16, 2017 Mr. Tom Brymer Mr. Ron Ruthven Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Boulevard Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, TX 76262 WILBOW CORPORATION w Re: Zoning Change Request -Wilbow -The Knolls at Solana 62 .53 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3, Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Dear Mr. Brymer and Mr. Ruthven: With the vote on November 13, 2017 by the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend to Town Council approval of a zoning change of the subject property to a residential use, the final approval of the zoning change now falls to Town Council on November 27, 2017. Given the many concept plans that have been discussed with Town staff, and presented at the two P&Z meetings, we believe it would be helpful to recount where this process started and what we are now proposing. The original zoning application submitted in June was based on a 65 lot plan that included a 100' setback on Solana Boulevard, a 150' setback on the Granada side of the property, and a 175' setback on the Glenwyck side of the property (Please see Exhibit A). October 2017 P&Z Meeting -65 Lot Plan Over the course of the summer, there were multiple meetings with Town staff and the Glenwyck neighborhood group, all of which resulted i n a revised plan that was part of the submittal at the initial P&Z meeting on October 16. The revised plan was 65 lots, but in effect , the project was moved northward on the property to expand the Glenwyck setback. Specifically, the Solana Boulevard setback was reduced to 50' and the Glenwyck setback increased to 300'. The Granada setback was unchanged at 150'. Additionally, the concept of deed restricting home sites located south of the main ridge line was introduced and 12 home sites were identified as being li mited to a one-story building height of 18' which w i ll keep the homes below the height of the top of the tree canopy and effectively create an unchanged viewshed for Glenwyck residents looking north at the property. At the October 16 meeti ng, P&Z voted to table the application to the next meeting in November and requested in their commenta ry that Wilbow continue to meet with the Glenwyck neighborhood group 4131 N. Central Expr essway, Suite 990, Lockbox 13, Dall as, Texas 75204 Te lephone: 972.479 .0697 and try to find common ground. That request was honored via two Public Forums hosted by Wilbow on October 23 and November 7. Additionally, there were multiple meetings with Town staff to address their concerns related to the Solana Boulevard setback and lot development disturbance. November 2017 P&Z Meeting-61 Lot Plan At the November 13 meeting, Wilbow presented a new plan to P&Z that reflected Town staff directives and neighborhood input. The plan consisted of 61 lots which increased the overall open space to 40.8 acres, over 65% of the overall property (Please see Exhibit B). The Solana Boulevard setback had been restored to 100' and the Glenwyck setback now had a variable width range of setback from 170' to over 400'. The Granada setback was unchanged at 150', but based on feedback from Granada residents, three home sites on the western side of the property and below the main ridge line were also designated to be deed restricted to a one-story building height, increasing the overall count of one-story homes to 17, effectively all of the homes located south of the ridge line. Tree Disturbance/Mitigation During the month between the two P&Z meetings, the discussion with Town Staff on tree disturbance policy and mitigation formula advanced. Specifically, the tree disturbance policy was defined with highly restrictive limitations in the following areas: • Approved Right of Way (in context of private streets) • Approved Utility Easements • Identified Building Envelopes including designated driveway areas • Side setbacks with specific Town approval required for removal of trees over 9" in diameter Based on a tree survey that was conducted in late 2016 (the process and sampling approach was approved by Town staff), it is estimated that the approximate cost of tree mitigation for the tree disturbance in the building envelopes, driveways and side setbacks to be equivalent to a value of approximately $1.3 million. This calculation is based on the historical formulaic approach used by the Town. Note also that tree disturbance in the approved ROW is not included in the calculation, also in keeping with Town precedent. Wilbow's tree mitigation proposal includes a combination oftree replanting and land donation. Standard tree planting is proposed along the community streets and in the Solana Boulevard setback (as the trail is improved and storm water detention is created). Wilbow has also agreed to plant pine trees in the portion of the Solana Boulevard median that fronts the property. In addition to tree planting, the majority of the Wilbow tree mitigation proposal includes a potential donation to the Town of Westlake (or its designee) of approximately 36 acres of open space land for a community park and/or non-disturbance forest preserve. Based on a conservative land price of $3.00 psf, we estimate the value of the land donation to be a minimum of $4.7 million, a value which is significantly in excess of the estimated cost of the projected tree disturbance. On the home sites, note that Wilbow will be doing no lot improvement, tree disturbance, grading, or benching. The home builders will be responsible for lot improvements (subject to detailed grading plans and prescribed building envelopes) and any tree disturbance outside of the areas identified above (i.e. outside of the prescribed building envelope, driveway and side setbacks) will require a separate tree mitigation payment from the builder/owner. Lot Count Reduction/Plan Changes While this plan was responsive to and improved the overall setback conditions around the property, it reduced the project lot count to 61, a loss of 4 lots. To address the economic impact of approximately $1.4 million in potential revenue loss, and as part of discussions with Town staff, Wilbow proposed two changes to the overall development plan: • Improvement of the Solana Boulevard public trail with the existing decomposed granite material versus a concrete upgrade (Estimated savings: $347,000) • Reduction in the contribution to the Town for the purpose of supporting Westlake Academy to $5,000 per lot (Estimated savings: $305,000) Town Council Recommendation In general conformance with the P&Z recommendation to Town Council, Wilbow respectfully requests that this 61 lot plan be the plan considered by Town Council for a zoning change approval. This plan is responsive to all Town staff commentary received to date, and Town staff recommends approval of the plan and the zoning change. The plan is also approved by the seller, BRE Solana LLC. Attached to this letter is an updated Proposed Development Plan (Please see Exhibit D) that covers in greater detail the various components of the proposed development. Glenwyck-Wilbow Compromise Plan -56 Lots During the timeframe between the October and November P&Z meetings, the Wilbow-Glenwyck discussions advanced to the point that there was a plan produced upon which the Glenwyck group was willing to be supportive, in effect a mutually agreeable compromise. This plan was introduced at the November P&Z meeting and it consists of a 56 lot plan {Please see Exhibit C). The primary accomplishment of this plan was to significantly increase the Glenwyck setback to a range of 250' to 450', less than the 500' setback that is the current setback under the vested zoning, but a plan upon which they are willing to support in the spirit of a tri-party compromise (i.e. Glenwyck, Wilbow, Town of Westlake). In the plan, the Solana Boulevard setback was reduced back to 50' and the Granada setback was unchanged at 150'. Open space increased to 42.5 acres and 7 home sites were designated to be restricted to a one-story building height (although only 5 home sites are located south of the main ridge line). In that same spirit of compromise, Wilbow is also willing to make a significant contribution to allow the 56 lot plan to be viable. The loss of 9 lots represents a loss of approximately $3.5 million in project revenue (note the revenue loss represents a higher per lot average because the lots eliminated were of higher value backed to the non-disturbance zone). In isolation, this loss of revenue makes the community development infeasible from a financial standpoint. But Wilbow and Glenwyck believe a meaningful Town of Westlake contribution to a compromise can produce a positive outcome that will work for all sides. As discussed previously with Town staff, the Town of Westlake would need to agree to the following changes to our previously proposed development plan for the project to meet a minimum Wilbow investment return threshold: • Upgrading of the Solana Boulevard public trail with the existing decomposed granite material versus a concrete upgrade (Estimated savings: $347,000) • Elimination of the obligation to plant pine trees in the Solana Boulevard median for the length of the project frontage (Estimated savings: $156,000) • Elimination of the obligation to construct park improvements on the Mayor's Hill area that will be part of the overall land dedication (Estimated savings: $100,000) • Elimination of the contribution to the Town for the benefit of Westlake Academy (Estimated savings: $560,000) • Reimbursement/Waiver of Town fees related to developer activities (Estimated savings: $63,000) • Credit back to Wilbow for $8,000 per lot from Town collected builder fees (Estimated savings: $448,000) The total value of these changes is approximately $1.7 million which is approximately half of the potential revenue loss from the reduction in the lot count. Viewed differently, Wilbow has been unusually transparent with the Town regarding the cost estimates on this project. We explained that most of the development costs are fixed (i.e. land price and the street plan is largely unchanged by the lot count change) and as such, there is approximately $275,000 per lot in fixed costs that have to be covered for each lot that is removed from the plan. The change from 65 lots to 56 lots means that approximately $2.5 million in cost savings has to be to be identified to be economically equal from an investment return standpoint. The $1.7 million in relief requested is only 68% of the actual cost impact Wilbow is facing. As such, our investment returns are below our normal risk-adjusted targets, but again, in the spirit of compromise, we have received internal approval to move forward on this basis if the cost concessions are approved by the Town. Wilbow also recognizes that $1.7 million is a significant request. But we ask the Town to also consider the value of the proposal to donate to the Town the approximate 36 acres of land for a community park or a non-disturbance forest preserve, a value well in excess of the estimated value of the tree mitigation requirement and the proposed cost concessions. Conclusion Wilbow requests that the formal submittal to Town Council on November 27, 2017 be the 61 lot plan as described herein with the proposed changes. This is a plan that has been fully vetted with and endorsed by Town staff. P&Z voted to recommend a zoning change to a residential use on this property. Given the tight time requirements of the land purchase contract with BRE Solana, it is imperative from Wilbow's perspective that the property have a fully viable zoning approval on November 27. Anything less would in effect be a rejection of the zoning application . After the 61 lot zoning change is approved, should the Town elect to participate in and/or facilitate a tri- party discussion, Wilbow would welcome the opportunity to discuss the key provisions required to allow the 56 lot plan to be viable and supportable by all three parties. We look forward to further discussion with the Town on the proposed plans and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. ;y~ Lawrence A. Corson Co-President Wilbow Corporation cc: Chas Fitzgerald (Wilbow) Michael Hudspeth (BRE Solana) Neil McNabnay (Glenwyck) Exhibits: A-June 2017 Concept Plan -65 Lots B -November 2017 Concept Plan -61 Lots C-November 2017 Concept Plan -56 Lots D -Proposed Development Plan 1 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESCRIPTION PROPOSED PLANNING DISTRICT 6 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 61 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: 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 61 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 240,950 sf against a total land area of approximately 2,722,500 square feet, or 8.85% 2 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 has been submitted to the Town 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: 61 residential lots measuring at least 10,000 square feet in area (approximately 80’ x 135’) or less than 1 lot per gross acre. A Concept Plan is attached for reference. Lot Size: Minimum lot size is 10,000 sf Minimum lot width (measured at the standard front setback line): • 80’ for standard lots • 40’ for lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows Lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows shall have a minimum 30’ frontage along the property line/ROW. Lot Coverage: The maximum footprint for a home shall be limited to (i) the lesser of 47% of the entire lot area, or 5,000 sf for a 1-story home and (ii) the lesser of 43%, or 4,500 sf for a 2-story residence. On certain larger lots, 2-story residences may have a maximum footprint of 5,000 sf. 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). 3 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. Building Height: The maximum height of 2-story structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Certain lots have been designated as being limited to a one-story building height, or 18 feet measured to the mid-poiont 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 and elbow 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. 4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Open Space: Per the Westlake Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan, approximately 33 acres of the 62.5 acres subject site is designated as open space and/or community park. Per the proposed development plan, approximately 40.8 acres or 65.3% of the gross acreage is set aside as open space or park dedication area. Further, as part of the Tree Mitigation Plan and Parkland Dedication requirement (please see below), approximately 35.6 acres of the open space is proposed to be donated to the Town (or its designee). As part of the donation, there would be requirements for the following: • Public Trail Easement • Private Road Easements (2) • Public and Private Utility Easement • Storm Water Detention Easement • Temporary Construction Easement • Landscape Easement Parkland 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 61 lot density would result in a parkland dedication area of approximately 2.03 acres. As discussed above, approximately 35.6 acres of open space is proposed to be donated to the Town (or its designee) to satisfy both the Parkland Dedication and Tree Mitigation requirements. 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 (back to back) including a mountable concrete curb on both sides within a 30’ ROW (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 5 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). The portion of the Solana Boulevard public Trail that fronts on the project will be maintained with the existing decomposed granite. UTILITIES 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 21.7 acres generally centered within the 62.5 acre parcel. Along the Solana Boulevard ROW, a 100’ setback is planned. Within the setback, there is likely to be a public utility easement for storm water detention and utility connections. On the property’s western (Granada) border, a 150’ setback is planned. On the southern border (generally Glenwyck), there will be a varied setback ranging from 150’ to over 400’ with the majority of the setback set at 300’ or more. The eastern portion of the property (“Mayor’s Hill”) to the Sam School Road frontage is not planned to be developed as included in the plan as open space to be donated to the Town (or its designee). 6 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 a designated building envelope for each lot. On each lot, the developer, lot owner, and home builder will only be allowed to remove trees in the designated building envelope and designated driveway area. In the side setbacks, any tree over 9 inches in diameter must be pre-approved for removal by the Town. Further, builders will be encouraged to use a “floating post-tension steel concrete slab foundation” to allow for minimal impact to tree root systems near each building envelope. 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 • 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. • Donation of approximately 35.6 acres of open space to the Town (or its designee) including an area to be designated as a 100% wildlife natural preserve (non-disturbance classification). This land area encompasses the setback areas that border on Granada, Glenwyck Farms, and Solana Boulevard. The “Mayor’s Hill” land area may be improved at the Town’s discretion. • 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 Any additional tree disturbance by a lot owner beyond the designated building envelope (and designated driveway area) will require further tree mitigation based on either a compensating payment based on a $100 per caliper inch 7 formula for protected trees approved for removal by the Town, or replacement tree planting equal to the tree loss. 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 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. From:Lawrence Corson To:Tom Brymer; Ron Ruthven Cc:Chas Fitzgerald Subject:Solana Land - Revised Concept Plan for P&Z Meeting Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2017 8:07:37 AM Attachments:image001.jpg image002.jpg Knolls-P.ConceptPlan-110317-61 LOTS-OPT6-REVISED3-RIDGELINE & PRESERVE.PDF Tom/Ron: Please find attached an updated Concept Plan that addresses the concerns and comments from our last meeting. We would like this Plan to be part of the P&Z presentation for next Monday, November 13. In about an hour, we will also be sending an updated Proposed Development Plan that reflects the changes in the Plan as well as the changes to the Tree Mitigation formula that reflect our discussions. Quick facts on the attached Plan: · 61 lots · 100’ setback on Solana Blvd · Varied setback from the Glenwyck property line of 150’ to 400’ with the majority at 300’ · 17 home sites designated as one-story building height (lots are shaded in the Plan) · Approximately 35.6 acres of open space to be deeded to the Town (or its designee) to ensure non-disturbance, as part of the Tree Mitigation plan This Plan is possible as a result of certain changes to the overall development: · Change to a $5,000 per lot contribution to the Town for Westlake Academy · Elimination of concrete as an improvement to the Solana Blvd public trail · Elimination of park improvements to the Mayor’s Hill · Elimination of private amenities (pavilion, bocce court) within the development Please call or write if you have any questions. Larry Lawrence A. Corson | Co-President Wilbow Corporation | www.wilbow.com 4131 N. Central Expressway | Suite 990, Lockbox 13 | Dallas, TX 75204 Office: 972.994.1674 | Mobile: 214.505.8256 lcorson@wilbowusa.com 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. 1 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED PLANNING DISTRICT 1-46 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 6561 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 6561 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 256,750240,950 sf against a total land area of approximately 2,722,500 square 2 feet, or 9.438.85% 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 preparedhas been submitted to the Town 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: 6561 residential lots measuring at least 10,000 square feet in area (approximately 80’ x 135’) or approximatelyless than 1.04 lots lot 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): • 80’ for standard lots • 40’ for lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows Lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows shall have a minimum 30’ frontage along the property line/ROW. Lot Coverage: The maximum Footprintfootprint for a home shall be limited to (i) the lesser of 47% of the entire lot area, or 5,000 sf for a 1-story home and (ii) the lesser of 43%, or 4,500 sf for a 2-story residence. On certain larger lots, 2-story residences may have a maximum footprint of 5,000 sf. 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). 3 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. Building Height: The maximum height of all2-story structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Certain lots have been designated as being limited to a one-story building height, or 18 feet measured to the mid-poiont 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 and elbow 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. 4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Open Space: Per the Westlake Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan, approximately 3633 acres of the 62.5 acres subject site is designated as open space including the to-be-designated Parkland Dedication (please see below).and/or community park. Per the proposed development plan, approximately 37.240.8 acres or 59.565.3% of the gross acreage is set aside as either open space or park dedication area. Further, as part of the Tree Mitigation Plan and Parkland Dedication requirement (please see below), approximately 35.6 acres of the open space is proposed to be donated to the Town (or its designee). As part of the donation, there would be requirements for the following: • Public Trail Easement • Private Road Easements (2) • Public and Private Utility Easement • Storm Water Detention Easement • Temporary Construction Easement • Landscape Easement Parkland 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 6561 lot density would result in a parkland dedication area of approximately 2.1703 acres. ItAs discussed above, approximately 35.6 acres of open space is envisioned that a 2.17 acre area fronting on Sam School Road and atop the “Mayor’s Hill” would proposed to be an ideal Park area that, at the Town’s election, could either be dedicateddonated to the Town (or deeded to the HOA (HOA would have responsibility for maintenance) with a public access easement.its designee) to satisfy both the Parkland Dedication and Tree Mitigation requirements. 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 (back to back) including a mountable concrete curb on both sides within a 30’ ROW (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. 5 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, theThe 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 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 25.221.7 acres generally centered within the 62.5 acre parcel. Along the Solana Boulevard ROW, a 100’ setback is planned. Within the ROWsetback, there is likely to be a 20’public utility easement for storm water detention and utility connections. On the property’s western (Granada) and southern borders (Glenwyck), border, a 150’ setback is planned. On the southsouthern border, (generally Glenwyck), there will be an additional 25’ utility and trail easement planned that effectively expands the south boundarya varied setback ranging from 150’ to 175’.over 400’ with the majority of the setback set at 300’ or more. 6 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. as included in the plan as open space to be donated to the Town (or its designee). 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 gradinga designated building envelope for each lot. On each lot, the developer, lot owner, and clearing of selected lots.home builder will only be allowed to remove trees in the designated building envelope and designated driveway area. In the side setbacks, any tree over 9 inches in diameter must be pre-approved for removal by the Town. Further, an investigation has been conducted ofbuilders will be encouraged to use 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. 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 ofDonation of approximately 35.6 acres of open space to the Town (or its designee) including an area to be designated as a 100% wildlife natural preserve (non-disturbance classification) in the 150’). This land area encompasses the setback areas that border on Granada, and Glenwyck Farms (other than a 25’ wide water line and trail easement cut-through to 7 Dove Road), and Solana Boulevard. The “Mayor’s Hill” land area may be improved at the Town’s discretion. • 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. Any additional tree disturbance by a lot owner beyond the designated building envelope (and designated driveway area) will require further tree mitigation based on either a compensating payment based on a $100 per caliper inch formula for protected trees approved for removal by the Town, or replacement tree planting equal to the tree loss. 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 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 8 terms and conditions of a Development Plan or Agreement contemplated herein. 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 Page 1 of 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) – Zoning Case Z-06-19-17 1. What is the “10% coverage provision” mentioned as it relates to Solana? Answer: The Planned Development District Number One (PD1) zoning was originally approved under Ordinance 202 on November 16, 1992. Included in the ordinance was a requirement that no more than 10% of the total land area of the PD1 district could be occupied by a principal use building. Specifically, Section 3(B) of Ordinance 202 reads as follows: “The maximum percent of PD1 to be occupied by (i) principal use buildings shall be ten percent (10%) of the land area as defined below), excluding court yards, atria, etc. not enclosed within the buildings. Parking garages shall not be included in the calculation of density or site coverage (underline added). For these purposes PD1 shall be deemed to have 251.757 acres of land area which is its original acreage before donations for roadways except for right of way within PD1 donated for S. H. 114.” Given the above requirement, this meant that, as of November 16, 1992, the total aggregate building footprint area for principal use buildings in PD1 could not exceed 1,096,653 square feet. On March 10, 2008, Ordinance 202 was amended by Ordinance 588. Section 3(B) of Ordinance 588 amended the above 10% requirement by expanding the total land area of the PD1 district as follows: “The maximum percent of PDI to be occupied by (i) principal use buildings shall be ten percent (10%) of the land area (as defined below), excluding courtyards, atria, etc. not enclosed within the buildings. Parking garages shall not be included in the calculation of density or site coverage. For these purposes PD1 shall be deemed to have 436.077 acres of land area which is its original acreage, plus the additional acreage added by this amendment, before donations for roadways except for right of way within PD1 donated for S. H. 114.” Given the above requirement, this meant that, as of March 10, 2008, the total aggregate building footprint area for principal use buildings in PD1 could not exceed 1,899,551 square feet. On January 7, 2013, Ordinance 202 and 588 were amended by Ordinance 691. The purpose of Ordinance 691 was to split the PD1 zoning district into Planning Page 2 of 8 Area 1 (PD1-1), Planning Area 2 (PD1-2), and Planning Area 3 (PD1-3) Section 4(B) of Ordinance 691 amended the above 10% requirement as follows: “The maximum percent of PD1 to be occupied by (i) principal use buildings shall be ten percent (10%) of the land area (as defined below), excluding courtyards, atria, etc.; not enclosed within the buildings. Parking garages shall not be included in the calculation of density or site coverage. For these purposes PD1 shall be deemed to have 436.077 acres of land area which is its original acreage before donations for roadways except for right of way within PD1 donated for SH114. Planning Area 1 shall be deemed to be 251.757 acres. Planning Area 2 shall be deemed to be 92.08 acres. Planning area 3 shall be deemed to be 92.24 acres.” PD1-1 contains the area generally known as The Solana, PD1-2 contains the Entrada development and PD1-3 contains the Granada development. Ordinance 691 did not change the total aggregate building footprint area for principal use buildings in PD1: 1,899,551 square feet. Therefore, currently, the total allowable building footprint area for principal use buildings in the PD1 district, including all planning areas, is 1,899,551 square feet. The following is a breakdown of current principal building coverage for the entire PD1-1 district: PD1-1 (Solana): 448,000 square feet Total remaining for future construction: 1,451,571 square feet 2. If the current zoning change request is denied, what size building does the Town realistically expect could be built on the site in question under the existing zoning regulations? Answer: Matching the total square footage of The Terrace buildings across Solana Blvd., a total of 1,140,000 square feet of office space (with a total footprint of 285,000 square feet at 4 stories) could be built on the subject property accommodating a total of 5,700 surface parking spaces. 3. Could the Town, through the P & Z and Town Council prevent such a building from being built? Answer : No. 4. What would be the consequences of the P & Z Commission and Town Council just saying “no?" Answer: Denial of vested development rights on the property could result in litigation that would seek to overturn the Town Council’s decision and seek liquidated damages resulting from the Council’s action. 5. Is there a concept plan for the PD1 zoning district? Answer: No Page 3 of 8 6. What is “understory”? Answer: Understory is a layer of vegetation beneath the main canopy of a forest. Sometimes it is also referred to as “undergrowth”. Together with the canopy trees, this can create a vegetative screen as well as mitigate roadway noise migration. Often it is the understory that creates more screening than the larger specimen trees due to the tall height of those trees. Understory on undeveloped property south of Solana Blvd. (taken Winter 2015) 7. Can the current owner remove the understory under current zoning as well as under the Town tree mitigation ordinance regulations? Answer: Yes 8. Can the current owner level the land under the current zoning? Answer: Yes 9. What is a Comprehensive Plan and why is it important? Answer: A comprehensive plan is necessary in order to achieve the following: Page 4 of 8 • To improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities — to make it more functional, beautiful, decent, healthy, interesting and efficient. • To promote the public interest, the interest of the community at large, rather than the interests of individuals or special groups within the community. • To facilitate the democratic determination and implementation of community policies on physical development. • To effect political and technical coordination of community development. • To inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions. And; • To bring professional and technical knowledge to bear on the making of political decisions concerning the physical development of the community.” With these intents in mind, the latest Westlake Comprehensive Plan, titled Forging Westlake, was adopted on March 2, 2015 after receiving significant input from the community. It serves as a guide to current and future Planning & Zoning Commissions and Town Councils for promoting future growth in the community that meets or exceeds community expectations as adopted in the plan. 10. Does the current zoning comply with the Comprehensive Plan? If not, why not? If the Town adopted the Plan AFTER the zoning was in place, why wouldn’t the Town have drafted the Plan to show the current zoning? Answer: This tract’s current zoning only partially comports to the current Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for future rezoning requests. However, it does not replace existing zoning, it only guides future zoning decisions if the existing zoning be proposed for a change by the owner or their agent. It is common for municipalities to establish a Land Use Plan in their Comprehensive Plan that may differ entirely or partially from a tract’s current zoning. This is in order to create discussions with the owner or their agent should there come a time when they wish to pursue a change in zoning. At that time, the Comprehensive Plan’s recommended land uses then come into discussion as they have with this request. This zoning change request is proposing a land use (transitional residential) that the Comprehensive Plan supports for this area. Transitional residential means higher density residential that would be located in between existing single family residential low density housing (i.e. Glenwyck) and office uses (i.e. office buildings north of Solana Blvd.). Since 1992, when the original Comprehensive Plan for the Town was approved, the Land Use Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan has been amended four times. The following is a chronology of Land Use Plan amendments: • Ordinance 199 – Original W estlake Comprehensive Plan: Approved on August 24, 1992 • Ordinance 450 – Land Use Plan Amendment: March 22, 2004 • Ordinance 690 – Land Use Plan Amendment: February 25, 2013 Page 5 of 8 • Ordinance 702 – Land Use Plan Amendment: April 22, 2013 • Ordinance 747 – Comprehensive Plan Update: March 2, 2015 (current adopted Land Use Plan) Regarding Zoning Case Z-06-19-17 for this 62.53 acre parcel of land, the following is a summary of Land Use Plan recommendations when cross-referenced with the above ordinances including the approximate acreage breakdowns: • Ordinance 199: “Office Park” district (all 62.53 acres) • Ordinance 450: “Office (Park or Campus)” district (all 62.53 acres) • Ordinance 690: “Open Space” district (approximately 41 acres); • “Office (Park or Campus) district (approximately 22 acres)” • Ordinance 702: “Open Space” district (approximately 41 acres); • “Office (Park or Campus) district (approximately 22 acres)” • Ordinance 747: “Open Space” district (approximately 33 acres); “CC2-A Community Commercial 2/View Shed Zone” district (approximately 30 acres) As indicated above, on February 25, 2013 an approximately 41 acre portion of the subject property was reclassified from “Office (Park or Campus)” to “Open Space”. The reason for the change was due to citizen feedback received at various public hearings for the rezoning of the Granada development (west of the subject property). Again, this was a future land use designation change, not a zoning change. The specific reason for land use designation change was to start a conversation about the future use of that property. The current zoning of the subject property (PD1-1) allows for non-residential uses with no requirements for any open space set-asides. Concerning the 2015 Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations, the Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan designates primarily western portion of the 62.53 acre parcel as open space with a special “natural preserve” designation. However, breaking from the 1992 and the 2004 Comprehensive Plan recommendations, the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, in expanding on the February 25, 2013 Land Use Plan amendment, also designates a future “community park” on the western portion of the property in addition to the open space designation. The 2015 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. 11. If the current zoning doesn’t comply with the Comprehensive Plan, can the land be developed in a manner consistent with the existing zoning, but not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan? Answer: Yes. Page 6 of 8 12. Does the Wilbow request comply with the Comprehensive Plan? Answer : The short answer is yes. In Staff’s view, this request meets, in large measure, the intent of the current Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan and the Open Space Plan. While office uses are shown as a use appropriate for this area on the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan, it also designates transitional residential as a land use that fits this land use character district and is an appropriate use for it as well. This zoning change request is proposing a land use (transitional residential) that the Comprehensive Plan supports for this area. Transitional residential means higher density residential that would be located in between existing single family residential low density housing (i.e. Glenwyck) and office uses (i.e. office buildings north of Solana Blvd.). Additionally, while the open space proposed by this request does not align exactly with the Open Space portion of the Comprehensive Plan, it meets the intent of creating open space in this area linked to other open space and is in fact, more open space than what the Open Space portion of the Comprehensive Plan now shows for this location. For a more detailed analysis of this request as related to the Comprehensive Plan, please see the staff report for the zoning case in the P&Z Commission’s agenda packet for their November 13, 2017 meeting (which is on the Town’s web site, www.westlake- tx.org., go under government, then agendas, find P&Z agendas). 13. If the Wilbow request did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, can the P&Z and Council approve it? Answer: Yes, with a companion amendment to the Land Use Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. Is there a 500 foot setback or buffer in this tract’s current zoning? Answer: There is a 500 foot setback on this tract’s southside under its current zoning. 15. What is the impact of a buffer or setback in the current zoning? What is the difference between a setback and a buffer? Answer: A setback is the minimum distance from a building line (i.e. the foundation) to the property line. In this tract’s current zoning, a setback applies only to buildings. In other words, principal and accessory buildings must be a minimum 500 feet from the property line. Other ancillary uses that are not buildings related to the principal building may be placed in this set back. For example, a surface parking lot is allowed within the setback. Different than a setback is a buffer. A buffer is not defined in Westlake’s ordinance. Usually, a buffer is understood to be different from a setback. Generally, a buffer is understood to be an amount of property measured from a principal building to the property line where no principal building or ancillary use related to the principal building may be built. Instead of being called a buffer, such areas can also be called conservation areas or no-build zones. Whatever title is given to an area like this, the net effect is nothing can built within it. Page 7 of 8 This tract’s zoning presently only provides for a setback. By way of contrast, the applicant for this request is proposing a buffer area between their principal buildings and the single family residential area (Glenwyck Farms) to the south of this tract. 16. What is the effect of a concept plan? Is it binding or is it not? Answer: A Concept Plan is intended to show how the PD district will develop and serve as a guide for any successive phases of the development as they are built over time. However, PD1 was approved without a Concept Plan. As the PD1 Ordinance (202) states, any requirement of a Concept Plan is satisfied by the site plans. The zoning regulations state that all Site Plans in a PD district shall be in substantial conformity with the approved Concept Plan. Since there is no concept plan, as long as the site plans meet the other provisions of PD1 including setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc., then the site plan is deemed to be in substantial conformance with the PD1 ordinance and should be approved. 17. The applicant for this zoning change is now proposing 61 single family residential lots. What would prevent them from coming back later and asking for more, say 100 lots? Answer: If approved, both the applicant’s PD concept plan and the other provisions of the new PD zoning would have the effect of locking in the total lot number provision. Any change to the total lot number would require a PD amendment, which is completely discretionary on the Town Council’s part. 18. The original concept plan was developed by IBM who built the original Solana complex. It has been stated that through this original IBM concept plan, IBM acquired the vested right to cluster their buildings in exchange for open space as reflected on the concept plan. Thus, no vested right to build in the open space reflected on the plan. Answer: There is no concept plan. Nor is there any officially adopted language that reflects this position. 19. Ordinance 124 page 5 refers to buffer area. Answer: Ordinance 124 was approved in 1982 and is the Solana zoning that preceded the tract’s current zoning which was later changed. The buffer/setback area approved by Ordinance 124 was eliminated by a variance granted by the Town Council on November 20, 1985. In 1992, the 500 foot setback requirement returned as part of Ordinance 202 approving PD1. However, it was brought back ONLY AS A BUILDING SETBACK, not a buffer. 20. Doesn’t the zoning district’s concept plan vest the owner’s rights as to what they can build on this tract? If the original concept plan shows no buildings on this tract, then nothing can be built there. Is that correct? Answer: No, that is not correct. The plat is what vests the owner’s rights. Again, there is no concept plan. But even if there were, what creates vesting is a plat. And the plat for this property was approved in 1988, when the zoning only required a site plan. Therefore, it can be argued that the property owner is vested under the 1988 zoning Page 8 of 8 regulations – including all corresponding variances granted to that date (i.e. it can be argued that not even the current zoning from 1992 forward apply to this tract, only those zoning regulations and ordinances that existed in 1988 when it was platted). 21. What about the “10% rule” (i.e. that only 10% of a lot can be covered by the principal building)? Doesn’t that apply to the entire PD1, including the Entrada and Granada developments? Answer: Let’s assume it does. Even then there is still approximately 250,000 square feet left of available principal building square footage to develop in PD1-1. 22. Is there a two percent maximum lot coverage requirement for accessory uses? Answer: The two percent maximum lot coverage requirement was repealed by Ordinance 202, approving the PD1 zoning ordinance approved on November 16, 1992. 23. Does the disannexed portion of Solana now in Southlake count against the “10 percent rule”? Answer: No. The 10 percent requirement is tied to ten percent of 436.077 acres. Location of Solana acreage in Southlake doesn’t change that. Westlake zoning cannot regulate or include land outside of Westlake Westlake Solana Development Chronology July 10, 1982: Ordinance 124 creating the Planned Office Park (P) zoning district is approved by the Town Council. August 3, 1982: Ordinance 126 is approved rezoning 292 acres to Planned Office Park (P) from Residential High Density (H). April 8, 1985: Ordinance 140 rezoning 49 acres to P is approved by the Town Council. May 8, 1985: Ordinance 141 annexing and zoning 49 acres to P approved by the Town Council. November 20, 1985: Ordinance 143 creating the Planned Office Park and Hotel (PH) zoning district is approved by the Town Council. Ordinance 144 annexing and zoning 45 acres to PH is approved by the Town Council. January 7, 1986: Ordinance 146 rezoning 45 acres to PH is approved by the Town Council Ordinance 145 annexing and rezoning 39 acres to P is approved by the Town Council. April 7, 1986: Ordinance 150 rezoning 45 acres to PH is approved by the Town Council July 1, 1986: Ordinance 152 rezoning 82 acres acres to P is approved by the Town Council Ordinance 151 approving the preliminary plat for Westlake/Southlake Park Addition (Solana) and the Comprehensive Site Plan for the Solana is approved by the Town Council. August 4, 1986: Ordinance 154 rezoning 49 acres from PH to P is approved by the Town Council Late 1986: Building permits are issued for the Solana development February 1, 1988: Resolution 88-12 approving the final plat for the Westlake/Southlake Park Addition (Solana) is approved by the Town Council. 1988: Construction of “Mayor’s Mound” and Phase One Office buildings (including The Plaza and Terrace offices) completed 1990: Construction of Marriott Solana Hotel completed November 16, 1992: Ordinance 202 is approved creating the PD1 zoning district and covers only 251 acres of the Solana development rezoning land from P and PH to PD1. March 10, 2008: Ordinance 588 is approved amending Ordinance 202 by expanding the total PD1 area to 436 acres. January 7, 2013: Ordinance 691 is approved splitting PD1 into three separate planning areas: PD1-1 (the Solana properties only), PD1-2 (the future Entrada development), and PD1-3 (the future Granada development). Summary of Variances Granted by the Town Council Specific to the Solana Development: 1982 to 1989 8/11/1982: Variance granted to Ordinance 124 (P-Planned Office Park district), Section 4c2, approving a reduction in the 500 foot residential setback requirement from any low density residential district from 500 feet to 300 feet. 11/20/1985: Variance granted to Ordinance 124 (P-Planned Office Park district), Section 4(b)(c) and (e) “B. The maximum percent of lot to be occupied by principal use buildings shall be 10%, excluding courtyards, atria, etc., and by accessory use buildings 2%. C. The minimum size of any front, side, or rear yard for principal and accessory use buildings shall be: 1. 500 feet from any public road, street or highway; provided, however, the minimum set back from State Highway 114 shall be 200 feet. 2. 500 feet from any any low density residential district. E. The maximum permitted building height for any principal or accessory building shall not exceed 700 feet mean sea level. The maximum permitted building height for accessory structures which are located within 500 feet of any street or property boundary shall be 20 feet as measured above the average grade of the actual building site provided that said structure does not exceed 700 feet mean sea level.” 7/1/1986: Variance granted to lot sizes for the lots in Blocks 1, 2 and 3 so that such lots shall be considered to be in compliance with applicable "P" and "PH" zoning requirements , it being the opinion of the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Westlake sitting as a Board of Adjustment that strict compliance with the 150 and 50 acre minimum lot sizes required by such zoning would work a hardship upon the owners of the such land. 2/1/1988: Variance granted to Section 4a and 4b of Ordinance 143 (PH-Planned Office Park and Hotel zoning district) “A. The minimum required lot area shall be 50 acres. B. The maximum percent of lot to be occupied by principal use buildings shall be 10%, excluding courtyards, atria, etc ., and by accessory use buildings 10%.” 5/9/1988: Blanket Variance granted to Ordinance 159 (Sign Ordinance) permitting IBM to erect signs throughout Phase One of the development. 3/6/1989: Variance granted to Ordinance 143 (PH-Planned Office Park and Hotel zoning district) regarding the width of the of the service road behind the Marriott to 15 feet 6/5/1989: Variance granted to the minimum 100 foot setback requirement from Solana Blvd. and Sam School Road for the Boy Scouts building Ordinance 143 (PH-Planned Office Park and Hotel zoning district), Section 4c1. 8/1/1989: Variance granted to the Uniform Building Code for communicating doors between guest rooms in Marriott Hotel. 9/11/1989: Variance granted to the requirement of fire dampers in the Solana Marriott Hotel. Westlake Zoning Map—1986 S o l a n a 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 Owner Last Name Owner First Name PropertyAddress Status Within 200 ft?Email or SIgned Petition BRANCH BRAD & BETSY 1702 CARLYLE COURT IN FAVOR NO EMAIL CONN PAUL UNKNOWN IN FAVOR N/A EMAIL PACILLO MIKE 2209 VAQUERO ESTATES IN FAVOR NO EMAIL BHATIA PARVINDER 1617 FAIR OAKS OPPOSED NO EMAIL SANJAY CHANDRA 1841 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION COCKRUM PATRICK ETUX ERIN L 1825 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES PETITION DASGUPTA BISWAJIT & CHANDRA 1811 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES PETITION DIDARALI NIZAR &MUNARI 1837 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION DOMBROSKI HARRY & JAN 1808 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION DUBOISI & HOELSCHER MICHAEL & TRISHA 2309 CEDAR ELM TERRACOPPOSED NO PETITION DUCATELLI TOM &KRISTEN 1601 SLEEPY HOLLOW OPPOSED NO EMAIL FONTANES JUAN & SUSAN 1845 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION FOSTER MELVYN E JR 2014 VALENCIA COVE OPPOSED YES PETITION GLENWYCK FARMS HOA INFARMS HOA INC MULTIPLE LOCATIONS OPPOSED YES PETITION GRANFIELD MICHAEL & MICHELLE 1827 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES PETITION GREEN JONATHAN & SUZANNE2001 BRAZOS COURT OPPOSED NO PETITION HAMBY CHARLES 1839 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO BOTH HAVENSTEIN WALT & JUDITH 1817 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES EMAIL HOGAN JOHN & KELLY 2210 CEDAR ELM TERRACOPPOSED NO PETITION HOOKS MICHAEL 2203 CEDAR ELM TERRACOPPOSED NO PETITION HUNT CLAY & JENNY 2103 CEDAR ELM TERRACOPPOSED NO PETITION IKER DENNY & LINDA 1814 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO BOTH JACOB BAIJU & SHUSHAN 1801 COPPERFIELD CT OPPOSED NO PETITION KIM SEUNG & LUCY 1803 COPPERFIELD CT OPPOSED NO PETITION KOLADY ASHOK & SMRUTHI 1602 FAIR OAKS OPPOSED NO PETITION KUSTER ANDREW & HEIDI 1803 SHADY GROVE CT OPPOSED NO EMAIL LITWEIN MARK & ELIZABETH 2002 VALENCIA COVE OPPOSED YES PETITION LOTAN YAIR & SANDRA 1809 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES BOTH MAULER MIKE & STEF 1855 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION MCNABNEY NEIL & JANELLE 1815 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES BOTH MOHAN JOSEPH & MARIA 1806 COPPERFIELD CT OPPOSED YES BOTH OGDEN & JEWEL NOLAN & ERIN 1829 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES PETITION PHILLIPS MICHELLE & PAUL 1604 FAIR OAKS OPPOSED NO BOTH RAMEY DAVID & ELIZABETH 2006 VALENCIA COVE OPPOSED YES PETITION REEVES RYAN & TAMMY 2007 WHITE WING COVE OPPOSED NO PETITION RENDA RODOLPH & CHRISTY 1804 COPPERFIELD CT OPPOSED YES PETITION RILEY DAVID & JENNIFER 1821 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES BOTH RINARD RON & CECILIA 2312 CEDAR ELM TERRACOPPOSED NO PETITION SAMARGYA BRAD & DEBBIE 2021 VALENCIA COVE OPPOSED NO BOTH SCHULTZ ALBERT & KAREN 2214 CEDAR ELM COURT OPPOSED NO PETITION SHINER TIM & CRYSTAL 1606 FAIR OAKS OPPOSED NO PETITION STEVENS JAMES & PATRICIA 1816 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION STEVENSON COLIN & MELANIE 1823 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES BOTH STILL JAY & JANA 1813 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED YES PETITION SVENSSON ANDERS & MARIA 1853 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION THOMPSON LEE & TERRY 2310 CEDAR ELM TERRACOPPOSED NO PETITION ZUCKER NEIL 1859 BROKEN BEND DR OPPOSED NO PETITION List of All Correspondence Received - 11/20/2017 - Case: Z-06-19-17 Total % of 200 foot Buffer Land Area in Opposition: 19.49% II Equity Office October 27, 2017 Town of Westlake Equity Office Plaza of the Americas 600 N. Pearl , Suite 1920 Dallas , TX 75201 4 79-846-4846 Attn: Mayor Laura Wheat, Members of the Town of Westlake City Council, and Members of the Town of Westlake Planning and Zoning Commission 1500 Solana Blvd. Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, TX 76262 RE: Pending Request for Zoning Change -62.53 Acre Portion of Lot 1, Block 3, Westlake/Southlake Park # 1 I am writing on behalf ofBRE Solana, LLC ("BRE"), the owner of the Solana Development and most of the land within PD 1-1, including the 62.53-acre tract that is the subject of the pending Wilbow zoning request (the "Property"). There has been a significant amount of misinformation (i.e. BRE's alleged agreement not to develop the Property, etc ... ) disseminated in the last several weeks regarding BRE's support for the proposed zoning change and BRE's intent as it relates to the development of the Property. This letter will clarify BRE's position regarding the proposed zoning change, and further disclose BRE's plans for the development of the Property should the requested zoning be rejected by the Town of Westlake ("Town"). Furthermore, the letter will confirm BRE's vested rights to develop the Property pursuant to regulations in effect at the time of platting. BRE fully supports the proposed zoning change and strongly encourages the Town to approve the request. Wilbow has asked the Town to downzone over 62 acres within the Solana PD from commercial zoning to single family residential zoning, subject to a detailed development plan and regulations that provide for land uses, density, and quality that are comparable to other Westlake single family developments. Wilbow's proposal also includes substantial open space and tree preservation/mitigation, as well as a public park dedication and a 250-foot wide green area/buffer along the southern boundary of the Property (the "Buffer") where no green area/buff er requirement exists today. BRE believes that the Town and its residents will benefit greatly from the planned single family development because it: i) provides for high-end single family development consistent with and complementary to existing residential developments in Westlake; ii) eliminates the ability to develop one or more commercial projects adjacent to single family development; iii) requires a substantial green space on the Property, unlike current zoning which requires no green area/undisturbed buffer; iv) concentrates development on the north side of the knoll; and, v) requires substantial tree preservation/mitigation, open space, and a public park, none of which are required today. Town of Westlake October 27, 2017 Wilbow has volunteered to provide a Buffer in an effort to be a good neighbor and address the concerns of adjacent residents, which is neither required by Town ordinances nor by past practices in Westlake. The existing 500-foot requirement that some residents have mischaracterized as an unbuildable green space is not that at all. It is a building setback that applies to commercial buildings, but does not apply to surface parking and parking garages, as evidenced by the fact that the Solana Club parking lot is approximately 150 feet from Glenwyck. The Town has acknowledged that BRE has the right to construct surface parking and structured parking within the 500-foot area that some wrongfully claim is an unbuildable green space. The Town has also acknowledged that it could be liable for a taking of BRE's property without just compensation if the Town were to support the opposition's claim that the 500-foot area is an unbuildable green buffer. Due to the commercial zoning of the Property, and the residential zoning districts adjacent to the Property, a setback of some amount seems appropriate. It is common for cities to require some separation between a commercial building and a single family residence, although a 500-foot distance is extremely unusual. The Town certainly never required Glenwyck, Granada, or Entrada developers to set their buildings 500 feet back from each other or from the Solana property. In fact, I am aware of no location in Westlake where the Town has required a single family development to be setback and buffered to any significant degree from another single family development, and nowhere else in Westlake have neighbors demanded such setbacks and buffers. Similarly, I am aware of no other location in Westlake where the Town has required owners to keep substantial portions of their property in a preserved and pristine state for the benefit of others. If the zoning of the Property is changed to limit development to single family homes, there ceases to be any justification for a setback other than the type of nominal rear yard setback required by standard single family zoning in Westlake, which is 40 feet for a one acre lot with R-1 zoning, yet Wilbow has still offered a buffer more than six times that setback. Although some residents may want a 500-foot perpetual no-build zone next to their properties, it is an unreasonable demand, and it is not supported by Town ordinances. Residents stand to benefit from Wilbow's generous offer of a 250-foot buffer. The Property will be developed --with single family homes or with commercial buildings. This zoning application presents a unique opportunity for the Property to be developed with single family. As the Town is aware, BRE has a substantial investment in the Property, and should Wilbow's request be denied, BRE will pursue other opportunities, either directly or indirectly, to develop the Property under the applicable regulations. Under this strategy, one or more commercial projects with a collective building coverage greater than 280,000 square feet could be constructed on the Property, including surface parking lots and parking garages at any location on the Property (even next to residential property lines). In short, single family homes will not be constructed on the Property, and no green space/unbuildable buffer will be provided, unless the Wilbow zoning request is approved. In addition, under the rules currently applicable to the Property, i) the topography of the Property can be altered; ii) there is no requirement to maintain open space or provide a private or public park; and iii) compliance with the Town's tree preservation regulations is not required. The Wilbow zoning request clearly provides benefits to adjacent residents that they are not entitled to currently, and it gives residents the comfort of knowing exactly what will be developed on adjacent land, down to the specific details shown on the Wilbow development plan. 2 Town of Westlake October 27, 2017 BRE has been advised by certain residents and former elected officials that the intent of the Town has always been to maintain the Property as an undeveloped wooded area and/or a public park (i.e. the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, which is a policy document). The Solana project was entitled and developed long before the 2015 Comprehensive Plan was conceived, and to my knowledge , the Town has not approached BRE regarding its acquisition of the Property for a public park or its conservation. Finally, when BRE acquired the Property in 2014, BRE rel ied on the ordinances applicable to the Property, subject to certain vested rights. BRE could only assume that the intent of the Town was accurately reflected in those ordinances. Residents concerned about what could be developed next to their properties are expected to do similar due diligence. I trust that this letter will serve to clarify the support of BRE for the proposed zoning change, as well as BRE's intent to develop the Property in the unfortunate event Wilbow's request is denied. BRE appreciates its close working relationship with the Town, and stands ready to discuss this matter further at the Town's request. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can assist you in anyway. BRE Solana, LLC 3 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:Ron Ruthven Cc:Tom Brymer; Subject:Can"t make the meeting Tonight Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:32:36 AM Hello Ron: I can’t make the meeting tonight as I am out of town. Can you please notate that I oppose the approval of this change in zoning for tonight’s P+Z meeting? Tom said I should send you a note since I can’t make the meeting. Thanks a bunch. Andrew Kuster 1803 Shady Grove Court From: To:Ron Ruthven Cc:Tom Brymer; Subject:No changes to zoning, please Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 5:44:27 AM Hello Ron, Please add my name to the lengthy list of residents who oppose any changes to the zoning of the property along Solana Blvd that will be discussed at the P&Z meeting tonight. I am unable to attend but would like my opposition noted. Thank you, Heidi Kuster 1803 Shady Grove Ct 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), ________Melvyn E. Foster, Jr.___________________________________________, reside at ________2014 Valencia Cove, Westlake, TX 76262____________________________. 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 1 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 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, tree mitigation 1 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 On January 7, 2013, pursuant to the approval of Entrada and Granada, the Town Staff (Eddie Edwards) and Trent 1 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. 2 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.” 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 3 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. 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): 4 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 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 5 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 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 6 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. 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; 7 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: 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 8 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. 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. 9 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. 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 10 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. 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. 11 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): ________Melvyn E. Foster, Jr.____________________________________________ Signature(s): ____ Melvyn E. Foster, Jr._(signed)_____________________________________ 12 1 October 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, Jan and Harry Dombroski, reside at 1808 Broken Bend Drive. 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 incentives offered by the Town include providing BRE Solana with more square footage to be built beyond the 47,230 s.f. allowed 2 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 corridorsand, 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. 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 4 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 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 5 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 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 6 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. 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 7 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. 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. 9 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. 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 10 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. 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. 11 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. Regards, Harry Dombroski Jan Dombroski 1 October 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, Jan and Harry Dombroski, reside at 1808 Broken Bend Drive. 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 incentives offered by the Town include providing BRE Solana with more square footage to be built beyond the 47,230 s.f. allowed 2 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 corridorsand, 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. 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 4 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 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 5 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 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 6 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. 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 7 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. 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. 9 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. 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 10 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. 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. 11 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. Regards, Harry Dombroski Jan Dombroski 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 as detailed in Case No. Z-06019-17. We live at 1601 Sleepy Hollow Court in the GlenWyck 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 barren landscape making way for commercial properties and high volume townhomes as part of Entrada. Change is something that we all must deal with however I must stress that the way Westlake goes about deciding and implementing change when it has an obvious negative impact on the existing residents that have funded the infrastructure and upgrades to the town is unacceptable. Any new development that negatively 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 not impact existing homeowners, AND we are told that those Townhomes were the only multi-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 no past 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: 5RQ5XWKYHQ )URP 1HLO0F1DEQD\ ! 6HQW 0RQGD\$XJXVW 30 7R &F 6XEMHFW 5( :HVWODNH6RODQD/DQG5H]RQLQJ5HTXHVW /DUU\ 7KDQNVIRUWKHDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXW:LOERZ¶VUHTXHVWIRUUH]RQLQJRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG :KHQZHODVWPHW:LOERZZDVSURSRVLQJWREXLOGVIUHVLGHQFHVRQóDFUHORWV$OWKRXJKWKHVTXDUH IRRWDJHLVQRWVSHFLILHGLQWKH=RQLQJ&KDQJH2EMHFWLRQSDFNDJHUHFHLYHGIURPWKH7RZQWRGD\ZHXQGHUVWDQG WKDW:LOERZLVQRZVHHNLQJWREXLOGVRPHZKDWODUJHUUHVLGHQFHV WRVIUDQJH RQóDFUHORWV ZKLFKZLOOUHVXOWLQHYHQJUHDWHUGHQVLW\ :KHWKHULWLVWKHRULJLQDOSODQRU:LOERZ¶VQHZSODQERWKSODQV ϭ͘9LRODWHWKHIWVHWEDFNRQWKH1RUWK6LGHRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQGWKH(DVW6LGHRI*UDQDGD Ϯ͘5HVXOWLQFOHDUFXWWLQJRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGWKHHQWLUHW\RIZKLFKLVGHVLJQDWHGWREHRSHQVSDFH SXUVXDQWWRWKH7RZQ¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYHDQG/DQG8VH3ODQV ϯ͘5HVXOWLQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG¶VµNQROO´ KLOO ZKLFKVHUYHVDVDYLHZVKHGDQGQRLVHEDUULHUSXUVXDQWWR WKH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQEHLQJVKDYHGGRZQ ϰ͘5HVXOWLQGHQVHKRXVLQJWKDWLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHKRXVLQJLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDDQG ϱ͘5HVXOWLQPXOWLVWRU\KRXVLQJWKDWLVSRVLWLRQHGWRGLUHFWO\RYHUORRNWKH\DUGVRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG *UDQDGDKRPHRZQHUVGXHWRWKHIDFWWKDWWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGLVHOHYDWHGXSZDUGVRIIHHWRYHUWKH *OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDUHVLGHQFHV 7RDGGUHVVVRPHRI\RXUVWDWHPHQWVEHORZIRUDFFXUDF\SXUSRVHV ϭ͘:LOERZ¶VSODQYLRODWHVWKH7RZQ¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYHDQG/DQG8VH3ODQVDQGGRHVQRWSURYLGHPRUHRSHQ VSDFHWKDQWKDWSURYLGHGE\WKHVH3ODQVEHFDXVHERWK3ODQVGHVLJQDWHallRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDV RSHQVSDFH$VZHKDYHSUHYLRXVO\GLVFXVVHGWKHEXONRIWKHRSHQVSDFHSURYLGHGE\:LOERZ¶VSODQLV LQDQDUHDRXWVLGHRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDQGLQDQ³XQEXLOGDEOH´DUHD DV\RXGHVFULEHGLW E\WKH 6RODQD+HDOWK&OXEDQGQRWQHDUWKHIW*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDVHWEDFNDUHDV Ϯ͘%DVHGRQ:LOERZ¶VRULJLQDOGHVLJQSODQDQGWKHQHZSODQWKHUHLVVLJQLILFDQWFOHDUFXWWLQJRIWKH2SHQ 6SDFH/DQG7KHUHLVQRRWKHUZD\WRPDNHURRPIRUWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHV\DUGVDQGVWUHHWV ϯ͘:LWKUHVSHFWWRWKHSURSRVDOWREXLOG7RZQKRPHVZKHQZHPHW:LOERZSURSRVHGVIUHVLGHQFHV RQóDFUHORWVDQGZHWDONHGDERXWKRZWKHSURMHFWZRXOGEHVLPLODUWR7RZQKRPHVLQ6RXWKODNH7RZQ 6TXDUH,WDSSHDUVQRZWKDW:LOERZZRXOGOLNHWRLQFUHDVHWKHVL]HRIWKHUHVLGHQFHVEXWVWLOOEXLOGWKHP RQVPDOOORWVUHVXOWLQJLQDQHYHQGHQVHUGHYHORSPHQW$OVR:LOERZ¶VUHTXHVWIRUUH]RQLQJVHHNVWR EXLOG³SULPDULO\´VLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQFHVZKLFKOHDYHVRSHQWKHGRRUWRRWKHUW\SHVRIGHQVHKRXVLQJ LQDGGLWLRQWRWKDWZKLFKLVDOUHDG\VSHFLILFDOO\GLVFORVHG ϰ͘<RXLQGLFDWHEHORZWKDWWKHSURMHFWLVQRWPXOWLVWRU\KRXVLQJ\HWLQWKHVDPHVHQWHQFH\RX DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHVZLOOEHVWRULHV0XOWLSOHVWRULHVSOXVWKHHOHYDWLRQRIWKH 2SHQ6SDFH/DQGRYHU*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDPHDQVWKDWWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHVZLOOEH ORRNLQJLQWRWKHEDFN\DUGVRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDKRPHRZQHUV ϱ͘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¶VSODQWKHQZHPXVWREMHFW 7KDQNV Neil J. McNabnay Head of Litigation – Dallas Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 ZZZIUFRP Click to read the article &ƌŽŵ͗>ĂǁƌĞŶĐĞŽƌƐŽŶ ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϳ͕ϮϬϭϳϭϭ͗ϱϳD dŽ͗ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗tĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲ^ŽůĂŶĂ>ĂŶĚZĞnjŽŶŝŶŐZĞƋƵĞƐƚ DLJŶĂŵĞŝƐ>ĂƌƌLJŽƌƐŽŶĂŶĚ/͛ŵƚŚĞŽͲWƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŽĨtŝůďŽǁŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶǁŚŽƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĂƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽƚŚĞdŽǁŶŽĨtĞƐƚůĂŬĞĨŽƌƚŚĞϲϮ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƉĂƌĐĞůŽĨůĂŶĚŝŶ^ŽůĂŶĂƚŚĂƚĨƌŽŶƚƐŽŶ^ŽůĂŶĂŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĂŶĚ^Ăŵ^ĐŚŽŽů ZŽĂĚ͘/ĂŵĂůƐŽĂůŽŶŐƚŝŵĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŽĨtĞƐƚůĂŬĞ;ϭϰнLJĞĂƌƐͿ͕ĂĨŽƌŵĞƌdŽǁŶŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌĂŶĚDĂLJŽƌWƌŽͲdĞŵ͘DLJ ŬŝĚƐĂƚƚĞŶĚĞĚtĞƐƚůĂŬĞĐĂĚĞŵLJ͕ĂŶĚŽƵƌĨĂŵŝůLJŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂĐƚŝǀĞůLJŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶdŽǁŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐĚĂƚŝŶŐďĂĐŬƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƌůLJ ϮϬϬϬ͛Ɛ͘/ĐĂƌĞĚĞĞƉůLJĂďŽƵƚtĞƐƚůĂŬĞĂŶĚŝƚƐĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘ tŝůďŽǁŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĂƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĐŽŵƉĂŶLJƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶ&tĨŽƌĂůŵŽƐƚϯϬ LJĞĂƌƐ͘tĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂĂŶĚŝƚƐĨŝŶĂůƉŚĂƐĞ͘tĞŚĂǀĞĂůƐŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŚŝŐŚĞŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ ŝŶ^ŽƵƚŚůĂŬĞ͕ŽůůĞLJǀŝůůĞ͕ĂŶĚ&ůŽǁĞƌDŽƵŶĚ͘ dŚĞƌĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŝŶĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂƚĞĚĂďŽƵƚŽƵƌůĂŶĚƵƐĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/͛ĚůŝŬĞƚŽĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ ŝƚ͘/͛ĚĂůƐŽůŝŬĞƚŽĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĂůůŽĨLJŽƵƚŽĂƚƚĞŶĚƚŚĞƵƉĐŽŵŝŶŐWΘDĞĞƚŝŶŐŽŶƵŐƵƐƚϭϰĂƚϲ͗ϬϬƉŵƐŽƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĐĂŶƐĞĞ ĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƐĞůĨǁŚĂƚǁĞĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂŶĚĐŽŵĞƚŽLJŽƵƌŽǁŶĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƐƚŽŝƚƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŶĞƐƐĨŽƌƚŚĞdŽǁŶĂŶĚĨŽƌƚŚĞ ƐŝƚĞ͘/ŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚŵĂŶLJŽĨLJŽƵƐŝŶĐĞǁĞƐƚĂƌƚĞĚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŶŝŶĞŵŽŶƚŚƐĂŐŽĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƚŚĂƚƚŝŵĞ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞƌĞĨŝŶĞĚ ŽƵƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶƚŽƚĂŬĞŝŶƚŽĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵdŽǁŶƐƚĂĨĨ͕ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞƚ͘ tŚĂƚŝƐdŚĞ<ŶŽůůƐĂƚ^ŽůĂŶĂ͍/ƚŝƐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŐĂƚĞĚ͕ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽĨϲϱůƵdžƵƌLJǀŝůůĂŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚĞ ŚŽŵĞƐŝƚĞĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞƚŚĞƐĂŵĞĂƐƚŚĞsŝůůĂƐŝŶsĂƋƵĞƌŽ͘dŚĞŚŽŵĞƐŚĂǀĞďŽƚŚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵĂŶĚŵĂdžŝŵƵŵƐŝnjĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ;ϯ͕ϬϬϬĂŶĚϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ͘dŚĞĞƐŝŐŶ'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐǁĞƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞsĂƋƵĞƌŽĞƐŝŐŶ'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĂŶĚ ĐĂůůĨŽƌϭϬϬйŵĂƐŽŶƌLJ͕ďĂƌƌĞůƚŝůĞ͕ƐůĂƚĞ͕ŽƌĐŽŶƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJĨůĂƚƌŽŽĨƐ͕ĂŶĚĂŚŝŐŚůĞǀĞůŽĨĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂů ĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŝĐŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞŚŽŵĞƐŝƐΨϭ͘ϮƚŽΨϭ͘ϳŵŝůůŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďƵŝůĚĞƌƐĂƌĞƚŚĞƐĂŵĞĐƵƐƚŽŵďƵŝůĚĞƌƐ ƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďƵŝůƚŝŶsĂƋƵĞƌŽ͕'ƌĂŶĂĚĂĂŶĚƐŽŽŶƚŽďĞŝŶYƵĂŝů,ŽůůŽǁ͘ dŽďĞĐůĞĂƌ͕ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕dŚĞ<ŶŽůůƐĂƚ^ŽůĂŶĂ͕ŝƐŶŽƚƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐ͘/ƚŶĞǀĞƌǁĂƐĂŶĚƚŽƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƚŚĂƚtŝůďŽǁŽƌůĂĐŬƐƚŽŶĞ ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝƚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐƐŝŵƉůLJĨĂůƐĞ͘ dŚĞŚŽŵĞƐĂƌĞŶŽƚŵƵůƚŝͲƐƚŽƌLJ͘dŚĞĞƐŝŐŶ'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐƚŚĂƚǁĞŚĂǀĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĐĂůůĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĂŵĞŚĞŝŐŚƚůŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĂƐŝƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂƚ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂĂŶĚsĂƋƵĞƌŽ͘ƐĂĨƵƌƚŚĞƌůŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĨůŽŽƌŽĨĂŶLJŚŽŵĞĐĂŶďĞŶŽŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϱϬйŽĨƚŚĞ ƐŝnjĞŽĨƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌ͘ ,ŽŵĞƐĂƚdŚĞ<ŶŽůůƐĂƚ^ŽůĂŶĂĂƌĞŶŽƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĂϭϬϬĨŽŽƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵ'ůĞŶǁLJĐŬĂŶĚ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐ͘/ŶƚŚĞ ĐĂƐĞŽĨ'ůĞŶǁLJĐŬ͕ƚŚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝƐϭϳϱĨĞĞƚ͘&Žƌ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂ͕ŝƚŝƐϭϱϬĨĞĞƚƉůƵƐƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƚƌĂŝůnjŽŶĞŽĨĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ϲϱĨĞĞƚ͘ dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨdŚĞ<ŶŽůůƐĂƚ^ŽůĂŶĂĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĐĂůůĨŽƌŵĂƐƐŐƌĂĚŝŶŐŽƌĐůĞĂƌŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞƉůĂŶĐĂůůƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ ŐĞŶĞƌĂůƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƚŽďĞƌĞƚĂŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚůŝŵŝƚĞĚƐŽůĞůLJƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽ ĂůůŽǁĨŽƌƚŚĞƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ;ƚŚĞŬŶŽůůƐͿƚŽďĞĨĞĂƚƵƌĞĚƉƌŽŵŝŶĞŶƚůLJ͘ dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶŽĨdŚĞ<ŶŽůůƐĂƚ^ŽůĂŶĂĐĂůůƐĨŽƌϯϳ͘ϮĂĐƌĞƐŽĨŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͕ŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƚŚĂŶǁŚĂƚŝƐĐĂůůĞĚĨŽƌ ŝŶƚŚĞŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞWůĂŶƚŚĂƚǁĂƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϰ͘&ƵƌƚŚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬĂƌĞĂƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽ'ůĞŶǁLJĐŬĂŶĚ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂ ŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĂƐŶŽŶͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚďƵĨĨĞƌnjŽŶĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞůĞĨƚƵŶƚŽƵĐŚĞĚ͘ /ŬŶŽǁŝƚŝƐĞĂƐLJƚŽďĞƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐŽĨƌĞĂůĞƐƚĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͘/ĂůƐŽŬŶŽǁƚŚĂƚŝƚŝƐŬĞĞŶůLJŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽĞĂĐŚĂŶĚĞǀĞƌLJŽŶĞ ŽĨLJŽƵƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǀĂůƵĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚtĞƐƚůĂŬĞŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŝŶĂŵĂŶŶĞƌƚŚĂƚŝƐŽĨƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚƋƵĂůŝƚLJ͘ ŽŵĞƚŽƚŚĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞϭϰƚŚĂŶĚǁĞǁŝůůŐŽŝŶƚŽŐƌĞĂƚĚĞƚĂŝůŽĨǁŚĂƚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌdŚĞ<ŶŽůůƐĂƚ^ŽůĂŶĂ͘ ŶĚLJŽƵĂƌĞǁĞůĐŽŵĞƚŽĐĂůůŵĞĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJŝĨLJŽƵǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƚĂůŬƉƌŝǀĂƚĞůLJ͘DLJĐĞůůƉŚŽŶĞŶƵŵďĞƌŝƐ ͘ dŚĂŶŬƐ͕ >ĂƌƌLJŽƌƐŽŶ >ĂǁƌĞŶĐĞ͘ŽƌƐŽŶͮŽͲWƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ tŝůďŽǁŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶͮǁǁǁ͘ǁŝůďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵ ϰϭϯϭE͘ĞŶƚƌĂů džƉƌĞƐƐǁĂLJͮ^ƵŝƚĞϵϵϬ͕>ŽĐŬďŽdžϭϯͮĂůůĂƐ͕dyϳϱϮϬϰ KĨĨŝĐĞ͗ͮDŽďŝůĞ͗ KE&/ Ed/>/dzEKd/ ͗dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƉƌŝǀŝůĞŐĞĚĂŶĚĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͖ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůLJĨŽƌƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĞ;ƐͿ͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ LJŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďLJŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽƌĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůLJ ƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJŶŽƚŝĨLJƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚLJŽƵ ĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďLJŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƚŽĚĞůĞƚĞĂůůĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĐŽƉŝĞƐĂŶĚĚĞƐƚƌŽLJĂůůƉƌŝŶƚĞĚĐŽƉŝĞƐ͘ *************************************************************************************************** ************************* 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) 5RQ5XWKYHQ )URP &KDUOHV-+DPE\0' 6HQW 7XHVGD\$XJXVW 30 7R 5RQ5XWKYHQ &F 6XEMHFW =RQLQJ&KDQJH2SSRVLWLRQ/HWWHU2SHQ6SDFH/DQG1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPV(DVW RI*UDQDGD $XJXVW± 'HDU5RQ5XWKYHQ&RXQFLOPHPEHUVDQG3 =%RDUG0HPEHUV 7LP%ULWWDQ /L]*DUYLQ *UHJ*REOH 5\DQ*URFH 0LFKHOOH/HH 6KDURQ6DQGHQ .HQ.UDVND ,ZULWHLQ23326,7,21WKHXSFRPLQJ=RQLQJ5HTXHVWIURP:LOERZLQUHJDUGVWRWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGWRWKH1RUWKRI *OHQZ\FN)DUPV6XEGLYLVLRQ,UHVLGHDQGRZQP\SULPDU\UHVLGHQFHZLWKLQWKH*OHQZ\FN)DUPVVXEGLYLVLRQDW %URNHQ%HQG'U <RXZLOOXQGRXEWHGO\KHDUSDVVLRQDWHSOHDVLQRSSRVLWLRQEXWSHUKDSV,PD\DGGDQXQHPEHOOLVKHGSUDJPDWLFRQH±RQH WKDWVKRXOGEHDSSOLHGV\OORJLVWLFDOO\DQGV\VWHPDWLFDOO\WRWKLV]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWDVZHOODVDQ\RWKHUVWKDWFRPH EHIRUH\RX,KDYHKDGRSSRUWXQLWLHVLQP\SHUVRQDOLQYHVWPHQWVDVZHOOP\SULRUKRPHVWRDSSO\IRU]RQLQJYDULDWLRQVDQG WKHOLNH±VRPHWLPHV,¶YHZRQWKHGD\ZLWKHDVH«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²DWDVNWKDW,HQYLVDJHWRWDOO\IDLOLQJLIVDLGSURFHVVLV DSSOLHG)RUWKHILUVWWKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHQHLJKERUKRRGZRXOGLUUHYRFDEO\FKDQJHIURPDWUDQTXLOJUHHQSODFLG HQYLURQPHQWLQWRDFRQGHQVHGKHDYLO\WUDIILFNHGRQH QRGRXEW\RXZLOOKHDUPDQ\YDULDQWVRIDUJXPHQWRQWKLVSRLQWIURP P\IHOORZPHPEHUVRIRSSRVLWLRQ )RUWKH6HFRQGWKHRZQHUVFDQGHILQLWHO\XVHWKHVSDFHIRUQRQUHVLGHQWLDOHQGHDYRUV DVWKHVSDFHSHUPLWVDQG\LHOGUHDVRQDEOHUHWXUQVRQWKHLULQYHVWPHQW$QGILQDOO\IRUWKH7KLUGWKHUHGRQRWH[LVWDQ\ XQLTXHFLUFXPVWDQFHVWKDWUHTXLUHDFKDQJH²WKLVLVVHOIHYLGHQW 7KHVHDUHWKHVWDQGDUGVWKDW,KDYHEHHQSXWWKURXJKLQWKHSDVWDQG,EHOLHYHWKH\DUHUHDVRQDEOHKLJKTXDOLW\ VWDQGDUGVWKDWDJDLQDOODSSOLFDQWVVKRXOGKDYHWRPHHW3HUKDSV\RXKDYH\RXURZQOLVWFRGLILHGRURWKHUZLVHEXWWKHVH DUHWKHRQHV,¶YHHQFRXQWHUHGZLWKIUHTXHQF\ $JDLQLIDSSOLHGWKLV=RQLQJ&KDQJH5HTXHVWVKRXOGIDLO ,WKDQN\RXIRU\RXUWLPHDQGVHUYLFH 6LQFHUHO\ &KDUOHV-+DPE\0' 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 5RQ5XWKYHQ )URP %UDGOH\6DPDUJ\D 6HQW 7XHVGD\$XJXVW $0 7R 7RP%U\PHU &F 5RQ5XWKYHQ 7RZQ&RXQFLO%RDUGRI7UXVWHHV 6XEMHFW 5( 3OHDVHGHQ\]RQLQJUHTXHVWWRFOHDUFXWDQGOHYHORSHQVSDFHODQGLQ:HVWODNH ,ŝdŽŵ ZĞĂůůLJĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞLJŽƵƌŶŽƚĞĂŶĚLJĞƐ/ǁŝůůĚĞĨŝŶŝƚĞůLJĂƚƚĞŶĚĂŶĚǁŝůůůŝƐƚĞŶ͘WůĞĂƐĞŬŶŽǁƚŚĂƚĞdžĐĞƉƚĨŽƌŵŽǀŝŶŐƐŽŽŶƚŽ tĞƐƚůĂŬĞ/ŚĂǀĞŶŽƵůƚĞƌŝŽƌŵŽƚŝǀĞƐŚĞƌĞĂŶĚĂŵũƵƐƚǀĞƌLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚ͘tĞŵŽǀĞĚƚŽdĞdžĂƐĨƌŽŵ^ǁĞĚĞŶƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJĂŶĚ ĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶ^ŽƵƚŚůĂŬĞŚŽƉŝŶŐƚŽŵŽǀĞŝŶƚŽŽƵƌŶĞǁůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŚŽƵƐĞŝŶ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂŝŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͘/ ĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁĂŶLJŽŶĞLJĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƚŽǁŶŽƌƚŚĞůŽĐĂůŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͘WůĞĂƐĞŬŶŽǁŵĂŶLJĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞǀĞƌLJŶĞƌǀŽƵƐ ĂďŽƵƚDƌ͘tŝůďŽƌŶĂŶĚŚŝƐƉĂƐƚƚŝĞƐƚŽƚŚĞƚŽǁŶ͘,ĞŚĂƐĞŵĂŝůĞĚĂůůŽĨƵƐƌĞŵŝŶĚŝŶŐƵƐŽĨĂůůƚŚĞŵĂŶLJƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐŚĞŚĂƐ ŚĞůĚŝŶƚŽǁŶŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚǁŚŝĐŚ/ƚŚŝŶŬŝƐŵĂŬŝŶŐĞǀĞƌLJŽŶĞŵŽƌĞƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐŚĞŝƐƚƌLJŝŶŐƚŽƉƵƐŚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂnjŽŶŝŶŐ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚǁŚŝĐŚ/ĚŽŶŽƚƚŚŝŶŬŝƐĂŐŽŽĚŝĚĞĂŽŶŚŝƐƉĂƌƚ͘/ƚŚŽƵŐŚƚLJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚŬŶŽǁƚŚŝƐ͘ dǁŽƉŽŝŶƚƐ/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽŵĂŬĞƐŝŶĐĞďĞŝŶŐĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĞĚďLJŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨtĞƐƚůĂŬĞŽŶƚŚŝƐŵĂƚƚĞƌ͘ ϭ͘DĂŶLJŵĂŶLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƵƉƐĞƚĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐŝƐƐƵĞ͘KƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌǁŚŽƐƚĂŶĚƐƚŽŵĂŬĞŵŽŶĞLJ͕ƐŽĨĂƌ/ ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŚĞĂƌĚĨƌŽŵŽŶĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƚĂdžƉĂLJĞƌǁŚŽƚŚŝŶŬƐƚŚŝƐŝƐĂŐŽŽĚŝĚĞĂ͘ Ϯ͘dŚƌĞĂƌĞƌĞĂůůLJƚǁŽŝƐƐƵĞƐŚĞƌĞ xdŚĞĨŝƌƐƚŝƐƚŽŵĞďůĂĐŬĂŶĚǁŚŝƚĞ͘WĞŽƉůĞŚĂǀĞŵĂĚĞŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƉĂLJŝŶŐƉƌĞŵŝƵŵ ĨĞĞƐĨŽƌůŽƚƐǁŝƚŚƚƌĞĞƐĂŶĚǁŽŽĚƐŝŶƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚ;/ĂŵŶŽƚŽŶĞͿŝŶƚǁŽŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ ŵĂĚĞŵŽƌĞŵŽŶĞLJŽŶƚŚĞƐĞůŽƚƐĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐŚŝŐŚĞƌůŽƚƉƌŝĐĞƐĂƐƚŚĞLJŚĂǀĞƚƌĞĞĚďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚƐĂŶĚďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨ ƚŚĞĂƐƐƵƌĂŶĐĞƚŚĞƚŽǁŶƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚϱϬϬĨĞĞƚŽĨƐƉĂĐĞďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞƐ͘EŽŵĂƚƚĞƌǁŚĂƚĞůƐĞŵŝŐŚƚ ĞŶƚĞƌŝŶƚŽƚŚŝƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶLJŽƵĐĂŶŶŽƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞƚŚŝƐnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂƐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌǁĂŶƚƐƚŽƚĂŬĞƐŽŵĞ ŽĨƚŚĂƚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘dŚĞƚŽǁŶŶĞĞĚƐƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝƚƐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘/ĂŵƐƵƌĞŝĨĂŶLJLJŽƵǁĞƌĞŝŶƚŚĞƐĂŵĞ ƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŽŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůůLJLJŽƵǁŽƵůĚďĞƵƉƐĞƚĂƐǁĞůů͘/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƐĞĞŚŽǁƚŚĞƚŽǁŶĐŽƵůĚƉŽƐƐŝďůLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĞƚŚŝƐ ĐŚĂŶŐĞŝŶƐĞƚďĂĐŬǁŚĞŶŝƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐĂŶĚŝŶĨĂĐƚĂĚǀĞƌƐĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJƚŚŽƐĞŝŶƚǁŽŽĨLJŽƵƌůĂƌŐĞƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ xtŽƌƚŚĂĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶďLJĂůůŽĨLJŽƵŝƐŽǀĞƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨtĞƐƚůĂŬĞ͘WůĂŶŽŵŝŐŚƚďĞŵŝŶŐďƵƚ ^ŽƵƚŚůĂŬĞĂŶĚtĞƐƚůĂŬĞƌŝŐŚƚŶŽǁĂƌĞŽǀĞƌďƵŝůƚĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞĂůůĚƌŽƉƉŝŶŐƉƌŝĐĞƐǁŝƚŚďŝŐ ŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌŝĞƐŽĨŚŽŵĞƐĨŽƌƐĂůĞ͘/ŚĂǀĞƚĂůŬĞĚƚŽƌĞĂůƚŽƌƐĂŶĚŝƚŝƐĂďƵLJĞƌƐŵĂƌŬĞƚ͘DĂŶLJĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐ ĂƌĞŶŽƚƐĞůůŝŶŐ͘tŚLJ͍ĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŽǀĞƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚǁŝƚŚŶĞǁďƵŝůĚƐ͘/ƚŚŝŶŬǁĞƐŚŽƵůĚĂůůďĞ ǁŽƌƌŝĞĚĂďŽƵƚƚŽŽŵƵĐŚŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ͘tŚLJĂĚĚƚŽŝƚƌŝŐŚƚŶŽǁĂƐǁĞŶĞĞĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚŐƌŽǁƚŚ͘tŝůďŽƌŶ ĂŶĚtĞƐƚůĂŬĞƐŚŽƵůĚĨŽĐƵƐŽŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽƵƚ ŶƚƌĂĚĂĂŶĚ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂĂƐǁĞůůĂƐǁĞŚĂǀĞYƵĂŝů,ŽůůŽǁĂŶĚ sĂƋƵĞƌŽ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐƐŽŵƵĐŚĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůƌĞĂĚLJŝŶtĞƐƚůĂŬĞ͘/ĂŵŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐŽŵĞĚŝƐƚƵƌďŝŶŐ ƚŚŝŶŐƐ͘sĂƋƵĞƌŽĂŶĚ'ůĞŶǁŝĐŬĨĂƌŵƐĂƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƐƐƵĞƐƐĞůůŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐŶŽǁ͘ŚĞĐŬŽƵƚZĞĂůƚŽƌ͘ĐŽŵƚŽƐĞĞ ĂůůƚŚĞŚŽŵĞƐĂŶĚŚŽǁŵĂŶLJĚĂLJƐŽŶŵĂƌŬĞƚǁŝƚŚƌĞĚƵĐĞĚƉƌŝĐĞƐ͘ůƐŽ͕/ŬŶŽǁƐŽŵĞŽŶĞǁŚŽŚĂƐ ďŽƵŐŚƚŝŶYƵĂŝů,ŽůůŽǁǁŚŽŝƐŶŽǁŚŽůĚŝŶŐŽĨĨďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŽƌƌŝĞĚĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƐ ƚŚĞLJǁĞƌĞƚŽůĚŝƚǁĂƐƐĞůůŝŶŐĨĂƐƚŽŶůLJƚŽůĞĂƌŶƚŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚƚƌƵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚĞƌƐǁĞƌĞƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽƚƐƐŽ ƚŚĞLJƉƵƚĂůůĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉůĂŶƐŽŶŚŽůĚĨŽƌŶŽǁƚŽǁĂƚĐŚƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞƚ͘ ŶƚƌĂĚĂŝƐǁŽƌƌŝƐŽŵĞƚŽŵĞĂƐ ƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝƐƐůŽǁĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĂůŽƚŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƚŽƐĞůů͘dŚĞƐĞǁŝůůĐŽŵƉĞƚĞǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐŶĞǁ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƐǁĞůůǁŝƚŚĂůůŽĨƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘^ŽǁŚLJĚŽĞƐtĞƐƚůĂŬĞŶĞĞĚƚŽĂĚĚ ĞǀĞŶŵŽƌĞƐƉĂĐĞƌŝŐŚƚŶŽǁ͍/ƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĞƚŽǁŶŶĞĞĚƐƚŽĨŽĐƵƐŽŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŶŐǁŚĂƚŝƚŚĂƐƐƚĂƌƚĞĚĂŶĚĂůƐŽ ůŽŽŬƚŽƌĞďĂůĂŶĐĞƐƵƉƉůLJĂŶĚĚĞŵĂŶĚƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝƚƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJŚĞƌĞ͘͘ /ƌĞĂůůLJĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚŝŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐǁĞĂƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐĂŶŽƉĞŶĚŝĂůŽŐ͘/ƚŝƐŐƌĞĂƚLJŽƵƌĞĂĐŚĞĚŽƵƚƚŽŵĞĂŶĚ/ĐĂŶ ĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĞǁŝƚŚĂůůŽĨLJŽƵ͘dŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌůŝƐƚĞŶŝŶŐ͊ ƌĂĚĂŶĚĞďďŝĞ^ĂŵĂƌŐLJĂ &ƌŽŵ͗dŽŵƌLJŵĞƌŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ƚďƌLJŵĞƌΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐ ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϬϳ͕ϮϬϭϳϮ͗ϬϭWD dŽ͗ƌĂĚůĞLJ^ĂŵĂƌŐLJĂф х Đ͗ZŽŶZƵƚŚǀĞŶфƌƌƵƚŚǀĞŶΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖dŽǁŶŽƵŶĐŝůͬŽĂƌĚŽĨdƌƵƐƚĞĞƐфƚŽǁŶĐŽƵŶĐŝůΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z ͗WůĞĂƐĞĚĞŶLJnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŽĐůĞĂƌĐƵƚĂŶĚůĞǀĞůŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞůĂŶĚŝŶtĞƐƚůĂŬĞ 'HDU0UDQG0UV6DPDUJ\D 7KDQN\RXIRUOHWWLQJXVNQRZRI\RXUYLHZVRQWKLVPDWWHU,ZRXOGHQFRXUDJH\RXWRDWWHQGWKH SXEOLFPHHWLQJVRQWKLVDQGKHDUWKHDSSOLFDQWPDNHWKHLUFDVHIRUWKLVUH]RQLQJ7KLVUH]RQLQJKDV OLWHUDOO\MXVWEHHQIRUPDOO\³QRWLFHG´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¶UHFRQFHUQHGDERXWQRZ+RZHYHULWDSSHDUVE\ \RXUGHFLVLRQWREXLOGLQ*UDQDGD\RXIHHODGHTXDWHDWWHQWLRQWRDHVWKHWLFVDQGDPHQLWLHVOLNHWUDLOV ZHUHDWWHQGHGWRZKHQWKH*UDQDGD]RQLQJZDVJUDQWHGE\WKH7RZQ&RXQFLO:KDWHYHUWKH RXWFRPHLVRIWKLVQHZFDVH\RX¶UHFRQFHUQHGDERXW,IHHOFHUWDLQWKHVDPHDWWHQWLRQWRWKRVHLVVXHV VXFKDVDGMDFHQF\ODQGXVHDPHQLWLHVDQGDHVWKHWLFVZLOOEHJLYHQKHUHWRWKLVFDVHDVZHUHJLYHQ WR*UDQDGD ,I\RXKDYHIXUWKHUTXHVWLRQVSOHDVHFRQWDFWPHRU3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU5RQ5XWKYHQ UUXWKYHQ#ZHVWODNHW[RUJ Tom Brymer dŽǁŶDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕dŽǁŶŽĨtĞƐƚůĂŬĞ͕dy ^ƵƉĞƌŝŶƚĞŶĚĞŶƚ͕tĞƐƚůĂŬĞĐĂĚĞŵLJ &ƌŽŵ͗ƌĂĚůĞLJ^ĂŵĂƌŐLJĂ ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϬϰ͕ϮϬϭϳϭϮ͗ϬϳWD dŽ͗ZŽŶZƵƚŚǀĞŶфƌƌƵƚŚǀĞŶΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖dŽŵƌLJŵĞƌфƚďƌLJŵĞƌΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖>ĂƵƌĂtŚĞĂƚ фůǁŚĞĂƚΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖ůĞƐĂĞůǀĞĚĞƌĞфĂďĞůǀĞĚĞƌĞΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖DŝĐŚĂĞůĂƌƌĞƚƚфŵďĂƌƌĞƚƚΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲ ƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖tĂLJŶĞ^ƚŽůƚĞŶďĞƌŐфǁƐƚŽůƚĞŶďĞƌŐΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖ĂƌŽů>ĂŶŐĚŽŶфĐůĂŶŐĚŽŶΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх͖ZŝĐŬ ZĞŶŶŚĂĐŬфƌƌĞŶŶŚĂĐŬΛǁĞƐƚůĂŬĞͲƚdž͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗WůĞĂƐĞĚĞŶLJnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŽĐůĞĂƌĐƵƚĂŶĚůĞǀĞůŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞůĂŶĚŝŶtĞƐƚůĂŬĞ ,ĞůůŽ tĞĂƌĞƚŚĞ^ĂŵĂƌŐLJĂ͛Ɛ͘tĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJůŝǀĞŝŶ^ŽƵƚŚůĂŬĞĂŶĚŵĂĚĞƚŚĞĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƚŽŵŽǀĞƚŽtĞƐƚůĂŬĞĂŶĚďƵŝůĚĂŚŽŵĞŝŶ 'ƌĂŶĂĚĂ͘/ƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĨŝŶŝƐŚĞĚŝŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͘tĞĐŚŽƐĞtĞƐƚůĂŬĞĂƐŝƚŝƐƉƌĞƚƚLJ͕ŽƉĞŶĂŶĚƐĞĞŵƐƚŽŚĂǀĞĂƐŽůŝĚƉůĂŶ ĂƌŽƵŶĚŝƚƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐŚŝŐŚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĞĂůůĂƐĂƌĞĂŝƐĂnjŽŶŝŶŐŶŝŐŚƚŵĂƌĞŝŶƚŚĂƚŝƚŝƐƚƵƌŶŝŶŐŝŶƚŽ ŽŶĞŐŝĂŶƚƉŝĞĐĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁŝƚŚĞŶĚůĞƐƐƐƚƌŝƉŵĂůůƐ͘,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŽŶƚŽƉŽĨďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐǁŝƚŚŶŽƚƌĞĞƐŽƌŐƌĞĞŶƐƉĂĐĞŝƚĂůů ůŽŽŬƐƚŚĞƐĂŵĞ͘KƵƌŚŽƉĞǁĂƐƚŚĂƚtĞƐƚůĂŬĞǁŽƵůĚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĚŽƐŵĂƌƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂŐŽŽĚďĂůĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ ŶŽƚƚƵƌŶŽƵƌŶĞǁĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶƚŽ'ƌĂƉĞǀŝŶĞ͘ /ĂŵǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽLJŽƵĂƐ/ǁĂƐƐƚƵŶŶĞĚƚŽŚĞĂƌƚŚĂƚĂďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶƉƵƌƐƵŝƚŽĨƚŚĞĂůŵŝŐŚƚLJĚŽůůĂƌǁĂƐƉƵƌƐŝŶŐƚŽ ƌĞnjŽŶĞĂŶĚĐůĞĂƌĐƵƚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĞĂƐƚŽĨ'ƌĂŶĂĚĂĂŶĚEŽƌƚŚŽĨ'ůĞŶǁLJĐŬ&ĂƌŵƐĨŽƌƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞŵLJǁŝĨĞ ĂŶĚ/ƚŽƚĂůůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂŶĚĞdžƉĞĐƚLJŽƵƚŽƉůĞĂƐĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐŽĨLJŽƵƌĐŝƚŝnjĞŶƐĂŶĚƚĂdžƉĂLJĞƌƐŝŶĚĞŶLJŝŶŐ ŝƚ͘tĞŚŽƉĞƚŽĂůƐŽǀŽŝĐĞŽƵƌŽƉŝŶŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞƵƉĐŽŵŝŶŐƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚnjŽŶŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƚŽǁŶĐŽƵŶĐŝů ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘tĞƐƚůĂŬĞĂŶĚŝƚƐĐŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚĂǀĞĂĨŝĚƵĐŝĂƌLJƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚĞŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŬĞĞƉ tĞƐƚůĂŬĞƉƌŝƐƚŝŶĞĂŶĚďĞĂƵƚŝĨƵů͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐǁƌŽŶŐŝŶƐŽŵĂŶLJǁĂLJƐ͘&ŝƌƐƚǁĞĚŽŶŽƚǁĂŶƚůŽǁĞŶĚƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐŝŶtĞƐƚůĂŬĞ͘/ĨǁĞŵƵƐƚůŽƐĞ ǀĂůƵĂďůĞŐƌĞĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƚŚĞŶŶŝĐĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƌĞĂůĞƐƚĂƚĞŝƐƉƌĞĨĞƌĂďůĞĂƐŝƚŝƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚůLJnjŽŶĞĚ͘ŶĚĨŽƌƚŚĞůŝĨĞŽĨŵĞǁŚLJ ǁŽƵůĚĂŶLJŽŶĞĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƌĞǀŽŬĞƚŚĞϱϬϬĨŽŽƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬĂŶĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJĂŐƌĞĞĚ͕ĐůĞĂƌĐƵƚƚƌĞĞƐĂŶĚŚĞůƉ ƐŽŵĞƚŚŝƌĚƉĂƌƚLJŵĂŬĞŵŽŶĞLJŽŶƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐĂƚƚŚĞĞdžƉĞŶƐĞŽĨĂůůƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘/ĂŵŶŽƚƐƵƌĞǁŚĞƌĞLJŽƵůŝǀĞďƵƚ ǁŽƵůĚLJŽƵůŝŬĞƚŽǁĂŬĞƵƉƚŽĨŝŶĚĂƚŽǁŶŚŽƵƐĞŽƌǁĂƚĞƌƚŽǁĞƌƐƚĂƌŝŶŐĂƚLJŽƵŝŶLJŽƵƌďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚƐ͍KĨĐŽƵƌƐĞŶŽƚ͘dŚŝƐ ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŚƵƌƚƐŽƵƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǀĂůƵĞƐĂŶĚĂŶLJŽŶĞĞůƐĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐtĞƐƚůĂŬĞĂƐĂŚŽŵĞŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘/ ǁŽƵůĚďĞƐŚŽĐŬĞĚŝĨƚŚĞƚŽǁŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĞƐŝƚďƵƚĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůLJŵĂŶLJĂƌĞŶĞƌǀŽƵƐŝƚŝƐĞǀĞŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐŝƚĂŶĚĐĂƵƐŝŶŐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ůŝŬĞƵƐƚŽŚĂǀĞƚŽǁƌŝƚĞĞŵĂŝůƐĂŶĚĂƚƚĞŶĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ͘ WůĞĂƐĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƵƐĂƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƚĂdžƉĂLJĞƌƐ͘tĞƚƌƵƐƚLJŽƵƚŽŬĞĞƉŚĞůƉtĞƐƚůĂŬĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚǁĂLJĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚ ƵƐĨƌŽŵƚŚŽƐĞůŽŽŬŝŶŐƚŽŵĂŬĞĂƋƵŝĐŬďƵĐŬĂŶĚƚŚĞŶŵŽǀĞŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƚŽǁŶƚŽďƵŝůĚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƐƚƌŝƉŵĂůůŽƌůŽǁĞŶĚ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĞdž͘ DĂŶLJdŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌLJŽƵƌ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ͕ ƌĂĚĂŶĚĞďďŝĞ^ĂŵĂƌŐLJĂ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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 ,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHQHZO\UHYLVHG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDGRSWHGE\WKH 7RZQ&RXQFLOLQGHVLJQDWHVDV2SHQ6SDFHWKHZKROHDFUHWUDFWRIODQGRI ZKLFKWKH*OHQZ\FN>IRRW@6HWEDFNLVDSDUW6HH$WWDFKPHQW%$OWKRXJKFXUUHQW HQWLWOHPHQWVRQWKLVDFUHWUDFWDOORZGHYHORSPHQWthe 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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³SXVK>@IRUWKHVSDFHWRUHPDLQRSHQDQGXQLPSURYHGVKRXOGWKH GHYHORSHUUHTXHVWDQ\VRUWRI]RQLQJFKDQJH´,WLVQRWLQWKH7RZQ¶VRULWVFLWL]HQ¶VEHVWLQWHUHVW WRFRQWLQXHWRPDNHFRQFHVVLRQVWR%5(6RODQDDQGJHWQRWKLQJLQUHWXUQ,ILWZDVQRWFOHDU IURPWKHEHJLQQLQJLWLVDEXQGDQWO\FOHDUQRZWKDW%5(6RODQDLQWHQGVWR REWDLQFRQFHVVLRQ DIWHUFRQFHVVLRQIURPWKH7RZQZLWKWKHVROHJRDORIPD[LPL]LQJSURILWRQWKH³IOLS´RILWV SXUFKDVHRI0DJXLUH3DUWQHUV¶6RODQDRIILFHEXLOGLQJVRXWRIEDQNUXSWF\DQG JHWRXWRIWRZQ ,QIDFW%5(6RODQDLVDOUHDG\KDOIZD\RXWRIWRZQRQLWV³IOLS´DVLWKDVDOUHDG\VROG ³IOLSSHG´ 2Q-DQXDU\SXUVXDQWWRWKHDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDWKH7RZQ6WDII (GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW 3HWW\ WKHILUVW7RZQ0DQDJHUDQGQRZFRQVXOWDQWWRWKH7RZQ FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJHWR EHEXLOWZLWKLQ3'DIWHUDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDSee-DQXDU\(PDLOV%HWZHHQ(GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW3HWW\DWWDFKHGDV([KLELW0U(GZDUGVDQG0U3HWW\FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJH WREHVI7KXVDWPRVW%5(6RODQDFDQEXLOGRQO\VIRQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG WZRRILWVRIILFHEXLOGLQJV%5(6RODQDZLOOVRRQEHRXWRI:HVWODNHDQGRQWRLWVQH[WSURILW PD[LPL]LQJ³IOLS´ ,QDGGLWLRQWR%5(6RODQD¶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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJDVLWH[SHULHQFHVLQFUHDVLQJ DPRXQWVRIFRPPHUFLDODQGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH'LVWULFWLV PHDQWWREHSULPDULO\XQGHYHORSHGZLWKODQGPDUNODQGIRUPVRIWKH7RZQUHPDLQLQJLQ WKHLUQDWXUDOFRQGLWLRQWKHUHE\SUHVHUYLQJLPSRUWDQWYLHZVDVZHOODVQDWXUDODQGUXUDO VHWWLQJV 7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH H[SUHVVHG LQWHQWLRQV RI WKH 7RZQ &RXQFLO 3 = &RPPLVVLRQ DQG WKH 7RZQ¶VFLWL]HQVZKRDSSURYHGWKH/DQG8VH3ODQWRNHHSWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGXQGHYHORSHG DQGLQLWVQDWXUDOVWDWH$FFRUGLQJO\UHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH 'LVWULFWGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ 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. $OVRWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVFRQWUDU\WR7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQWKDWLVDSDUWRI WKH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQFDOOVIRUthe only&RPPXQLW\3DUNLQ WKH7RZQWREHORFDWHGRQWKH1RUWKKDOIRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGIn what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space) 7KHSURSRVHGIRRWVHWEDFNLVFRQWUDU\WRWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNRI3'DQG ZLOOUHVXOWLQSURSHUW\YDOXHORVV 7KHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHVHHNVWRFUHDWHDQHZ3'WKDWHOLPLQDWHVDOORIWKHGHYHORSPHQW UHJXODWLRQVRI3'$QLPSRUWDQWGHYHORSPHQWFRQGLWLRQLQ3'LPSRVHVDPLQLPXPVL]H RIIURQWVLGHDQGUHDU\DUGRIILYHKXQGUHGIHHW ¶ VHWEDFNIURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV6LPLODUO\ WKHUHH[LVWVDIRRWVHWEDFNLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH*UDQDGDVXEGLYLVLRQ7KHGHYHORSPHQW SODQDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHPRYHVWKH*OHQZ\FN)DUPVIRRW\DUG VHWEDFNDQGWKH*UDQDGDIRRWVHWEDFNDQGUHSODFHVWKHPZLWKDIRRWVHWEDFN3URSHUW\ RZQHUVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDLQYHVWHGVXEVWDQWLDOPRQHWDU\VXPVLQWKHLUODQGDQG LPSURYHPHQWVLQUHOLDQFHRQWKH7RZQ¶VLPSRVLWLRQRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDQGIRRW VHWEDFNZLWKH[HPSODU\*OHQZ\FN)DUPVUHVLGHQWVSD\LQJPXOWLSOHILJXUHSUHPLXPV HDFK WR SXUFKDVHWKHLUKRPHVWKDWDGMRLQWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFN 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.:KHQWKHOHDYHVDUH GRZQLQ)DOO:LQWHU(DUO\6SULQJWKHYLHZZLOOEHFOHDUDV\RXFDQVHHDOORIWKHZD\WRWKH NQROO KLOO DWIHHWDZD\ZLWKWKHOHDYHVGRZQ 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 VHHWKHUHGDUURZVEHORZ $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOOUHFDOOWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNZDV HVWDEOLVKHG LQ YLD 2UGLQDQFH DQG WKH WH[W DQG KLVWRU\ RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LWV VXFFHVVRUV DQG HYLGHQFHWKDWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHU 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. 'XULQJWKLVWLPHIRUPHU0D\RU%UDGOH\ZDV&KDLUPDQRIWKH3ODQQLQJDQG=RQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ 0D\RU%UDGOH\OHGWKH7RZQ¶VQHJRWLDWLRQVZLWK,%0WKHRZQHURIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDWWKH WLPH0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOWHVWLI\EHIRUHWKH3 =&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH7RZQ&RXQFLOWKDWKHKDG H[SUHVVDQGH[WHQVLYHGLVFXVVLRQVZLWKWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\FRQFHUQLQJWKHIDFWWKDWWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN LV D JUHHQVSDFH EXIIHU WKDW LV WR UHPDLQ XQWRXFKHG DQG XQGHYHORSHG 0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOIXUWKHUWHVWLI\WKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\EHOLHYHGWKDWWKHJUHHQVSDFH EXIIHUZRXOGSURYLGHYDOXHWR,%0¶VSURSHUWLHVE\SUHVHUYLQJRSHQVSDFH7KH3UHVLGHQWRI,%0 5HDOW\DOVREHOLHYHGWKDWWKH,%0GHYHORSPHQWZRXOGVHUYHDVDQH[HPSODU\GHYHORSPHQWIRU WKH7RZQRQKRZRSHQVSDFHZDVWREHSUHVHUYHGDQGKRZYLHZVKHGVVKRXOGEHUHWDLQHG LQFOXGLQJWKHNQROO KLOO 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG(DVWRI*UDQDGD7KLVLVHYLGHQFHGE\ WKHIDFWWKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\DJUHHGWRPRYHPLOOLRQVTXDUH\DUGVRIGLUWWR FUHDWHWKH0D\RU¶V+LOOLQRUGHUWRFUHDWHDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDQGYLHZVKHGWKDWGLGQRWDOUHDG\ H[LVW,QHIIHFW,%0FUHDWHGDVHFRQGNQROO KLOO WRWKH(DVW,%0GLGQRWQHHGWRGRWKLVWRWKH 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVEHFDXVHWKHQDWXUDONQROO KLOO DOUHDG\H[LVWHGDQGLWLVWKLVQDWXUDO NQROO KLOO WKDWWKHGHYHORSHUQRZVHHNVWRVKDYHGRZQE\IHHW $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOODOVRUHFDOO7UHQW3HWW\WKH7RZQ¶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³VHWEDFN´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r. 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. 7KH 7RZQ RI :HVWODNH KDV VHQW ZULWWHQ FRUUHVSRQGHQFH WR WKH *OHQZ\FN )DUPV GHYHORSHU DQG WR *OHQZ\FN )DUPV UHVLGHQWV FRQILUPLQJ WKDW ³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´PXVWRFFXURXWVLGHRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDUHD)RUH[DPSOHRQ1RYHPEHU 'HQQLV :LOVRQ 7RZQ 3ODQQHU VHQW D OHWWHU WR 'DYLG 0F0DKDQ DW )RXU 3HDNV 'HYHORSPHQW,QF WKHGHYHORSHURI*OHQZ\FN)DUPV LQZKLFK0U:LOVRQFRQILUPVWKDW³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXUIHHWDZD\IURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPVSee 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQWR'DYLG0F0DKDQDWWDFKHGDV([KLELW7KLV 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQ7RZQ3ODQQHUZDVDOVRGLVWULEXWHGWR*OHQZ\FN )DUPVUHVLGHQWVXSRQZKLFKWKH\UHOLHGLQSXUFKDVLQJWKHLUKRPHV,QDGGLWLRQRQ)HEUXDU\ 7RP%U\PHUFXUUHQW7RZQ0DQDJHUVHQWDOHWWHUWR3DW&RFNUXP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV UHVLGHQWOLNHZLVHFRQILUPLQJWKDW³DQ\GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXU IHHW DZD\ IURP *OHQZ\FN )DUPV See )HEUXDU\ /HWWHU IURP 7RP %U\PHU WR 3DW &RFNUXP DWWDFKHG DV ([KLELW 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. 7KH WH[W RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LV VXFFHVVRUV DQG WKH :HVWODNH&RGH FRQILUP WKH VDPH 6SHFLILFDOO\ZKLOHRWKHUFODXVHVUHIHUH[SUHVVO\WR³VHWEDFNV´WKHFODXVHWKDWFUHDWHVWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN KDV DOZD\V UHIHUHQFHG D IRRW ³\DUG´ +HUH WKH 7RZQ ZDV LWV RZQ OH[LFRJUDSKHU DQG SURYLGHG LWV RZQ GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH ZRUG ³\DUG´LQWKH:HVWODNH&RGHRI 2UGLQDQFHV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH:HVWODNH&RGHD³\DUG´LV³RSHQVSDFH´DQG³RSHQVSDFH´LV JUHHQVSDFHWKDWLV³UHODWLYHO\IUHHRIPDQPDGHVWUXFWXUHV>VXFKDVEXLOGLQJVDQGSDUNLQJORWV@ ZKHUH ZDWHU ERGLHV ODQG IRUPV >VXFK DV D NQROOKLOO@ DQG YHJHWDWLRQ >VXFK DV WUHHV@ SUHGRPLQDWH´ <DUG7KHZRUG³\DUG´VKDOOPHDQDQopen spaceRWKHUWKDQDFRXUWRQDORWXQRFFXSLHG DQGXQREVWUXFWHGIURPWKHJURXQGXSZDUGXQOHVVVSHFLILFDOO\RWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHGLQWKLV &RGH 2SHQ6SDFH7KHZRUGV³RSHQVSDFH´VKDOOPHDQWKDWODQGDUHDZKLFKLVrelativelyfree of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate :HVWODNH7;&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHV ,QVKRUWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDFFRUGLQJWR2UGLQDQFH DQGLWV VXFFHVVRUV WKH:HVWODNH&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHVDQGWKH7RZQ¶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¶V YLHZFRUULGRUVDQGVFHQLFWRSRJUDSK\WKH:HVWODNH7UDQVIHURI'HYHORSPHQW,QWHQVLW\ ³7',´ 2UGLQDQFH ZDV DGRSWHG 7KH 2SHQ 6SDFH /DQG LV LQ D 6HQGLQJ 'LVWULFW ZKHUH SHUPLWWHG GHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\VKRXOGEHWUDQVIHUUHGWRD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHIRUGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWKWKH LQWHQWRIWKH7',2UGLQDQFHWKDWVXFKGHYHORSPHQWRFFXULQD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW,QIDFWWKH 7',2UGLQDQFHLVGHVLJQHGWRWUDQVIHUWKHH[LVWLQJ3'SHUPLWWHGGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\RXWRI WKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG'LVWULFWThe 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. 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH:HVWODNH&RGH RI2UGLQDQFHV 2UGLQDQFH L ±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¶V &RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ GHVLJQHGWRSUHVHUYHYLHZFRUULGRUVDQGQDWLYHSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJVLVDEURJDWHGZLWK WKHGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWWKDWZLSHVRXWWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 2UGLQDQFH±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHIROORZLQJSXUSRVHVIRUWKH FUHDWLRQRIDSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQW 6XSHULRU GHVLJQ RI ORWV RU EXLOGLQJV LV QRW DFFRPSOLVKHG E\3' ZLWK ORW GLPHQVLRQVRI¶;¶DQGGHQVHXQLWVWKDWDUHLQFRPSDWLEOHZLWKH[LVWLQJ KRPHVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGD ,QFUHDVHG UHFUHDWLRQ DQGRU RSHQ VSDFH RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU SXEOLF XVH LV QRW SURYLGHGE\3'EHFDXVHH[LVWLQJFRQWLJXRXVXQGHYHORSHGRSHQVSDFHLVEHLQJ UHSODFHG E\ QRQFRQWLJXRXV RSHQ VSDFH VSUHDG EHWZHHQ GHQVH XQLWV SOXV ZRRGHQVWDLUVWRWKHWRSRI³0D\RU¶V+LOO´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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJ 7KHSURSRVHG3'GRHVQRWSURYLGHDQDSSURSULDWHEDODQFHEHWZHHQWKHLQWHQVLW\ RIGHYHORSPHQWDQGWKHDELOLW\WRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHVXSSRUWLQJSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHV DQGVHUYLFHVEHFDXVHGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\LVQRWWRRFFXULQWKLV2SHQ6SDFH /DQG'LVWULFWDQGLVWREHVHQWIURPWKLVDUHDWRUHFHLYLQJGLVWULFWVHOVHZKHUHLQWKH 7RZQ 2UGLQDQFH ±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWKWKHIROORZLQJWUHH SUHVHUYDWLRQSULQFLSOHV 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. 3' ZLOO QRW SURWHFW DQG LQFUHDVH WKH YDOXH RI UHVLGHQWLDO DQG FRPPHUFLDO SURSHUWLHV ZLWKLQ WKH 7RZQ EHFDXVH WKH 2SHQ 6SDFH /DQG 'LVWULFW OHIW XQGLVWXUEHGLQLWVQDWXUDOVWDWHLVZKDWSURWHFWVDQGLQFUHDVHVWKHYDOXHRIWKH UHVLGHQWLDODQGFRPPHUFLDOSURSHUWLHVLQWKH7RZQ 3'ZLOOQRWPDLQWDLQDQGHQKDQFHDSRVLWLYHLPDJHIRUWKHDWWUDFWLRQRIQHZ EXVLQHVVHVDQGUHVLGHQWVWRWKH7RZQWRWKHVDPHH[WHQWDVWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 'LVWULFWZLWKD&RPPXQLW\3DUNDPRQJWKHGHQVHWUHHVLQLWVQDWXUDOVWDWH 3'ZLOOQRWSURWHFWKHDOWK\PDWXUHWUHHVDQGSURPRWHWKHQDWXUDOHFRORJLFDO HQYLURQPHQWDODQGDHVWKHWLFTXDOLWLHVRIWKH7RZQDQGZLOOLQVWHDGGHVWUR\WKH KHDOWK\PDWXUHWUHHVLQWKLV2SHQ6SDFH/DQG'LVWULFW7KLV2SHQ6SDFH/DQG ZLOOEHFOHDUFXWIRUDQLQFRPSDWLEOHGHQVHGHYHORSPHQW 3'ZLOOQRWSUHVHUYHWKHUXUDOIRUHVWHGFKDUDFWHURIWKH7RZQDQGZLOOLQVWHDG UHVXOWLQWKHDQQLKLODWLRQRIWKHODVWWUXHSLHFHRIUXUDOIRUHVWHGODQGLQWKH7RZQ 7KLVLVZK\WKHODQGZDVGHVLJQDWHGDV2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWUHHPLWLJDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWV ,Q1RYHPEHUDWUHHVXUYH\RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGZDVSXUSRUWHGO\FRQGXFWHGE\WKH GHYHORSHU¶VFRQVXOWDQW.LPOH\+RUQZKHUHLQEDVHGXSRQDVDPSOLQJSURFHVVWUHHVLQFKHVDQG JUHDWHU LQ GLDPHWHU ZHUH WDJJHG DQG FRXQWHG 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” 7KHVXUYH\ZDVQRWVXEPLWWHGDVSDUWRIWKLVUHTXHVW6WDIIHVWLPDWHVWKDWWRWDOFRVWRI PLWLJDWLRQZRXOGEHVHYHUDOPLOOLRQGROODUVDWDPLQLPXP $XJXVW6WDII5HSRUWDW3DJH RIWKH$XJXVW3 =$JHQGDOne 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) $OWKRXJKWKH7RZQZDVQRWSURYLGHGZLWKDFRS\RIWKH.LPOH\+RUQVXUYH\WKHGHYHORSHU UHSUHVHQWVWKDWWKDWWKHVXUYH\GHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHUHZHUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHU DFUHRQWKH(DVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHDDQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHUDFUHRQWKH :HVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHD7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWZLOOEHRQWKH:HVWVLGHRIWKHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\DUHD3HUWKHGHYHORSHU¶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t is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 MillionThe 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.7KHGHYHORSHU¶VSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWVWKDW ³1R PLWLJDWLRQVKDOOEHUHTXLUHGRIDQ\LQGLYLGXDOORW(DFKORWVKDOOSODQWDWOHDVWWZRFDOLSHU LQFKWUHHVIURPDQDSSURYHGKDUGZRRGWUHHOLVW,IH[LVWLQJQDWLYHWUHHVDUHSUHVHUYHGLQWKHIURQW RUVWUHHWVLGHVLGH\DUGVWKH\FDQEHXWLOL]HGWRVDWLVI\WKHWUHHSODQWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWRQWKHORW´ )XUWKHU WKH GHYHORSHU SURSRVHV WZR DOWHUQDWLYHV WR IXUWKHU DGGUHVV PLWLJDWLRQ $OWHUQDWH $ FRQVLVWVGHGLFDWHGWUDLOKHDGSDUNLQJVSDFHVDVSDUWRIWKHH[LVWLQJDGMDFHQWSDUNLQJORWDZRRG VWDLUZD\LQWR³0D\RU¶V+LOO´SDVVLYHILWQHVVVWDWLRQVRQ³0D\RU¶V+LOO´DQGDSLFQLFDUHDRQ 0D\RU¶V+LOO$OWHUQDWH%FRQVLVWVRIGHHGLQJWRWKH7RZQODQGWKDWIURQWV6DP6FKRRO5RDG WKDWFDQEHXVHGIRUPXQLFLSDOSXUSRVHV EXWWKHPXQLFLSDOXVHZRXOGEHH[HPSWHGIURPWKH FXPXODWLYH3'FRYHUDJHWHVW 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHKDVDQHJDWLYHILQDQFLDOLPSDFWRQWKH7RZQ 7KHFXUUHQWSURSHUW\WD[UDWHIRUWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNHLV SHURIDVVHVVHGYDOXH $VVXPLQJWKDWHDFKRIWKHSURSRVHGXQLWVKDVDQDVVHVVHGYDOXHRI0WKHWRWDOSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHWRWKH7RZQLV+RZHYHUDFFRUGLQJWRYDULRXVVWXGLHVLQFOXGLQJ-HIIUH\ +'RRUPDQ¶VThe Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government 8QLYHUVLW\RI*HRUJLD DQG WKHCost of Community Services Studies ³&2&6´ SUHSDUHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ )DUPODQG7UXVWWKHFRVWWRSURYLGHSXEOLFVHUYLFHVIRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHH[FHHGVWKHSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHJHQHUDWHG,QSDUWLFXODULQWKH$PHULFDQ)DUPODQG7UXVWVWXG\WKHPHGLDQ&2&6 IRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHLVIRUHYHU\RISURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXH LQRWKHUZRUGVDQHW ORVV $FFRUGLQJO\DSSURYDORIWKHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHZRXOGOLNHZLVHUHVXOWLQDORVVIRUWKH 7RZQBased 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.0RUHRYHUZKLOHRISURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXHZRXOGEHJHQHUDWHGUHSUHVHQWLQJ RIWKHWRWDOSURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXH LQWKH)<:HVWODNH%XGJHWLV 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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¶V7UHH&LW\86$0HPEHUVKLSDQGWKH 7RZQ¶V9LVLRQ6WDWHPHQW ,QDGGLWLRQWKH]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWVKRXOGEHGHQLHGIRUDQHYHQPRUHIXQGDPHQWDOUHDVRQ EHIRUHWKH7RZQDQDO\]HVWKHVHSUREOHPVZLWKWKHUHTXHVW,QSDUWLFXODUWKHSURSHUW\RZQHU %ODFNVWRQH ³%5(6RODQD//&´ KDVUHSHDWHGO\DQGVWXEERUQO\UHIXVHGRYHUWKHODVW\HDUVWR PHHWZLWKWKH7RZQWRGLVFXVVD0DVWHU3ODQIRU%5(6RODQD¶VSURSHUWLHV2YHUWKHODVW\HDUV GR]HQVRIUHTXHVWVIRUVXFKDPHHWLQJKDYHEHHQPDGHE\WKH7RZQ6WDII 7RP%U\PHU(GGLH (GZDUGVDQG5RQ5XWKYHQ DQG0D\RU:KHDW$VWKH7RZQ&RXQFLODQG3ODQQLQJ =RQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQPHPEHUVDUHDZDUHWKH7RZQKDGDQHDUO\RSSRUWXQLW\WREULQJ%5(6RODQDWRWKH WDEOHZKHQLWZDQWHGWREXLOGDSDUNLQJJDUDJHDWRQHRIWKH6RODQDEXLOGLQJV'HVSLWHWKHIDFW WKDW%5(6RODQDFRQWLQXHGWRUHIXVHWRGLVFXVVD0DVWHU3ODQRXWRIJRRGIDLWKDQGZLWKWKHJRDO RIFKDQJLQJ%5(6RODQD¶VDWWLWXGHWKH7RZQDOORZHG%5(6RODQDWREXLOGWKHSDUNLQJJDUDJH WKDWLWZDQWHG$WWKDWWLPHthe 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 expressway7KH7RZQKDVHYHQRIIHUHGLQFHQWLYHVWR%5(6RODQDLQUHWXUQIRU%5(6RODQD 1BUBOE&SJO$PDLSVN #SPLFO#FOE%S 8FTUMBLF 59 EXLOGLQJLWVDOORZHGORWFRYHUDJHRQLWVPRUHYDOXDEOHSURSHUWLHVE\WKHH[SUHVVZD\7KH LQFHQWLYHVRIIHUHGE\WKH7RZQLQFOXGHSURYLGLQJ%5(6RODQDZLWKPRUHVTXDUHIRRWDJHWREH EXLOWEH\RQGWKHVIDOORZHGXQGHUWKHORWFRYHUDJHFDOFXODWLRQWUHHPLWLJDWLRQ FUHGLWVDQGUHOD[DWLRQRIVHWEDFNDQGEXLOGLQJKHLJKWUHVWULFWLRQV7RGDWH%5(6RODQDKDV FRQWLQXHGWRUHIXVHWRFRPHWRWKHWDEOH1RZWKDWD]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWLVSHQGLQJWKH7RZQ FDQILQDOO\LQVLVWRQWKH%5(6RODQD0DVWHU3ODQWKDWLVORQJRYHUGXHRQHWKDWZLOONHHSWKH VXEMHFW2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDVRSHQVSDFHSXUVXDQWWRWKH&RPSUHKHQVLYHDQG/DQG8VH3ODQV DQG SUHVHUYHWKHDELOLW\RIWKH7RZQWRSODFHDRQHRIDNLQGZRRGHG&RPPXQLW\3DUNRQWKH1RUWK KDOIRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGSXUVXDQWWRWKH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQ 7RWKLVHQGin a February 29, 2016 letter to the residents of Glenwyck Farms, Mayor Wheat, speaking as Mayor of the Town of Westlake and also expressly on behalf of the Town Council, represented that the Town would “push” for the Open Space Land to remain “open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change,” just as Wilbow, the developer, is doing now ,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHQHZO\UHYLVHG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDGRSWHGE\WKH 7RZQ&RXQFLOLQGHVLJQDWHVDV2SHQ6SDFHWKHZKROHDFUHWUDFWRIODQGRI ZKLFKWKH*OHQZ\FN>IRRW@6HWEDFNLVDSDUW6HH$WWDFKPHQW%$OWKRXJKFXUUHQW HQWLWOHPHQWVRQWKLVDFUHWUDFWDOORZGHYHORSPHQWthe 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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³SXVK>@IRUWKHVSDFHWRUHPDLQRSHQDQGXQLPSURYHGVKRXOGWKH GHYHORSHUUHTXHVWDQ\VRUWRI]RQLQJFKDQJH´,WLVQRWLQWKH7RZQ¶VRULWVFLWL]HQ¶VEHVWLQWHUHVW WRFRQWLQXHWRPDNHFRQFHVVLRQVWR%5(6RODQDDQGJHWQRWKLQJLQUHWXUQ,ILWZDVQRWFOHDU IURPWKHEHJLQQLQJLWLVDEXQGDQWO\FOHDUQRZWKDW%5(6RODQDLQWHQGVWR REWDLQFRQFHVVLRQ DIWHUFRQFHVVLRQIURPWKH7RZQZLWKWKHVROHJRDORIPD[LPL]LQJSURILWRQWKH³IOLS´RILWV SXUFKDVHRI0DJXLUH3DUWQHUV¶6RODQDRIILFHEXLOGLQJVRXWRIEDQNUXSWF\DQG JHWRXWRIWRZQ ,QIDFW%5(6RODQDLVDOUHDG\KDOIZD\RXWRIWRZQRQLWV³IOLS´DVLWKDVDOUHDG\VROG ³IOLSSHG´ 2Q-DQXDU\SXUVXDQWWRWKHDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDWKH7RZQ6WDII (GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW 3HWW\ WKHILUVW7RZQ0DQDJHUDQGQRZFRQVXOWDQWWRWKH7RZQ FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJHWR EHEXLOWZLWKLQ3'DIWHUDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDSee-DQXDU\(PDLOV%HWZHHQ(GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW3HWW\DWWDFKHGDV([KLELW0U(GZDUGVDQG0U3HWW\FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJH WREHVI7KXVDWPRVW%5(6RODQDFDQEXLOGRQO\VIRQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG WZRRILWVRIILFHEXLOGLQJV%5(6RODQDZLOOVRRQEHRXWRI:HVWODNHDQGRQWRLWVQH[WSURILW PD[LPL]LQJ³IOLS´ ,QDGGLWLRQWR%5(6RODQD¶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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJDVLWH[SHULHQFHVLQFUHDVLQJ DPRXQWVRIFRPPHUFLDODQGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH'LVWULFWLV PHDQWWREHSULPDULO\XQGHYHORSHGZLWKODQGPDUNODQGIRUPVRIWKH7RZQUHPDLQLQJLQ WKHLUQDWXUDOFRQGLWLRQWKHUHE\SUHVHUYLQJLPSRUWDQWYLHZVDVZHOODVQDWXUDODQGUXUDO VHWWLQJV 7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH H[SUHVVHG LQWHQWLRQV RI WKH 7RZQ &RXQFLO 3 = &RPPLVVLRQ DQG WKH 7RZQ¶VFLWL]HQVZKRDSSURYHGWKH/DQG8VH3ODQWRNHHSWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGXQGHYHORSHG DQGLQLWVQDWXUDOVWDWH$FFRUGLQJO\UHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH 'LVWULFWGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ 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. $OVRWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVFRQWUDU\WR7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQWKDWLVDSDUWRI WKH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQFDOOVIRUthe only&RPPXQLW\3DUNLQ WKH7RZQWREHORFDWHGRQWKH1RUWKKDOIRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGIn what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space) 7KHSURSRVHGIRRWVHWEDFNLVFRQWUDU\WRWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNRI3'DQG ZLOOUHVXOWLQSURSHUW\YDOXHORVV 7KHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHVHHNVWRFUHDWHDQHZ3'WKDWHOLPLQDWHVDOORIWKHGHYHORSPHQW UHJXODWLRQVRI3'$QLPSRUWDQWGHYHORSPHQWFRQGLWLRQLQ3'LPSRVHVDPLQLPXPVL]H RIIURQWVLGHDQGUHDU\DUGRIILYHKXQGUHGIHHW ¶ VHWEDFNIURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV6LPLODUO\ WKHUHH[LVWVDIRRWVHWEDFNLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH*UDQDGDVXEGLYLVLRQ7KHGHYHORSPHQW SODQDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHPRYHVWKH*OHQZ\FN)DUPVIRRW\DUG VHWEDFNDQGWKH*UDQDGDIRRWVHWEDFNDQGUHSODFHVWKHPZLWKDIRRWVHWEDFN3URSHUW\ RZQHUVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDLQYHVWHGVXEVWDQWLDOPRQHWDU\VXPVLQWKHLUODQGDQG LPSURYHPHQWVLQUHOLDQFHRQWKH7RZQ¶VLPSRVLWLRQRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDQGIRRW VHWEDFNZLWKH[HPSODU\*OHQZ\FN)DUPVUHVLGHQWVSD\LQJPXOWLSOHILJXUHSUHPLXPV HDFK WR SXUFKDVHWKHLUKRPHVWKDWDGMRLQWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFN 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.:KHQWKHOHDYHVDUH GRZQLQ)DOO:LQWHU(DUO\6SULQJWKHYLHZZLOOEHFOHDUDV\RXFDQVHHDOORIWKHZD\WRWKH NQROO KLOO DWIHHWDZD\ZLWKWKHOHDYHVGRZQ 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 VHHWKHUHGDUURZVEHORZ $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOOUHFDOOWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNZDV HVWDEOLVKHG LQ YLD 2UGLQDQFH DQG WKH WH[W DQG KLVWRU\ RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LWV VXFFHVVRUV DQG HYLGHQFHWKDWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHU 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. 'XULQJWKLVWLPHIRUPHU0D\RU%UDGOH\ZDV&KDLUPDQRIWKH3ODQQLQJDQG=RQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ 0D\RU%UDGOH\OHGWKH7RZQ¶VQHJRWLDWLRQVZLWK,%0WKHRZQHURIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDWWKH WLPH0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOWHVWLI\EHIRUHWKH3 =&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH7RZQ&RXQFLOWKDWKHKDG H[SUHVVDQGH[WHQVLYHGLVFXVVLRQVZLWKWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\FRQFHUQLQJWKHIDFWWKDWWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN LV D JUHHQVSDFH EXIIHU WKDW LV WR UHPDLQ XQWRXFKHG DQG XQGHYHORSHG 0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOIXUWKHUWHVWLI\WKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\EHOLHYHGWKDWWKHJUHHQVSDFH EXIIHUZRXOGSURYLGHYDOXHWR,%0¶VSURSHUWLHVE\SUHVHUYLQJRSHQVSDFH7KH3UHVLGHQWRI,%0 5HDOW\DOVREHOLHYHGWKDWWKH,%0GHYHORSPHQWZRXOGVHUYHDVDQH[HPSODU\GHYHORSPHQWIRU WKH7RZQRQKRZRSHQVSDFHZDVWREHSUHVHUYHGDQGKRZYLHZVKHGVVKRXOGEHUHWDLQHG LQFOXGLQJWKHNQROO KLOO 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG(DVWRI*UDQDGD7KLVLVHYLGHQFHGE\ WKHIDFWWKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\DJUHHGWRPRYHPLOOLRQVTXDUH\DUGVRIGLUWWR FUHDWHWKH0D\RU¶V+LOOLQRUGHUWRFUHDWHDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDQGYLHZVKHGWKDWGLGQRWDOUHDG\ H[LVW,QHIIHFW,%0FUHDWHGDVHFRQGNQROO KLOO WRWKH(DVW,%0GLGQRWQHHGWRGRWKLVWRWKH 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVEHFDXVHWKHQDWXUDONQROO KLOO DOUHDG\H[LVWHGDQGLWLVWKLVQDWXUDO NQROO KLOO WKDWWKHGHYHORSHUQRZVHHNVWRVKDYHGRZQE\IHHW $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOODOVRUHFDOO7UHQW3HWW\WKH7RZQ¶V ILUVW7RZQ0DQDJHUDQGFXUUHQWFRQVXOWDQWWRWKH7RZQOLNHZLVHFRQILUPHGWKDWWKHIRRW \DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDQGZDVWUHDWHGWKDWZD\E\WKHRZQHUVRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH /DQGERWK,%0DQGVXEVHTXHQWRZQHU0DJXLUH3DUWQHUV $V WKH 7RZQ 6WDII 3 = 0HPEHUV DQG 7RZQ &RXQFLO ZLOO DOVR UHFDOO *OHQZ\FN )DUPV KRPHEXLOGHU6FRWW6LPPRQVWHVWLILHGDWWKH-DQXDU\3 =+HDULQJ UHODWLQJWRWKHIL[RI WKH W\SRJUDSKLFDO HUURU LQ 2UGLQDQFH WKDW WKH 7RZQ RI :HVWODNH FRPPXQLFDWHG WR *OHQZ\FN )DUPV KRPHEXLOGHUV DQG WKH *OHQZ\FN )DUPV GHYHORSHU WKDW WKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFNLVWRUHPDLQDVXQGLVWXUEHGJUHHQVSDFHDQGLVQRWPHUHO\DEDUH³VHWEDFN´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r. 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. 7KH 7RZQ RI :HVWODNH KDV VHQW ZULWWHQ FRUUHVSRQGHQFH WR WKH *OHQZ\FN )DUPV GHYHORSHU DQG WR *OHQZ\FN )DUPV UHVLGHQWV FRQILUPLQJ WKDW ³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´PXVWRFFXURXWVLGHRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDUHD)RUH[DPSOHRQ1RYHPEHU 'HQQLV :LOVRQ 7RZQ 3ODQQHU VHQW D OHWWHU WR 'DYLG 0F0DKDQ DW )RXU 3HDNV 'HYHORSPHQW,QF WKHGHYHORSHURI*OHQZ\FN)DUPV LQZKLFK0U:LOVRQFRQILUPVWKDW³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXUIHHWDZD\IURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPVSee 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQWR'DYLG0F0DKDQDWWDFKHGDV([KLELW7KLV 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQ7RZQ3ODQQHUZDVDOVRGLVWULEXWHGWR*OHQZ\FN )DUPVUHVLGHQWVXSRQZKLFKWKH\UHOLHGLQSXUFKDVLQJWKHLUKRPHV,QDGGLWLRQRQ)HEUXDU\ 7RP%U\PHUFXUUHQW7RZQ0DQDJHUVHQWDOHWWHUWR3DW&RFNUXP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV UHVLGHQWOLNHZLVHFRQILUPLQJWKDW³DQ\GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXU IHHW DZD\ IURP *OHQZ\FN )DUPV See )HEUXDU\ /HWWHU IURP 7RP %U\PHU WR 3DW &RFNUXP DWWDFKHG DV ([KLELW 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. 7KH WH[W RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LV VXFFHVVRUV DQG WKH :HVWODNH&RGH FRQILUP WKH VDPH 6SHFLILFDOO\ZKLOHRWKHUFODXVHVUHIHUH[SUHVVO\WR³VHWEDFNV´WKHFODXVHWKDWFUHDWHVWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN KDV DOZD\V UHIHUHQFHG D IRRW ³\DUG´ +HUH WKH 7RZQ ZDV LWV RZQ OH[LFRJUDSKHU DQG SURYLGHG LWV RZQ GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH ZRUG ³\DUG´LQWKH:HVWODNH&RGHRI 2UGLQDQFHV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH:HVWODNH&RGHD³\DUG´LV³RSHQVSDFH´DQG³RSHQVSDFH´LV JUHHQVSDFHWKDWLV³UHODWLYHO\IUHHRIPDQPDGHVWUXFWXUHV>VXFKDVEXLOGLQJVDQGSDUNLQJORWV@ ZKHUH ZDWHU ERGLHV ODQG IRUPV >VXFK DV D NQROOKLOO@ DQG YHJHWDWLRQ >VXFK DV WUHHV@ SUHGRPLQDWH´ <DUG7KHZRUG³\DUG´VKDOOPHDQDQopen spaceRWKHUWKDQDFRXUWRQDORWXQRFFXSLHG DQGXQREVWUXFWHGIURPWKHJURXQGXSZDUGXQOHVVVSHFLILFDOO\RWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHGLQWKLV &RGH 2SHQ6SDFH7KHZRUGV³RSHQVSDFH´VKDOOPHDQWKDWODQGDUHDZKLFKLVrelativelyfree of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate :HVWODNH7;&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHV ,QVKRUWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDFFRUGLQJWR2UGLQDQFH DQGLWV VXFFHVVRUV WKH:HVWODNH&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHVDQGWKH7RZQ¶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¶V YLHZFRUULGRUVDQGVFHQLFWRSRJUDSK\WKH:HVWODNH7UDQVIHURI'HYHORSPHQW,QWHQVLW\ ³7',´ 2UGLQDQFH ZDV DGRSWHG 7KH 2SHQ 6SDFH /DQG LV LQ D 6HQGLQJ 'LVWULFW ZKHUH SHUPLWWHG GHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\VKRXOGEHWUDQVIHUUHGWRD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHIRUGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWKWKH LQWHQWRIWKH7',2UGLQDQFHWKDWVXFKGHYHORSPHQWRFFXULQD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW,QIDFWWKH 7',2UGLQDQFHLVGHVLJQHGWRWUDQVIHUWKHH[LVWLQJ3'SHUPLWWHGGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\RXWRI WKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG'LVWULFWThe 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. 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH:HVWODNH&RGH RI2UGLQDQFHV 2UGLQDQFH L ±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¶V &RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ GHVLJQHGWRSUHVHUYHYLHZFRUULGRUVDQGQDWLYHSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJVLVDEURJDWHGZLWK WKHGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWWKDWZLSHVRXWWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 2UGLQDQFH±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHIROORZLQJSXUSRVHVIRUWKH FUHDWLRQRIDSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQW 6XSHULRU GHVLJQ RI ORWV RU EXLOGLQJV LV QRW DFFRPSOLVKHG E\3' ZLWK ORW GLPHQVLRQVRI¶;¶DQGGHQVHXQLWVWKDWDUHLQFRPSDWLEOHZLWKH[LVWLQJ KRPHVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGD ,QFUHDVHG UHFUHDWLRQ DQGRU RSHQ VSDFH RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU SXEOLF XVH LV QRW SURYLGHGE\3'EHFDXVHH[LVWLQJFRQWLJXRXVXQGHYHORSHGRSHQVSDFHLVEHLQJ UHSODFHG E\ QRQFRQWLJXRXV RSHQ VSDFH VSUHDG EHWZHHQ GHQVH XQLWV SOXV ZRRGHQVWDLUVWRWKHWRSRI³0D\RU¶V+LOO´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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJ 7KHSURSRVHG3'GRHVQRWSURYLGHDQDSSURSULDWHEDODQFHEHWZHHQWKHLQWHQVLW\ RIGHYHORSPHQWDQGWKHDELOLW\WRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHVXSSRUWLQJSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHV DQGVHUYLFHVEHFDXVHGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\LVQRWWRRFFXULQWKLV2SHQ6SDFH /DQG'LVWULFWDQGLVWREHVHQWIURPWKLVDUHDWRUHFHLYLQJGLVWULFWVHOVHZKHUHLQWKH 7RZQ 2UGLQDQFH ±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWKWKHIROORZLQJWUHH SUHVHUYDWLRQSULQFLSOHV 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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¶VFRQVXOWDQW.LPOH\+RUQZKHUHLQEDVHGXSRQDVDPSOLQJSURFHVVWUHHVLQFKHVDQG JUHDWHU LQ GLDPHWHU ZHUH WDJJHG DQG FRXQWHG 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” 7KHVXUYH\ZDVQRWVXEPLWWHGDVSDUWRIWKLVUHTXHVW6WDIIHVWLPDWHVWKDWWRWDOFRVWRI PLWLJDWLRQZRXOGEHVHYHUDOPLOOLRQGROODUVDWDPLQLPXP $XJXVW6WDII5HSRUWDW3DJH RIWKH$XJXVW3 =$JHQGDOne 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) $OWKRXJKWKH7RZQZDVQRWSURYLGHGZLWKDFRS\RIWKH.LPOH\+RUQVXUYH\WKHGHYHORSHU UHSUHVHQWVWKDWWKDWWKHVXUYH\GHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHUHZHUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHU DFUHRQWKH(DVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHDDQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHUDFUHRQWKH :HVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHD7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWZLOOEHRQWKH:HVWVLGHRIWKHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\DUHD3HUWKHGHYHORSHU¶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t is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 MillionThe 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.7KHGHYHORSHU¶VSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWVWKDW ³1R PLWLJDWLRQVKDOOEHUHTXLUHGRIDQ\LQGLYLGXDOORW(DFKORWVKDOOSODQWDWOHDVWWZRFDOLSHU LQFKWUHHVIURPDQDSSURYHGKDUGZRRGWUHHOLVW,IH[LVWLQJQDWLYHWUHHVDUHSUHVHUYHGLQWKHIURQW RUVWUHHWVLGHVLGH\DUGVWKH\FDQEHXWLOL]HGWRVDWLVI\WKHWUHHSODQWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWRQWKHORW´ )XUWKHU WKH GHYHORSHU SURSRVHV WZR DOWHUQDWLYHV WR IXUWKHU DGGUHVV PLWLJDWLRQ $OWHUQDWH $ FRQVLVWVGHGLFDWHGWUDLOKHDGSDUNLQJVSDFHVDVSDUWRIWKHH[LVWLQJDGMDFHQWSDUNLQJORWDZRRG VWDLUZD\LQWR³0D\RU¶V+LOO´SDVVLYHILWQHVVVWDWLRQVRQ³0D\RU¶V+LOO´DQGDSLFQLFDUHDRQ 0D\RU¶V+LOO$OWHUQDWH%FRQVLVWVRIGHHGLQJWRWKH7RZQODQGWKDWIURQWV6DP6FKRRO5RDG WKDWFDQEHXVHGIRUPXQLFLSDOSXUSRVHV EXWWKHPXQLFLSDOXVHZRXOGEHH[HPSWHGIURPWKH FXPXODWLYH3'FRYHUDJHWHVW 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHKDVDQHJDWLYHILQDQFLDOLPSDFWRQWKH7RZQ 7KHFXUUHQWSURSHUW\WD[UDWHIRUWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNHLV SHURIDVVHVVHGYDOXH $VVXPLQJWKDWHDFKRIWKHSURSRVHGXQLWVKDVDQDVVHVVHGYDOXHRI0WKHWRWDOSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHWRWKH7RZQLV+RZHYHUDFFRUGLQJWRYDULRXVVWXGLHVLQFOXGLQJ-HIIUH\ +'RRUPDQ¶VThe Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government 8QLYHUVLW\RI*HRUJLD DQG WKHCost of Community Services Studies ³&2&6´ SUHSDUHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ )DUPODQG7UXVWWKHFRVWWRSURYLGHSXEOLFVHUYLFHVIRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHH[FHHGVWKHSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHJHQHUDWHG,QSDUWLFXODULQWKH$PHULFDQ)DUPODQG7UXVWVWXG\WKHPHGLDQ&2&6 IRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHLVIRUHYHU\RISURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXH LQRWKHUZRUGVDQHW ORVV $FFRUGLQJO\DSSURYDORIWKHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHZRXOGOLNHZLVHUHVXOWLQDORVVIRUWKH 7RZQBased 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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¶V7UHH&LW\86$0HPEHUVKLSDQGWKH 7RZQ¶V9LVLRQ6WDWHPHQW ,QDGGLWLRQWKH]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWVKRXOGEHGHQLHGIRUDQHYHQPRUHIXQGDPHQWDOUHDVRQ EHIRUHWKH7RZQDQDO\]HVWKHVHSUREOHPVZLWKWKHUHTXHVW,QSDUWLFXODUWKHSURSHUW\RZQHU %ODFNVWRQH ³%5(6RODQD//&´ KDVUHSHDWHGO\DQGVWXEERUQO\UHIXVHGRYHUWKHODVW\HDUVWR PHHWZLWKWKH7RZQWRGLVFXVVD0DVWHU3ODQIRU%5(6RODQD¶VSURSHUWLHV2YHUWKHODVW\HDUV GR]HQVRIUHTXHVWVIRUVXFKDPHHWLQJKDYHEHHQPDGHE\WKH7RZQ6WDII 7RP%U\PHU(GGLH (GZDUGVDQG5RQ5XWKYHQ DQG0D\RU:KHDW$VWKH7RZQ&RXQFLODQG3ODQQLQJ =RQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQPHPEHUVDUHDZDUHWKH7RZQKDGDQHDUO\RSSRUWXQLW\WREULQJ%5(6RODQDWRWKH WDEOHZKHQLWZDQWHGWREXLOGDSDUNLQJJDUDJHDWRQHRIWKH6RODQDEXLOGLQJV'HVSLWHWKHIDFW WKDW%5(6RODQDFRQWLQXHGWRUHIXVHWRGLVFXVVD0DVWHU3ODQRXWRIJRRGIDLWKDQGZLWKWKHJRDO RIFKDQJLQJ%5(6RODQD¶VDWWLWXGHWKH7RZQDOORZHG%5(6RODQDWREXLOGWKHSDUNLQJJDUDJH WKDWLWZDQWHG$WWKDWWLPHthe 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 expressway7KH7RZQKDVHYHQRIIHUHGLQFHQWLYHVWR%5(6RODQDLQUHWXUQIRU%5(6RODQD /PMBO30HEFOBOE&SJO%+FXFM #SPLFO#FOE%SJWF 8FTUMBLF 59 EXLOGLQJLWVDOORZHGORWFRYHUDJHRQLWVPRUHYDOXDEOHSURSHUWLHVE\WKHH[SUHVVZD\7KH LQFHQWLYHVRIIHUHGE\WKH7RZQLQFOXGHSURYLGLQJ%5(6RODQDZLWKPRUHVTXDUHIRRWDJHWREH EXLOWEH\RQGWKHVIDOORZHGXQGHUWKHORWFRYHUDJHFDOFXODWLRQWUHHPLWLJDWLRQ FUHGLWVDQGUHOD[DWLRQRIVHWEDFNDQGEXLOGLQJKHLJKWUHVWULFWLRQV7RGDWH%5(6RODQDKDV FRQWLQXHGWRUHIXVHWRFRPHWRWKHWDEOH1RZWKDWD]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWLVSHQGLQJWKH7RZQ FDQILQDOO\LQVLVWRQWKH%5(6RODQD0DVWHU3ODQWKDWLVORQJRYHUGXHRQHWKDWZLOONHHSWKH VXEMHFW2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDVRSHQVSDFHSXUVXDQWWRWKH&RPSUHKHQVLYHDQG/DQG8VH3ODQV DQG SUHVHUYHWKHDELOLW\RIWKH7RZQWRSODFHDRQHRIDNLQGZRRGHG&RPPXQLW\3DUNRQWKH1RUWK KDOIRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGSXUVXDQWWRWKH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQ 7RWKLVHQGin 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 ,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHQHZO\UHYLVHG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDGRSWHGE\WKH 7RZQ&RXQFLOLQGHVLJQDWHVDV2SHQ6SDFHWKHZKROHDFUHWUDFWRIODQGRI ZKLFKWKH*OHQZ\FN>IRRW@6HWEDFNLVDSDUW6HH$WWDFKPHQW%$OWKRXJKFXUUHQW HQWLWOHPHQWVRQWKLVDFUHWUDFWDOORZGHYHORSPHQWthe 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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³SXVK>@IRUWKHVSDFHWRUHPDLQRSHQDQGXQLPSURYHGVKRXOGWKH GHYHORSHUUHTXHVWDQ\VRUWRI]RQLQJFKDQJH´,WLVQRWLQWKH7RZQ¶VRULWVFLWL]HQ¶VEHVWLQWHUHVW WRFRQWLQXHWRPDNHFRQFHVVLRQVWR%5(6RODQDDQGJHWQRWKLQJLQUHWXUQ,ILWZDVQRWFOHDU IURPWKHEHJLQQLQJLWLVDEXQGDQWO\FOHDUQRZWKDW%5(6RODQDLQWHQGVWR REWDLQFRQFHVVLRQ DIWHUFRQFHVVLRQIURPWKH7RZQZLWKWKHVROHJRDORIPD[LPL]LQJSURILWRQWKH³IOLS´RILWV SXUFKDVHRI0DJXLUH3DUWQHUV¶6RODQDRIILFHEXLOGLQJVRXWRIEDQNUXSWF\DQG JHWRXWRIWRZQ ,QIDFW%5(6RODQDLVDOUHDG\KDOIZD\RXWRIWRZQRQLWV³IOLS´DVLWKDVDOUHDG\VROG ³IOLSSHG´ 2Q-DQXDU\SXUVXDQWWRWKHDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDWKH7RZQ6WDII (GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW 3HWW\ WKHILUVW7RZQ0DQDJHUDQGQRZFRQVXOWDQWWRWKH7RZQ FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJHWR EHEXLOWZLWKLQ3'DIWHUDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDSee-DQXDU\(PDLOV%HWZHHQ(GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW3HWW\DWWDFKHGDV([KLELW0U(GZDUGVDQG0U3HWW\FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJH WREHVI7KXVDWPRVW%5(6RODQDFDQEXLOGRQO\VIRQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG WZRRILWVRIILFHEXLOGLQJV%5(6RODQDZLOOVRRQEHRXWRI:HVWODNHDQGRQWRLWVQH[WSURILW PD[LPL]LQJ³IOLS´ ,QDGGLWLRQWR%5(6RODQD¶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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJDVLWH[SHULHQFHVLQFUHDVLQJ DPRXQWVRIFRPPHUFLDODQGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH'LVWULFWLV PHDQWWREHSULPDULO\XQGHYHORSHGZLWKODQGPDUNODQGIRUPVRIWKH7RZQUHPDLQLQJLQ WKHLUQDWXUDOFRQGLWLRQWKHUHE\SUHVHUYLQJLPSRUWDQWYLHZVDVZHOODVQDWXUDODQGUXUDO VHWWLQJV 7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH H[SUHVVHG LQWHQWLRQV RI WKH 7RZQ &RXQFLO 3 = &RPPLVVLRQ DQG WKH 7RZQ¶VFLWL]HQVZKRDSSURYHGWKH/DQG8VH3ODQWRNHHSWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGXQGHYHORSHG DQGLQLWVQDWXUDOVWDWH$FFRUGLQJO\UHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH 'LVWULFWGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ 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. $OVRWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVFRQWUDU\WR7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQWKDWLVDSDUWRI WKH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQFDOOVIRUthe only&RPPXQLW\3DUNLQ WKH7RZQWREHORFDWHGRQWKH1RUWKKDOIRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGIn what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space) 7KHSURSRVHGIRRWVHWEDFNLVFRQWUDU\WRWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNRI3'DQG ZLOOUHVXOWLQSURSHUW\YDOXHORVV 7KHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHVHHNVWRFUHDWHDQHZ3'WKDWHOLPLQDWHVDOORIWKHGHYHORSPHQW UHJXODWLRQVRI3'$QLPSRUWDQWGHYHORSPHQWFRQGLWLRQLQ3'LPSRVHVDPLQLPXPVL]H RIIURQWVLGHDQGUHDU\DUGRIILYHKXQGUHGIHHW ¶ VHWEDFNIURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV6LPLODUO\ WKHUHH[LVWVDIRRWVHWEDFNLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH*UDQDGDVXEGLYLVLRQ7KHGHYHORSPHQW SODQDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHPRYHVWKH*OHQZ\FN)DUPVIRRW\DUG VHWEDFNDQGWKH*UDQDGDIRRWVHWEDFNDQGUHSODFHVWKHPZLWKDIRRWVHWEDFN3URSHUW\ RZQHUVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDLQYHVWHGVXEVWDQWLDOPRQHWDU\VXPVLQWKHLUODQGDQG LPSURYHPHQWVLQUHOLDQFHRQWKH7RZQ¶VLPSRVLWLRQRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDQGIRRW VHWEDFNZLWKH[HPSODU\*OHQZ\FN)DUPVUHVLGHQWVSD\LQJPXOWLSOHILJXUHSUHPLXPV HDFK WR SXUFKDVHWKHLUKRPHVWKDWDGMRLQWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFN 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.:KHQWKHOHDYHVDUH GRZQLQ)DOO:LQWHU(DUO\6SULQJWKHYLHZZLOOEHFOHDUDV\RXFDQVHHDOORIWKHZD\WRWKH NQROO KLOO DWIHHWDZD\ZLWKWKHOHDYHVGRZQ 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 VHHWKHUHGDUURZVEHORZ $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOOUHFDOOWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNZDV HVWDEOLVKHG LQ YLD 2UGLQDQFH DQG WKH WH[W DQG KLVWRU\ RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LWV VXFFHVVRUV DQG HYLGHQFHWKDWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHU 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. 'XULQJWKLVWLPHIRUPHU0D\RU%UDGOH\ZDV&KDLUPDQRIWKH3ODQQLQJDQG=RQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ 0D\RU%UDGOH\OHGWKH7RZQ¶VQHJRWLDWLRQVZLWK,%0WKHRZQHURIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDWWKH WLPH0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOWHVWLI\EHIRUHWKH3 =&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH7RZQ&RXQFLOWKDWKHKDG H[SUHVVDQGH[WHQVLYHGLVFXVVLRQVZLWKWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\FRQFHUQLQJWKHIDFWWKDWWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN LV D JUHHQVSDFH EXIIHU WKDW LV WR UHPDLQ XQWRXFKHG DQG XQGHYHORSHG 0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOIXUWKHUWHVWLI\WKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\EHOLHYHGWKDWWKHJUHHQVSDFH EXIIHUZRXOGSURYLGHYDOXHWR,%0¶VSURSHUWLHVE\SUHVHUYLQJRSHQVSDFH7KH3UHVLGHQWRI,%0 5HDOW\DOVREHOLHYHGWKDWWKH,%0GHYHORSPHQWZRXOGVHUYHDVDQH[HPSODU\GHYHORSPHQWIRU WKH7RZQRQKRZRSHQVSDFHZDVWREHSUHVHUYHGDQGKRZYLHZVKHGVVKRXOGEHUHWDLQHG LQFOXGLQJWKHNQROO KLOO 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG(DVWRI*UDQDGD7KLVLVHYLGHQFHGE\ WKHIDFWWKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\DJUHHGWRPRYHPLOOLRQVTXDUH\DUGVRIGLUWWR FUHDWHWKH0D\RU¶V+LOOLQRUGHUWRFUHDWHDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDQGYLHZVKHGWKDWGLGQRWDOUHDG\ H[LVW,QHIIHFW,%0FUHDWHGDVHFRQGNQROO KLOO WRWKH(DVW,%0GLGQRWQHHGWRGRWKLVWRWKH 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVEHFDXVHWKHQDWXUDONQROO KLOO DOUHDG\H[LVWHGDQGLWLVWKLVQDWXUDO NQROO KLOO WKDWWKHGHYHORSHUQRZVHHNVWRVKDYHGRZQE\IHHW $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOODOVRUHFDOO7UHQW3HWW\WKH7RZQ¶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³VHWEDFN´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r. 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. 7KH 7RZQ RI :HVWODNH KDV VHQW ZULWWHQ FRUUHVSRQGHQFH WR WKH *OHQZ\FN )DUPV GHYHORSHU DQG WR *OHQZ\FN )DUPV UHVLGHQWV FRQILUPLQJ WKDW ³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´PXVWRFFXURXWVLGHRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDUHD)RUH[DPSOHRQ1RYHPEHU 'HQQLV :LOVRQ 7RZQ 3ODQQHU VHQW D OHWWHU WR 'DYLG 0F0DKDQ DW )RXU 3HDNV 'HYHORSPHQW,QF WKHGHYHORSHURI*OHQZ\FN)DUPV LQZKLFK0U:LOVRQFRQILUPVWKDW³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXUIHHWDZD\IURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPVSee 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQWR'DYLG0F0DKDQDWWDFKHGDV([KLELW7KLV 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQ7RZQ3ODQQHUZDVDOVRGLVWULEXWHGWR*OHQZ\FN )DUPVUHVLGHQWVXSRQZKLFKWKH\UHOLHGLQSXUFKDVLQJWKHLUKRPHV,QDGGLWLRQRQ)HEUXDU\ 7RP%U\PHUFXUUHQW7RZQ0DQDJHUVHQWDOHWWHUWR3DW&RFNUXP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV UHVLGHQWOLNHZLVHFRQILUPLQJWKDW³DQ\GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXU IHHW DZD\ IURP *OHQZ\FN )DUPV See )HEUXDU\ /HWWHU IURP 7RP %U\PHU WR 3DW &RFNUXP DWWDFKHG DV ([KLELW 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. 7KH WH[W RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LV VXFFHVVRUV DQG WKH :HVWODNH&RGH FRQILUP WKH VDPH 6SHFLILFDOO\ZKLOHRWKHUFODXVHVUHIHUH[SUHVVO\WR³VHWEDFNV´WKHFODXVHWKDWFUHDWHVWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN KDV DOZD\V UHIHUHQFHG D IRRW ³\DUG´ +HUH WKH 7RZQ ZDV LWV RZQ OH[LFRJUDSKHU DQG SURYLGHG LWV RZQ GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH ZRUG ³\DUG´LQWKH:HVWODNH&RGHRI 2UGLQDQFHV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH:HVWODNH&RGHD³\DUG´LV³RSHQVSDFH´DQG³RSHQVSDFH´LV JUHHQVSDFHWKDWLV³UHODWLYHO\IUHHRIPDQPDGHVWUXFWXUHV>VXFKDVEXLOGLQJVDQGSDUNLQJORWV@ ZKHUH ZDWHU ERGLHV ODQG IRUPV >VXFK DV D NQROOKLOO@ DQG YHJHWDWLRQ >VXFK DV WUHHV@ SUHGRPLQDWH´ <DUG7KHZRUG³\DUG´VKDOOPHDQDQopen spaceRWKHUWKDQDFRXUWRQDORWXQRFFXSLHG DQGXQREVWUXFWHGIURPWKHJURXQGXSZDUGXQOHVVVSHFLILFDOO\RWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHGLQWKLV &RGH 2SHQ6SDFH7KHZRUGV³RSHQVSDFH´VKDOOPHDQWKDWODQGDUHDZKLFKLVrelativelyfree of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate :HVWODNH7;&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHV ,QVKRUWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDFFRUGLQJWR2UGLQDQFH DQGLWV VXFFHVVRUV WKH:HVWODNH&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHVDQGWKH7RZQ¶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¶V YLHZFRUULGRUVDQGVFHQLFWRSRJUDSK\WKH:HVWODNH7UDQVIHURI'HYHORSPHQW,QWHQVLW\ ³7',´ 2UGLQDQFH ZDV DGRSWHG 7KH 2SHQ 6SDFH /DQG LV LQ D 6HQGLQJ 'LVWULFW ZKHUH SHUPLWWHG GHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\VKRXOGEHWUDQVIHUUHGWRD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHIRUGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWKWKH LQWHQWRIWKH7',2UGLQDQFHWKDWVXFKGHYHORSPHQWRFFXULQD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW,QIDFWWKH 7',2UGLQDQFHLVGHVLJQHGWRWUDQVIHUWKHH[LVWLQJ3'SHUPLWWHGGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\RXWRI WKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG'LVWULFWThe 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. 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH:HVWODNH&RGH RI2UGLQDQFHV 2UGLQDQFH L ±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¶V &RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ GHVLJQHGWRSUHVHUYHYLHZFRUULGRUVDQGQDWLYHSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJVLVDEURJDWHGZLWK WKHGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWWKDWZLSHVRXWWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 2UGLQDQFH±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHIROORZLQJSXUSRVHVIRUWKH FUHDWLRQRIDSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQW 6XSHULRU GHVLJQ RI ORWV RU EXLOGLQJV LV QRW DFFRPSOLVKHG E\3' ZLWK ORW GLPHQVLRQVRI¶;¶DQGGHQVHXQLWVWKDWDUHLQFRPSDWLEOHZLWKH[LVWLQJ KRPHVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGD ,QFUHDVHG UHFUHDWLRQ DQGRU RSHQ VSDFH RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU SXEOLF XVH LV QRW SURYLGHGE\3'EHFDXVHH[LVWLQJFRQWLJXRXVXQGHYHORSHGRSHQVSDFHLVEHLQJ UHSODFHG E\ QRQFRQWLJXRXV RSHQ VSDFH VSUHDG EHWZHHQ GHQVH XQLWV SOXV ZRRGHQVWDLUVWRWKHWRSRI³0D\RU¶V+LOO´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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJ 7KHSURSRVHG3'GRHVQRWSURYLGHDQDSSURSULDWHEDODQFHEHWZHHQWKHLQWHQVLW\ RIGHYHORSPHQWDQGWKHDELOLW\WRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHVXSSRUWLQJSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHV DQGVHUYLFHVEHFDXVHGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\LVQRWWRRFFXULQWKLV2SHQ6SDFH /DQG'LVWULFWDQGLVWREHVHQWIURPWKLVDUHDWRUHFHLYLQJGLVWULFWVHOVHZKHUHLQWKH 7RZQ 2UGLQDQFH ±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWKWKHIROORZLQJWUHH SUHVHUYDWLRQSULQFLSOHV 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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¶VFRQVXOWDQW.LPOH\+RUQZKHUHLQEDVHGXSRQDVDPSOLQJSURFHVVWUHHVLQFKHVDQG JUHDWHU LQ GLDPHWHU ZHUH WDJJHG DQG FRXQWHG 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” 7KHVXUYH\ZDVQRWVXEPLWWHGDVSDUWRIWKLVUHTXHVW6WDIIHVWLPDWHVWKDWWRWDOFRVWRI PLWLJDWLRQZRXOGEHVHYHUDOPLOOLRQGROODUVDWDPLQLPXP $XJXVW6WDII5HSRUWDW3DJH RIWKH$XJXVW3 =$JHQGDOne 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) $OWKRXJKWKH7RZQZDVQRWSURYLGHGZLWKDFRS\RIWKH.LPOH\+RUQVXUYH\WKHGHYHORSHU UHSUHVHQWVWKDWWKDWWKHVXUYH\GHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHUHZHUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHU DFUHRQWKH(DVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHDDQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHUDFUHRQWKH :HVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHD7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWZLOOEHRQWKH:HVWVLGHRIWKHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\DUHD3HUWKHGHYHORSHU¶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t is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 MillionThe 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.7KHGHYHORSHU¶VSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWVWKDW ³1R PLWLJDWLRQVKDOOEHUHTXLUHGRIDQ\LQGLYLGXDOORW(DFKORWVKDOOSODQWDWOHDVWWZRFDOLSHU LQFKWUHHVIURPDQDSSURYHGKDUGZRRGWUHHOLVW,IH[LVWLQJQDWLYHWUHHVDUHSUHVHUYHGLQWKHIURQW RUVWUHHWVLGHVLGH\DUGVWKH\FDQEHXWLOL]HGWRVDWLVI\WKHWUHHSODQWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWRQWKHORW´ )XUWKHU WKH GHYHORSHU SURSRVHV WZR DOWHUQDWLYHV WR IXUWKHU DGGUHVV PLWLJDWLRQ $OWHUQDWH $ FRQVLVWVGHGLFDWHGWUDLOKHDGSDUNLQJVSDFHVDVSDUWRIWKHH[LVWLQJDGMDFHQWSDUNLQJORWDZRRG VWDLUZD\LQWR³0D\RU¶V+LOO´SDVVLYHILWQHVVVWDWLRQVRQ³0D\RU¶V+LOO´DQGDSLFQLFDUHDRQ 0D\RU¶V+LOO$OWHUQDWH%FRQVLVWVRIGHHGLQJWRWKH7RZQODQGWKDWIURQWV6DP6FKRRO5RDG WKDWFDQEHXVHGIRUPXQLFLSDOSXUSRVHV EXWWKHPXQLFLSDOXVHZRXOGEHH[HPSWHGIURPWKH FXPXODWLYH3'FRYHUDJHWHVW 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHKDVDQHJDWLYHILQDQFLDOLPSDFWRQWKH7RZQ 7KHFXUUHQWSURSHUW\WD[UDWHIRUWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNHLV SHURIDVVHVVHGYDOXH $VVXPLQJWKDWHDFKRIWKHSURSRVHGXQLWVKDVDQDVVHVVHGYDOXHRI0WKHWRWDOSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHWRWKH7RZQLV+RZHYHUDFFRUGLQJWRYDULRXVVWXGLHVLQFOXGLQJ-HIIUH\ +'RRUPDQ¶VThe Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government 8QLYHUVLW\RI*HRUJLD DQG WKHCost of Community Services Studies ³&2&6´ SUHSDUHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ )DUPODQG7UXVWWKHFRVWWRSURYLGHSXEOLFVHUYLFHVIRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHH[FHHGVWKHSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHJHQHUDWHG,QSDUWLFXODULQWKH$PHULFDQ)DUPODQG7UXVWVWXG\WKHPHGLDQ&2&6 IRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHLVIRUHYHU\RISURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXH LQRWKHUZRUGVDQHW ORVV $FFRUGLQJO\DSSURYDORIWKHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHZRXOGOLNHZLVHUHVXOWLQDORVVIRUWKH 7RZQBased 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 $120,174 of property tax revenue such that the proposed residential development will result in a net economic loss for the Town.0RUHRYHUZKLOHRISURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXHZRXOGEHJHQHUDWHGUHSUHVHQWLQJ RIWKHWRWDOSURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXH LQWKH)<:HVWODNH%XGJHWLV OHVVWKDQRIWKHWRWDOUHYHQXHLQWKH:HVWODNH%XGJHW 7KXVWKHSURSRVHG GHYHORSPHQWLVLQVLJQLILFDQWWRWKH7RZQ¶VRYHUDOOUHYHQXHHYHQLIRQHIDLOVWRDFFRXQWIRUWKH &2&6 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKVXUURXQGLQJSURSHUWLHVDQGZLOO UHVXOWLQDORVVRISURSHUW\YDOXH 7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWLVQRWFRPSDWLEOHZLWKH[LVWLQJKRPHVLQWKHDGMDFHQW *OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDQHLJKERUKRRGV'HQVHGHYHORSPHQWEXLOWFORVHWRWKH *OHQZ\FN )DUPV DQG *UDQDGD QHLJKERUKRRGV PHDQV ORVV RI SURSHUW\ YDOXH IRU WKH *OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDUHVLGHQWV 7KH SURSRVHG ]RQLQJ FKDQJH LV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH 7RZQ¶V 7UHH &LW\ 86$ PHPEHUVKLSDQGWKH7RZQ¶V9LVLRQ6WDWHPHQW $VDPHPEHURI7UHH&LW\86$WKH7RZQVKRXOGORRNIRURSSRUWXQLWLHVWRSUHVHUYHWUHHV DQGRSHQVSDFHV+HUHLWLVHDV\IRUWKH7RZQWRGRWKLV7KH7RZQVLPSO\QHHGVWR GHQ\WKHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJH7KH7RZQKDVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRSUHVHUYHWKH2SHQ 6SDFH/DQGZKLFKLVDUJXDEO\WKHODVWRILWVNLQGLQWKH7RZQZLWKXQWRXFKHGQDWLYH WUHHVZLOGOLIH LQFOXGLQJGHHU DQGDIRRWNQROO KLOO WKDWDFWVDVDYLHZVKHGQRLVH EDUULHU IURPWKHH[SUHVVZD\ DQGEXIIHUIRUWKH7RZQ $OVRWKH7RZQ¶V9LVLRQ6WDWHPHQWUHTXLUHVWKH7RZQWRSUHVHUYHODQGDVRSHQVSDFH ZKHQLWKDVWKHDELOLW\WRGRVR OLNHKHUH ³:HVWODNHLVDQRDVLVRIQDWXUDOEHDXW\WKDW PDLQWDLQVRXURSHQVSDFHVLQEDODQFHZLWKGLVWLQFWLYHGHYHORSPHQWWUDLOVDQGTXDOLW\RI OLIHDPHQLWLHVDPLGVWDQHYHUH[SDQGLQJXUEDQODQGVFDSH´ )RUWKHUHDVRQVVHWIRUWKKHUHLQWKH7RZQVKRXOGGHQ\WKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHWRZKLFKWKH GHYHORSHUDQGODQGRZQHUKDYHQRHQWLWOHPHQWDQGWRZKLFKWKHGHYHORSHUDQGODQGRZQHUKDYH VKRZQQRFRPSHOOLQJUHDVRQWR YLRODWHWKH7RZQ¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ FOHDUFXWWKH 2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDQG VKDYHWKHNQROO KLOO GRZQE\IHHWWKXVGHVWUR\LQJWKHYLHZVKHG DQGQRLVHEDUULHUIRUWKH7RZQ 1DPH V BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6LJQDWXUH V BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB /PMBO30HEFO&SJO%+FXFM 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 ($16,389,867). Thus, the proposed development is insignificant to the Town’s overall revenue even if one fails to account for the COCS. 7.The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value. 11 The proposed dense development is not compatible with existing homes in the adjacent Glenwyck Farms and Granada neighborhoods. Dense development built close to the Glenwyck Farms and Granada neighborhoods means loss of property value for the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. 8.The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Town’s Tree City USA membership and the Town’s Vision Statement. As a member of Tree City USA, the Town should look for opportunities to preserve trees and open spaces. Here, it is easy for the Town to do this. The Town simply needs to deny the proposed zoning change. The Town has the opportunity to preserve the Open Space Land, which is arguably the last of its kind in the Town, with untouched native trees, wildlife (including deer), and a 30 foot knoll (hill) that acts as a view shed, noise barrier (from the expressway), and buffer for the Town. Also, the Town’s Vision Statement requires the Town to preserve land as open space when it has the ability to do so (like here): “Westlake is an oasis of natural beauty that maintains our open spaces in balance with distinctive development, trails, and quality of life amenities amidst an ever expanding urban landscape.” For the reasons set forth herein, the Town should deny the requested zoning change to which the developer and land owner have no entitlement and to which the developer and land owner have shown no compelling reason to (1) violate the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, (2) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (3) shave the knoll (hill) down by 20 feet, thus destroying the view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Name(s): Nizar & Muneera Didarali Signature(s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¶V 7UHH &LW\ 86$ 0HPEHUVKLSDQGWKH7RZQ¶V9LVLRQ6WDWHPHQW ,QDGGLWLRQWKH]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWVKRXOGEHGHQLHGIRUDQHYHQPRUHIXQGDPHQWDOUHDVRQ EHIRUHWKH7RZQDQDO\]HVWKHVHSUREOHPVZLWKWKHUHTXHVW,QSDUWLFXODUWKHSURSHUW\RZQHU %ODFNVWRQH ³%5(6RODQD//&´ KDVUHSHDWHGO\DQGVWXEERUQO\UHIXVHGRYHUWKHODVW\HDUVWR PHHWZLWKWKH7RZQWRGLVFXVVD0DVWHU3ODQIRU%5(6RODQD¶VSURSHUWLHV2YHUWKHODVW\HDUV GR]HQVRIUHTXHVWVIRUVXFKDPHHWLQJKDYHEHHQPDGHE\WKH7RZQ6WDII 7RP%U\PHU(GGLH (GZDUGVDQG5RQ5XWKYHQ DQG0D\RU:KHDW$VWKH7RZQ&RXQFLODQG3ODQQLQJ =RQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQPHPEHUVDUHDZDUHWKH7RZQKDGDQHDUO\RSSRUWXQLW\WREULQJ%5(6RODQDWRWKH WDEOHZKHQLWZDQWHGWREXLOGDSDUNLQJJDUDJHDWRQHRIWKH6RODQDEXLOGLQJV'HVSLWHWKHIDFW WKDW%5(6RODQDFRQWLQXHGWRUHIXVHWRGLVFXVVD0DVWHU3ODQRXWRIJRRGIDLWKDQGZLWKWKHJRDO RIFKDQJLQJ%5(6RODQD¶VDWWLWXGHWKH7RZQDOORZHG%5(6RODQDWREXLOGWKHSDUNLQJJDUDJH WKDWLWZDQWHG$WWKDWWLPHthe 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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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 ,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHQHZO\UHYLVHG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDGRSWHGE\WKH 7RZQ&RXQFLOLQGHVLJQDWHVDV2SHQ6SDFHWKHZKROHDFUHWUDFWRIODQGRI ZKLFKWKH*OHQZ\FN>IRRW@6HWEDFNLVDSDUW6HH$WWDFKPHQW%$OWKRXJKFXUUHQW HQWLWOHPHQWVRQWKLVDFUHWUDFWDOORZGHYHORSPHQWthe 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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³SXVK>@IRUWKHVSDFHWRUHPDLQRSHQDQGXQLPSURYHGVKRXOGWKH GHYHORSHUUHTXHVWDQ\VRUWRI]RQLQJFKDQJH´,WLVQRWLQWKH7RZQ¶VRULWVFLWL]HQ¶VEHVWLQWHUHVW WRFRQWLQXHWRPDNHFRQFHVVLRQVWR%5(6RODQDDQGJHWQRWKLQJLQUHWXUQ,ILWZDVQRWFOHDU IURPWKHEHJLQQLQJLWLVDEXQGDQWO\FOHDUQRZWKDW%5(6RODQDLQWHQGVWR REWDLQFRQFHVVLRQ DIWHUFRQFHVVLRQIURPWKH7RZQZLWKWKHVROHJRDORIPD[LPL]LQJSURILWRQWKH³IOLS´RILWV SXUFKDVHRI0DJXLUH3DUWQHUV¶6RODQDRIILFHEXLOGLQJVRXWRIEDQNUXSWF\DQG JHWRXWRIWRZQ ,QIDFW%5(6RODQDLVDOUHDG\KDOIZD\RXWRIWRZQRQLWV³IOLS´DVLWKDVDOUHDG\VROG ³IOLSSHG´ WZRRILWVRIILFHEXLOGLQJV%5(6RODQDZLOOVRRQEHRXWRI:HVWODNHDQGRQWRLWVQH[WSURILW PD[LPL]LQJ³IOLS´ 2Q-DQXDU\SXUVXDQWWRWKHDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDWKH7RZQ6WDII (GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW 3HWW\ WKHILUVW7RZQ0DQDJHUDQGQRZFRQVXOWDQWWRWKH7RZQ FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJHWR EHEXLOWZLWKLQ3'DIWHUDSSURYDORI(QWUDGDDQG*UDQDGDSee-DQXDU\(PDLOV%HWZHHQ(GGLH(GZDUGV DQG7UHQW3HWW\DWWDFKHGDV([KLELW0U(GZDUGVDQG0U3HWW\FDOFXODWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJDOORZHGVTXDUHIRRWDJH WREHVI7KXVDWPRVW%5(6RODQDFDQEXLOGRQO\VIRQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG ,QDGGLWLRQWR%5(6RODQD¶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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJDVLWH[SHULHQFHVLQFUHDVLQJ DPRXQWVRIFRPPHUFLDODQGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH'LVWULFWLV PHDQWWREHSULPDULO\XQGHYHORSHGZLWKODQGPDUNODQGIRUPVRIWKH7RZQUHPDLQLQJLQ WKHLUQDWXUDOFRQGLWLRQWKHUHE\SUHVHUYLQJLPSRUWDQWYLHZVDVZHOODVQDWXUDODQGUXUDO VHWWLQJV 7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH H[SUHVVHG LQWHQWLRQV RI WKH 7RZQ &RXQFLO 3 = &RPPLVVLRQ DQG WKH 7RZQ¶VFLWL]HQVZKRDSSURYHGWKH/DQG8VH3ODQWRNHHSWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGXQGHYHORSHG DQGLQLWVQDWXUDOVWDWH$FFRUGLQJO\UHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG8VH 'LVWULFWGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ 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. $OVRWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVFRQWUDU\WR7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQWKDWLVDSDUWRI WKH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ7KH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQFDOOVIRUthe only&RPPXQLW\3DUNLQ WKH7RZQWREHORFDWHGRQWKH1RUWKKDOIRIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGIn 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) 7KHSURSRVHGIRRWVHWEDFNLVFRQWUDU\WRWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNRI3'DQG ZLOOUHVXOWLQSURSHUW\YDOXHORVV 7KHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHVHHNVWRFUHDWHDQHZ3'WKDWHOLPLQDWHVDOORIWKHGHYHORSPHQW UHJXODWLRQVRI3'$QLPSRUWDQWGHYHORSPHQWFRQGLWLRQLQ3'LPSRVHVDPLQLPXPVL]H RIIURQWVLGHDQGUHDU\DUGRIILYHKXQGUHGIHHW ¶ VHWEDFNIURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV6LPLODUO\ WKHUHH[LVWVDIRRWVHWEDFNLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH*UDQDGDVXEGLYLVLRQ7KHGHYHORSPHQW SODQDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHPRYHVWKH*OHQZ\FN)DUPVIRRW\DUG VHWEDFNDQGWKH*UDQDGDIRRWVHWEDFNDQGUHSODFHVWKHPZLWKDIRRWVHWEDFN3URSHUW\ RZQHUVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGDLQYHVWHGVXEVWDQWLDOPRQHWDU\VXPVLQWKHLUODQGDQG LPSURYHPHQWVLQUHOLDQFHRQWKH7RZQ¶VLPSRVLWLRQRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDQGIRRW VHWEDFNZLWKH[HPSODU\*OHQZ\FN)DUPVUHVLGHQWVSD\LQJPXOWLSOHILJXUHSUHPLXPV HDFK WR SXUFKDVHWKHLUKRPHVWKDWDGMRLQWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFN 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.:KHQWKHOHDYHVDUH GRZQLQ)DOO:LQWHU(DUO\6SULQJWKHYLHZZLOOEHFOHDUDV\RXFDQVHHDOORIWKHZD\WRWKH NQROO KLOO DWIHHWDZD\ZLWKWKHOHDYHVGRZQ 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 VHHWKHUHGDUURZVEHORZ $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOOUHFDOOWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNZDV HVWDEOLVKHG LQ YLD 2UGLQDQFH DQG WKH WH[W DQG KLVWRU\ RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LWV VXFFHVVRUV DQG HYLGHQFHWKDWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHU 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. 'XULQJWKLVWLPHIRUPHU0D\RU%UDGOH\ZDV&KDLUPDQRIWKH3ODQQLQJDQG=RQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ 0D\RU%UDGOH\OHGWKH7RZQ¶VQHJRWLDWLRQVZLWK,%0WKHRZQHURIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDWWKH WLPH0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOWHVWLI\EHIRUHWKH3 =&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH7RZQ&RXQFLOWKDWKHKDG H[SUHVVDQGH[WHQVLYHGLVFXVVLRQVZLWKWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\FRQFHUQLQJWKHIDFWWKDWWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN LV D JUHHQVSDFH EXIIHU WKDW LV WR UHPDLQXQWRXFKHG DQG XQGHYHORSHG 0D\RU%UDGOH\ZLOOIXUWKHUWHVWLI\WKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\EHOLHYHGWKDWWKHJUHHQVSDFH EXIIHUZRXOGSURYLGHYDOXHWR,%0¶VSURSHUWLHVE\SUHVHUYLQJRSHQVSDFH7KH3UHVLGHQWRI,%0 5HDOW\DOVREHOLHYHGWKDWWKH,%0GHYHORSPHQWZRXOGVHUYHDVDQH[HPSODU\GHYHORSPHQWIRU WKH7RZQRQKRZRSHQVSDFHZDVWREHSUHVHUYHGDQGKRZYLHZVKHGVVKRXOGEHUHWDLQHG LQFOXGLQJWKHNQROO KLOO 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG(DVWRI*UDQDGD7KLVLVHYLGHQFHGE\ WKHIDFWWKDWWKH3UHVLGHQWRI,%05HDOW\DJUHHGWRPRYHPLOOLRQVTXDUH\DUGVRIGLUWWR FUHDWHWKH0D\RU¶V+LOOLQRUGHUWRFUHDWHDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDQGYLHZVKHGWKDWGLGQRWDOUHDG\ H[LVW,QHIIHFW,%0FUHDWHGDVHFRQGNQROO KLOO WRWKH(DVW,%0GLGQRWQHHGWRGRWKLVWRWKH 1RUWKRI*OHQZ\FN)DUPVEHFDXVHWKHQDWXUDONQROO KLOO DOUHDG\H[LVWHGDQGLWLVWKLVQDWXUDO NQROO KLOO WKDWWKHGHYHORSHUQRZVHHNVWRVKDYHGRZQE\IHHW $VWKH7RZQ6WDII3 =0HPEHUVDQG7RZQ&RXQFLOZLOODOVRUHFDOO7UHQW3HWW\WKH7RZQ¶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³VHWEDFN´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r. 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. 7KH 7RZQ RI :HVWODNH KDV VHQW ZULWWHQ FRUUHVSRQGHQFH WR WKH *OHQZ\FN )DUPV GHYHORSHU DQG WR *OHQZ\FN )DUPV UHVLGHQWV FRQILUPLQJ WKDW ³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´PXVWRFFXURXWVLGHRIWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNDUHD)RUH[DPSOHRQ1RYHPEHU 'HQQLV :LOVRQ 7RZQ 3ODQQHU VHQW D OHWWHU WR 'DYLG 0F0DKDQ DW )RXU 3HDNV 'HYHORSPHQW,QF WKHGHYHORSHURI*OHQZ\FN)DUPV LQZKLFK0U:LOVRQFRQILUPVWKDW³DQ\ GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXUIHHWDZD\IURP*OHQZ\FN)DUPVSee 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQWR'DYLG0F0DKDQDWWDFKHGDV([KLELW7KLV 1RYHPEHU /HWWHUIURP'HQQLV:LOVRQ7RZQ3ODQQHUZDVDOVRGLVWULEXWHGWR*OHQZ\FN )DUPVUHVLGHQWVXSRQZKLFKWKH\UHOLHGLQSXUFKDVLQJWKHLUKRPHV,QDGGLWLRQRQ)HEUXDU\ 7RP%U\PHU FXUUHQW 7RZQ0DQDJHUVHQW DOHWWHUWR3DW &RFNUXP*OHQZ\FN)DUPV UHVLGHQWOLNHZLVHFRQILUPLQJWKDW³DQ\GHYHORSPHQW´RIWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGPXVWRFFXU IHHW DZD\ IURP *OHQZ\FN )DUPV See )HEUXDU\ /HWWHU IURP 7RP %U\PHU WR 3DW &RFNUXP DWWDFKHG DV ([KLELW 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. 7KH WH[W RI 2UGLQDQFH DQG LV VXFFHVVRUV DQG WKH :HVWODNH &RGH FRQILUP WKH VDPH 6SHFLILFDOO\ZKLOHRWKHUFODXVHVUHIHUH[SUHVVO\WR³VHWEDFNV´WKHFODXVHWKDWFUHDWHVWKH IRRW \DUG VHWEDFN KDV DOZD\V UHIHUHQFHG D IRRW ³\DUG´ +HUH WKH 7RZQ ZDV LWV RZQ OH[LFRJUDSKHU DQG SURYLGHG LWV RZQ GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH ZRUG ³\DUG´ LQ WKH :HVWODNH &RGH RI 2UGLQDQFHV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH:HVWODNH&RGHD³\DUG´LV³RSHQVSDFH´DQG³RSHQVSDFH´LV JUHHQVSDFHWKDWLV³UHODWLYHO\IUHHRIPDQPDGHVWUXFWXUHV>VXFKDVEXLOGLQJVDQGSDUNLQJORWV@ ZKHUH ZDWHU ERGLHV ODQG IRUPV >VXFK DV D NQROOKLOO@ DQG YHJHWDWLRQ >VXFK DV WUHHV@ SUHGRPLQDWH´ <DUG7KHZRUG³\DUG´VKDOOPHDQDQopen spaceRWKHUWKDQDFRXUWRQDORWXQRFFXSLHG DQGXQREVWUXFWHGIURPWKHJURXQGXSZDUGXQOHVVVSHFLILFDOO\RWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHGLQWKLV &RGH 2SHQ6SDFH7KHZRUGV³RSHQVSDFH´VKDOOPHDQWKDWODQGDUHDZKLFKLVrelativelyfree of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate :HVWODNH7;&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHV ,QVKRUWWKHIRRW\DUGVHWEDFNLVDJUHHQVSDFHEXIIHUDFFRUGLQJWR2UGLQDQFH DQGLWV VXFFHVVRUV WKH:HVWODNH&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHVDQGWKH7RZQ¶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¶V YLHZFRUULGRUVDQGVFHQLFWRSRJUDSK\WKH:HVWODNH7UDQVIHURI'HYHORSPHQW,QWHQVLW\ ³7',´ 2UGLQDQFH ZDV DGRSWHG 7KH 2SHQ 6SDFH /DQG LV LQ D 6HQGLQJ 'LVWULFW ZKHUH SHUPLWWHG GHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\VKRXOGEHWUDQVIHUUHGWRD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHIRUGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFW ZLWKWKH LQWHQWRIWKH7',2UGLQDQFHWKDWVXFKGHYHORSPHQWRFFXULQD5HFHLYLQJ'LVWULFW,QIDFWWKH 7',2UGLQDQFHLVGHVLJQHGWRWUDQVIHUWKHH[LVWLQJ3'SHUPLWWHGGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\RXWRI WKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG'LVWULFWThe 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. 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH:HVWODNH&RGH RI2UGLQDQFHV 2UGLQDQFH L ±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHIROORZLQJDSSURYDO FULWHULDIRUDSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQW 7KHUHTXHVWHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH7RZQ V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ LQFOXGLQJWKH/DQG8VH3ODQDQGWKH3DUNV 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQ 7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVDQGWKHFRQILJXUDWLRQRIWKHGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDO XVHV DUH QRW FRPSDWLEOH ZLWK H[LVWLQJ DQG SODQQHG DGMRLQLQJ UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV EHFDXVHQRGHYHORSPHQWLVWRRFFXULQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGZKLFKLVPHDQWWR VHUYHDVDEXIIHU 7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVGHYHORSPHQWGHQVLWLHVDQGLQWHQVLWLHVDQG GHYHORSPHQW UHJXODWLRQV DUH QRW FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKLV DUWLFOH EHFDXVH QR GHYHORSPHQW LV WR RFFXU LQ WKH 2SHQ 6SDFH /DQG WKH SURSRVHG GHYHORSPHQW GHQVLWLHV DUH JUHDWHU WKDQ WKRVH RI WKH DGMDFHQW *OHQZ\FN DQG *UDQDGD QHLJKERUKRRGVDQGQRGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\LVWRRFFXULQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 6HQGLQJ'LVWULFWRIWKH7',2UGLQDQFH 7KHFRQILJXUDWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHGRSHQVSDFHVHUYLQJWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW LVQRWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH7RZQ V2SHQ6SDFH3ODQEHFDXVHWKH2SHQ6SDFH3ODQ VKRZV FRQWLJXRXV RSHQ VSDFH ZLWK QR GHYHORSPHQW RI DQ\ NLQG H[FHSW IRU D FRPPXQLW\ SDUN LQ WKLV SDUWLFXODU 2SHQ 6SDFH /DQG 'LVWULFW ZKHUHDV WKH FRQILJXUDWLRQRIRSHQVSDFHVHUYLQJWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLVQRQFRQWLJXRXV DQGUDQGRPO\VSDFHGDPRQJWKHGHQVHXQLWVDQGDOVRRXWVLGHWKLVSDUWLFXODU2SHQ 6SDFH/DQG'LVWULFW 1RDPHQLWLHVRIYDOXHWRSHUVRQVZKRDUHQRWUHVLGHQWVRIWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQWDUHSURSRVHGWKDWMXVWLI\SURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLWLHVRULQWHQVLWLHV LQDQDUHDWKDWLVPHDQWWREHXQGHYHORSHGDV2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 7KHSURSRVHGGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWGRHVQRWIXUWKHUWKHSXEOLFKHDOWKVDIHW\DQG JHQHUDO ZHOIDUH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ ZKHQ WKH 7RZQ¶V &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ GHVLJQHGWRSUHVHUYHYLHZFRUULGRUVDQGQDWLYHSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJVLVDEURJDWHGZLWK WKHGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWWKDWZLSHVRXWWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG 2UGLQDQFH±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHIROORZLQJSXUSRVHVIRUWKH FUHDWLRQRIDSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQW 6XSHULRU GHVLJQ RI ORWV RU EXLOGLQJV LV QRW DFFRPSOLVKHG E\3' ZLWK ORW GLPHQVLRQVRI¶;¶DQGGHQVHXQLWVWKDWDUHLQFRPSDWLEOHZLWKH[LVWLQJ KRPHVLQ*OHQZ\FN)DUPVDQG*UDQDGD ,QFUHDVHG UHFUHDWLRQ DQGRU RSHQ VSDFH RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU SXEOLF XVH LV QRW SURYLGHGE\3'EHFDXVHH[LVWLQJFRQWLJXRXVXQGHYHORSHGRSHQVSDFHLVEHLQJ UHSODFHG E\ QRQFRQWLJXRXV RSHQ VSDFH VSUHDG EHWZHHQ GHQVH XQLWV SOXV ZRRGHQVWDLUVWRWKHWRSRI³0D\RU¶V+LOO´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¶VSDVWRUDOVHWWLQJ 7KHSURSRVHG3'GRHVQRWSURYLGHDQDSSURSULDWHEDODQFHEHWZHHQWKHLQWHQVLW\ RIGHYHORSPHQWDQGWKHDELOLW\WRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHVXSSRUWLQJSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHV DQGVHUYLFHVEHFDXVHGHYHORSPHQWLQWHQVLW\LVQRWWRRFFXULQWKLV2SHQ6SDFH /DQG'LVWULFWDQGLVWREHVHQWIURPWKLVDUHDWRUHFHLYLQJGLVWULFWVHOVHZKHUHLQWKH 7RZQ 2UGLQDQFH ±7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWKWKHIROORZLQJWUHH SUHVHUYDWLRQSULQFLSOHV 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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¶VFRQVXOWDQW.LPOH\+RUQZKHUHLQEDVHGXSRQDVDPSOLQJSURFHVVWUHHVLQFKHVDQG JUHDWHU LQ GLDPHWHU ZHUH WDJJHG DQG FRXQWHG 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” 7KHVXUYH\ZDVQRWVXEPLWWHGDVSDUWRIWKLVUHTXHVW6WDIIHVWLPDWHVWKDWWRWDOFRVWRI PLWLJDWLRQZRXOGEHVHYHUDOPLOOLRQGROODUVDWDPLQLPXP $XJXVW6WDII5HSRUWDW3DJH RIWKH$XJXVW3 =$JHQGDOne 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) $OWKRXJKWKH7RZQZDVQRWSURYLGHGZLWKDFRS\RIWKH.LPOH\+RUQVXUYH\WKHGHYHORSHU UHSUHVHQWVWKDWWKDWWKHVXUYH\GHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHUHZHUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHU DFUHRQWKH(DVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHDDQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHUDFUHRQWKH :HVWVLGHRIWKHVDPSOHDUHD7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWZLOOEHRQWKH:HVWVLGHRIWKHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\DUHD3HUWKHGHYHORSHU¶V/DQG8VH6XPPDU\DFUHVFRQVLVWVRIUHVLGHQWLDODUHDV DQGULJKWRIZD\WKDWZLOOEHFOHDUFXW%DVHGXSRQ3URWHFWHG7UHHVSHUDFUHDQGDFUHV RIGHYHORSPHQWLQFOXGLQJULJKWRIZD\WKLVUHSUHVHQWV WUHHVRIDWOHDVWFDOLSHULQFKHV WKDWZLOOEHFOHDUFXWQRWWRPHQWLRQWKRXVDQGVRIRWKHUWUHHVWKDWDUHOHVVWKDQFDOLSHULQFKHV (YHQLIRQHDVVXPHVWKDWHYHU\WUHHLVRQO\FDOLSHULQFKHV DQGQRPRUH WKLVZRXOGUHSUHVHQW FDOLSHULQFKHV$WSHUFDOLSHULQFKWKLVUHSUHVHQWVDPLQLPXPWUHHPLWLJDWLRQFRVW RI 2IFRXUVHPDQ\RIWKHWUHHVRQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQGDUHFDOLSHULQFKHVDQG JUHDWHU,IWKHDYHUDJHLVMXVWFDOLSHULQFKHVWKHWRWDOFDOLSHULQFKHVZRXOGEH DQGWKH FRVW RI WUHH PLWLJDWLRQ WKHQ ULVHV WR It is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 MillionThe 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.7KHGHYHORSHU¶VSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHUHTXHVWVWKDW ³1R PLWLJDWLRQVKDOOEHUHTXLUHGRIDQ\LQGLYLGXDOORW(DFKORWVKDOOSODQWDWOHDVWWZRFDOLSHU LQFKWUHHVIURPDQDSSURYHGKDUGZRRGWUHHOLVW,IH[LVWLQJQDWLYHWUHHVDUHSUHVHUYHGLQWKHIURQW RUVWUHHWVLGHVLGH\DUGVWKH\FDQEHXWLOL]HGWRVDWLVI\WKHWUHHSODQWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWRQWKHORW´ )XUWKHU WKH GHYHORSHU SURSRVHV WZR DOWHUQDWLYHV WR IXUWKHU DGGUHVV PLWLJDWLRQ $OWHUQDWH $ FRQVLVWVGHGLFDWHGWUDLOKHDGSDUNLQJVSDFHVDVSDUWRIWKHH[LVWLQJDGMDFHQWSDUNLQJORWDZRRG VWDLUZD\LQWR³0D\RU¶V+LOO´SDVVLYHILWQHVVVWDWLRQVRQ³0D\RU¶V+LOO´DQGDSLFQLFDUHDRQ 0D\RU¶V+LOO$OWHUQDWH%FRQVLVWVRIGHHGLQJWRWKH7RZQODQGWKDWIURQWV6DP6FKRRO5RDG WKDWFDQEHXVHGIRUPXQLFLSDOSXUSRVHV EXWWKHPXQLFLSDOXVHZRXOGEHH[HPSWHGIURPWKH FXPXODWLYH3'FRYHUDJHWHVW 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. 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHKDVDQHJDWLYHILQDQFLDOLPSDFWRQWKH7RZQ 7KHFXUUHQWSURSHUW\WD[UDWHIRUWKH7RZQRI:HVWODNHLV SHURIDVVHVVHGYDOXH $VVXPLQJWKDWHDFKRIWKHSURSRVHGXQLWVKDVDQDVVHVVHGYDOXHRI0WKHWRWDOSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHWRWKH7RZQLV+RZHYHUDFFRUGLQJWRYDULRXVVWXGLHVLQFOXGLQJ-HIIUH\ +'RRUPDQ¶VThe Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government 8QLYHUVLW\RI*HRUJLD DQG WKHCost of Community Services Studies ³&2&6´ SUHSDUHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ )DUPODQG7UXVWWKHFRVWWRSURYLGHSXEOLFVHUYLFHVIRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHH[FHHGVWKHSURSHUW\ WD[UHYHQXHJHQHUDWHG,QSDUWLFXODULQWKH$PHULFDQ)DUPODQG7UXVWVWXG\WKHPHGLDQ&2&6 IRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHLVIRUHYHU\RISURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXH LQRWKHUZRUGVDQHW ORVV $FFRUGLQJO\DSSURYDORIWKHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHZRXOGOLNHZLVHUHVXOWLQDORVVIRUWKH 7RZQBased 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.0RUHRYHUZKLOHRISURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXHZRXOGEHJHQHUDWHGUHSUHVHQWLQJ RIWKHWRWDOSURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXH LQWKH)<:HVWODNH%XGJHWLV OHVVWKDQRIWKHWRWDOUHYHQXHLQWKH:HVWODNH%XGJHW 7KXVWKHSURSRVHG GHYHORSPHQWLVLQVLJQLILFDQWWRWKH7RZQ¶VRYHUDOOUHYHQXHHYHQLIRQHIDLOVWRDFFRXQWIRUWKH &2&6 7KHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHLVLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKVXUURXQGLQJSURSHUWLHVDQGZLOO UHVXOWLQDORVVRISURSHUW\YDOXH 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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¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYHDQG/DQG8VH3ODQV 5HVXOWVLQWKH2SHQ6SDFH/DQG¶V³NQROO´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edar Elm Terrace Westlake TX 76262 Clay Hunt BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB Jenny Hunt Ordinance 841 Page 1 of 13 TOWN OF WESTLAKE ORDINANCE NO. 841 AN ORDINANCE ZONING AN APPROXIMATELY 62.531 ACRE TRACT OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, WESTLAKE/SOUTHLAKE PARK ADDITION NUMBER ONE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED HERETO, FROM PD1-1 “PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER ONE” TO PD6 “PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SIX”; AUTHORIZING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; APPROVING A CONCEPT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN; APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR PRIVATE STREETS; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 102 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake establishes zoning districts, permissible uses, development standards, and other zoning related regulations; and WHEREAS, Section 62-31 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake adopts a Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Westlake; and WHEREAS, Section 102-33(3) of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake states that the purpose of a Planned Development District is to: Provide for a superior design of lots or buildings; Provide for increased recreation and/or open space opportunities for public use; Provide rural amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community; Protect or preserve natural amenities and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and viewscapes; Protect or preserve existing historical buildings, structures, features or places; and provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to provide adequate supporting public facilities and services.; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2017, the Town of Westlake received a Zoning Change Request from the Wilbow Corporation on behalf of the property owner for the property depicted and described in Exhibit “A” requesting that the Town zone said property to PD6 “Planned Development District Number Six” in accordance with Chapter 102 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake, Texas; and WHEREAS, because of the size, location, and natural features of the property the Town has a critical interest in the development of said property and is encouraging such development to the highest possible standards of quality consistent with the Town's long-term development vision; and WHEREAS, the property owner (or representative) appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council and affirmed that the property owner is seeking this zoning request; and Ordinance 841 Page 2 of 13 WHEREAS, all legal requirements of state statutes and Town ordinances of the Town of Westlake, as well as all legal requirements and legal notices and prerequisites having been complied with, including but not limited to chapter 551 of the Government Code and Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2017 and November 13, 2017, the request was heard by the Westlake Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of said request; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, at a public hearing called at a regular session of the Town Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether the requested change should be granted or denied: congestion in the streets, including safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area; to secure safety from fire, panic or other dangers; the promotion of health and the general welfare, to provide for adequate light and air, to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of the population, facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewers, schools, parks, and other public requirements; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that said Zoning Change Request is consistent with the development goals, standards, and desired uses described in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Westlake Planning and Zoning Commission on November 13, 2017, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens that this Ordinance should be approved and adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE TEXAS: SECTION 1: That all matters stated in the preamble are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: That the property shown on attached Exhibit “A” is hereby rezoned from PD1-1, “Planned Development District Number One” to PD6, Planned Development District Number Six”, including the approval of a concept/development plan and a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for private streets, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit “B”. SECTION 3: This Zoning District shall be subject to all regulations contained in the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake, Texas, except where amended herein. SECTION 4: The Town Secretary shall amend, or cause to have amended, the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Westlake to reflect the zoning of the property described and depicted on attached Exhibit “A”. Ordinance 841 Page 3 of 13 SECTION 5: It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, that sections, paragraphs, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared legally invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such legal invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Ordinance since the same would have been enacted by the Town Council of the Town of Westlake without the incorporation in this Ordinance of any such legally invalid or unconstitutional, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section. In the event this ordinance is challenged (by a party other than the Applicant/landowner or applicant/landowner’s representative or successor), the portions, sentences or phrases allowing for a reduction in the number of lots or an increase to the total open space as set out in Exhibit B shall be severed and stricken. SECTION 6: That this Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other Town Ordinances and all other provisions of other Ordinances adopted by the Town which are inconsistent with the terms or provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 7: That this Ordinance only affects the Property located iwthin the boundaries of PD 6 and does not change or affect any other property, including but not limited to the property adjacent to PD 6. SECTION 8: Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor offense and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each separate offense. A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day, or part of a day, during which a violation occurs or continues. SECTION 9: This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage as the law in such case provides. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. _____________________________ ATTEST: Laura Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ ______________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Ordinance 841 Page 4 of 13 EXHIBIT A Description and Depiction of Subject Property Property Depiction Ordinance 841 Page 5 of 13 EXHIBIT A continued Description and Depiction of Subject Property Property Description Ordinance 841 Page 6 of 13 EXHIBIT A continued Description and Depiction of Subject Property Property Description continued Ordinance 841 Page 7 of 13 EXHIBIT B Planned Development District Number 6 (PD6) Development Standards Section 1 – General A. The purpose of PD6 is for a detached single-family residential development of no more than 61 residential lots. B. The development authorized by this ordinance shall be consistent with the Concept/Development Plan, attached as Exhibit B-1. C. Minor variations to the Concept/Development Plan are hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: 1. The variation must involve a reduction in the total number of residential lots. 2. The variation must include an increase to the total open space provided for the development and shall not include any encroachment into the conservation easement as shown on Exhibit B-2. 3. All other development requirements contained herein shall be met unless specifically noted below; 3. Any request for the variation shall be submitted to the Town Manager or their designee by the developer and shall include any drawings, information and supporting material required by the Town Manager or their designee. 4. Final approval of the variation shall be at the discretion of the Town Manager or their designee. Any denial of the request for variation by the Town Manager or their designee may be appealed as an amendment to this ordinance in the form a rezoning request. No application fee shall be required for an appeal under this section. D. Platting 1. The developer shall submit, and receive approval for, a preliminary site evaluation prior to any land disturbance activities; 2. Prior to the issuance of the notice to proceed, the developer shall submit, and receive approval for: (i) a replat that vacates the portion of the existing Lot 1, Block 3, Westlake/Southlake Park Addition Number One that includes the subject property; and (ii) a replat for the remaining portion of land that includes the existing commercial building within the existing Westlake/Southlake Park Addition Number One. 3. Prior to the final acceptance of public improvements, approval of private streets and release of residential building permits, the developer shall submit, and receive approval for, a final plat, which shall be platted as a single phase. Ordinance 841 Page 8 of 13 4. The final plat noted above shall be recorded with the County Clerk prior to the release of any residential building permits. 5. Prior to the approval of the preliminary site evaluation, the developer shall submit a development agreement for final approval by the Town Council per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances. E. Permitted Uses – The following are permitted principal and accessory uses: 1. Single Family Detached Homes 2. Open Space (including active, passive and conservation areas) 3. Private Streets 4. Public and Private Parks 5. Drainage facilities (including retention and detention ponds) 6. Guard houses 7. Accessory Uses (as authorized in the Town’s zoning regulations) F. Homeowner’s Association – The development shall be governed by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) that will be responsible for common area maintenance, private street maintenance, front yard maintenance and enforcing the HOA Design Guidelines for the community. Section 2 – Lot Dimension and Building Design Standards A. Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet B. Lot Width: The minimum lot width (measured at the front setback line) shall be: 1. 80 feet for standard lots 2. 40 feet for lots on cul-de-sacs and partial cul-de-sacs. 3. Lots on cul-de-sacs and partial cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum 30 feet frontage along the property line/ROW. C. Lot Coverage: The maximum building footprint for a home shall be limited to (i) the lesser of 47% of the entire lot area, or 5,000 square feet for a one-story home and (ii) the lesser of 43%, or 4,500 square feet for a two-story residence. On lots larger than 11,000 square feet, two-story residences may have a maximum footprint of 5,000 square feet. 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). D. Minimum House Size: All residences shall contain a minimum of 3,000 square feet of air-conditioned living space. E. Massing: For two-story structures, the second story shall not exceed 50% of the first floor footprint. F. Building Height: The maximum height of two-story structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Lots designated as being limited to a one-story building Ordinance 841 Page 9 of 13 height as shown on the Concept/Development Plan shall be not higher than 18 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. G. Building Setbacks: 1. Front yard: 30 feet (20 feet on cul-de-sac and elbow lots) 2. Rear yard: 20 feet 3. Side yard: 10 feet 4. A 10 foot encroachment in the standard front setback is permissible for up to 26 feet of width of the residence. 5. A minimum 100 foot building setback shall be maintained along Solana Blvd. In order to accommodate a reduction in lots per Section 1(C) above, minor deviations in the setback of no more than 50 feet may be allowed per the approval process in Section 1(C). H. 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. I. 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. J. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls shall have horizontal and vertical articulation or architectural delineation on all elevations as further detailed in the development design guidelines. K. Design Guidelines: Prior to the approval of the preliminary site evaluation, the developer shall submit final design guidelines for approval by the Town Council that shall be recorded with the private deed covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said guidelines shall be considered and utilized by Town staff in reviewing building permit applications for compliance with the provisions above. Section 3 – Landscaping, Open Space, Tree Preservation and Parkland Dedication A. Landscaping: 1. 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. 2. A minimum of one (1), 3.5 inch caliper tree, shall be planted per 30 lineal feet roadway, one (1) on each side of the street, from an approved hardwood tree list. Existing trees may be utilized to satisfy this requirement. Ordinance 841 Page 10 of 13 3. At the time of building permit issuance, each lot shall plant at least two, 3.5 inch 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.\ 4. Prior to the final acceptance of public improvements, the developer shall plant pine trees in the portion of the Solana Boulevard median that is adjacent to the subject property. Said planting shall be in a configuration and size consistent with the median trees planted as part of the Entrada development and shall inspected by the Town Manager or designee for final approval. 5. Landscaping at the entry points into the development shall be consistent with Exhibit B-4. B. Tree Preservation – All protected trees shall require mitigation upon damage or removal except as amended below: 1. The following areas are hereby exempt from the requirements for tree mitigation and protection: a. Roadways; b. The residential building envelope; c. The designated driveway area; 2. Within side yard setbacks, any protected tree over 9 inches in diameter shall require pre-approval by the Town Manager or designee. Where a protected tree over 9 inches in diameter is located in a non-exempt area and the home will encroach on more than 25% of the critical root zone, the home shall utilize a floating post-tension steel concrete slab foundation to allow for minimal impact to tree root systems near each building envelope. Said system shall require the final approval of the Town Manager or their designee. 3. Conservation areas: All vegetation, including trees, understory and ground cover, within the designated conservation areas as depicted on Exhibit B-2 shall remain in an undisturbed state at all times. As determined by the Town Manager or their designee, adequate protection mechanisms including but not limited to temporary fencing and/or temporary buffer areas shall be utilized to protect all conservation areas during construction activities. Areas exempted from this requirement include approved trail corridors and public utility mains. Further terms concerning the maintenance of this area may be provided in the development agreement. 4. Open Space areas: All trees located within open space areas shall be preserved with the following exceptions: a. Diseased or damaged trees per the Code of Ordinances; b. Exempted species per the Code of Ordinances; Ordinance 841 Page 11 of 13 c. Any tree less than 3 inches in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above the adjacent grade. d. Trees located in an approved permanent amenity footprint such as bike stations, sport courts, fountains, park buildings, etc. 5. Violations: Mitigation is hereby prohibited for any trees described in Sections 3 and 4 above. Any non-exempt tree removed from any area described in these sections shall constitute a violation of this ordinance. Furthermore, the Town Manager or designee may assess a commensurate civil penalty for each diameter inch removed which may be in the form of required tree replanting, payment into the Town reforestation fund or a combination of both. C. Open Space and Conservation Areas 1. As depicted on Exhibit B-2, land shall be designated and dedicated to the Town, or a private land trust dedicated to the preservation of natural open space as approved by the Town Manager or designee, as a conservation easement. The final plat shall depict the area as a “perpetual conservation easement” and shall contain the following note: “All vegetation, including trees, understory and ground cover, within the conservation easement shown herein shall remain in an undisturbed state at all times, except as authorized by Ordinance XXX”. 2. All open space not designated as a conservation easement/area shall be maintained by the HOA. 3. Open space, including conservation easements/areas shall be laid out per Exhibit B-1 and B-2. 4. A minimum 100 foot wide open space and tree preservation buffer shall maintained adjacent to and along Solana Blvd. Said area shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. In order to accommodate a reduction in lots per Section 1(C) above, minor deviations up to a maximum 50 foot reduction in said buffer width, may be allowed per the approval process in Section 1(C). D. Parkland Dedication – Parkland dedication as proposed by the developer in Exhibit B-3 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of the 15-acre southeast hill portion of the development for a public park hereby satisfies the community park requirement 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. 2. Maintenance responsibilities for the existing, pre-improved state of said property shall be the responsibility of the developer/HOA, which shall be further described in the development agreement described herein. Ordinance 841 Page 12 of 13 Section 4 – Fencing A. Solana Boulevard frontage shall 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 per Exhibit B-4. Said fence shall be located at the northern boundary of the residential lots and open space adjacent to Solana Boulevard and shall be maintained by the HOA. B. All individual lot line fences adjacent to any open space 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. C. All homes shall have a back fence comprised of decorative 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. Section 5 – Streets, sidewalks/trails, parking and access A. Streets – An SUP is hereby granted for all community streets within PD6, which shall be private and constructed of asphalt with concrete outer bands and/or mountable curbs fronting the lots. Streets shall be no less than 27 feet in width (back of curb to back of curb) including a mountable concrete curb on both sides within a 30 foot private right-of-way. Street lighting shall be located at all corners and intersections. Lights shall be low pedestal type fixtures that comply with Town standards and Comprehensive Plan recommendations as well as follow the Town’s lighting standards. B. Sidewalks – Sidewalks are required on one side of the streets only. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet in width and shall be composed of concrete, stone, or pavestone. Sidewalks shall be constructed by the homebuilder at the time of new home construction. C. Trails - The internal sidewalk shall tie into the Solana Boulevard public Town Trail via gated connections at both entries. Any public trail construction (outside of the community) shall 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). The portion of the existing Solana Boulevard public trail that is adjacent to the development may remain as a decomposed granite trail or may be installed as a concrete or asphalt trail, at the option of the developer initially and the option of the HOA ging forward, and shall be maintained by the HOA. D. 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. Parking Ordinance 841 Page 13 of 13 space dimensions shall comply with the parking standards contained in the Code of Ordinances. Said parking shall be located within a public parking easement to be shown on the final plat and shall be maintained by the HOA. E. Access – Per Exhibit B-1 two vehicular access points into the development from Solana Blvd. are required. Said intersections shall align with the existing median cuts on Solana Blvd. Entry points into the development from Solana Blvd. shall be consistent with Exhibit B-4. Prior to final acceptance of public improvements, the developer shall construct a westbound left turn lane on Solana Blvd. at the easternmost intersection accessing the development. The final design and construction shall be approved and inspected by the Town Engineer. Section 6 – Utilities and Drainage A. Public Utilities – Water and sewer service shall be provided by the Town of Westlake to this development. The developer shall construct all water and sewer system improvements per Town standards. B. 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 Inspection for the home. C. Stormwater – Stormwater facilities shall be installed by the developer and employ a combination of bio-swales, detention pond(s), and connection to the existing public street storm water system along Solana Blvd.. Final location and design of said facilities shall require the final approval of the Town Engineer. Section 7 – Public Art A. As part of the development agreement noted above, the developer agrees to submit a public art plan that generally conforms to the provisions contained in Exhibit B-5 as proposed by the developer. The terms contained in said exhibit may be amended by the development agreement and included in the final plan. SUMMARY OF EXHIBITS: Exhibit B-1 – Concept/Development Plan Exhibit B-2 – Peripheral Conservation and Open Space Plan Exhibit B-3 – Development Plan and Description by Developer Exhibit B-4 – Entryway Exhibits Exhibit B-5 – Public Art Proposal ConservaƟon Area DedicaƟon and Easement Open Space and Future Park DedicaƟon Area* HOA Open Space* * To Be Maintained By the HOA Peripheral ConservaƟon and Open Space Plan Dedicated to the Town of Westlake or a Public Land Trust Dedicated to the Town of Westlake 1 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESCRIPTION PROPOSED PLANNING DISTRICT 6 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 61 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: 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 61 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 240,950 sf against a total land area of approximately 2,722,500 square feet, or 8.85% 2 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 has been submitted to the Town 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: 61 residential lots measuring at least 10,000 square feet in area (approximately 80’ x 135’) or less than 1 lot per gross acre. A Concept Plan is attached for reference. Lot Size: Minimum lot size is 10,000 sf Minimum lot width (measured at the standard front setback line): • 80’ for standard lots • 40’ for lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows Lots on cul-de-sacs and elbows shall have a minimum 30’ frontage along the property line/ROW. Lot Coverage: The maximum footprint for a home shall be limited to (i) the lesser of 47% of the entire lot area, or 5,000 sf for a 1-story home and (ii) the lesser of 43%, or 4,500 sf for a 2-story residence. On certain larger lots, 2-story residences may have a maximum footprint of 5,000 sf. 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). 3 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. Building Height: The maximum height of 2-story structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Certain lots have been designated as being limited to a one-story building height, or 18 feet measured to the mid-poiont 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 and elbow 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. 4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Open Space: Per the Westlake Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan, approximately 33 acres of the 62.5 acres subject site is designated as open space and/or community park. Per the proposed development plan, approximately 40.8 acres or 65.3% of the gross acreage is set aside as open space or park dedication area. Further, as part of the Tree Mitigation Plan and Parkland Dedication requirement (please see below), approximately 35.6 acres of the open space is proposed to be donated to the Town (or its designee). As part of the donation, there would be requirements for the following: • Public Trail Easement • Private Road Easements (2) • Public and Private Utility Easement • Storm Water Detention Easement • Temporary Construction Easement • Landscape Easement Parkland 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 61 lot density would result in a parkland dedication area of approximately 2.03 acres. As discussed above, approximately 35.6 acres of open space is proposed to be donated to the Town (or its designee) to satisfy both the Parkland Dedication and Tree Mitigation requirements. 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 (back to back) including a mountable concrete curb on both sides within a 30’ ROW (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 5 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). The portion of the Solana Boulevard public Trail that fronts on the project will be maintained with the existing decomposed granite. UTILITIES 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 21.7 acres generally centered within the 62.5 acre parcel. Along the Solana Boulevard ROW, a 100’ setback is planned. Within the setback, there is likely to be a public utility easement for storm water detention and utility connections. On the property’s western (Granada) border, a 150’ setback is planned. On the southern border (generally Glenwyck), there will be a varied setback ranging from 150’ to over 400’ with the majority of the setback set at 300’ or more. The eastern portion of the property (“Mayor’s Hill”) to the Sam School Road frontage is not planned to be developed as included in the plan as open space to be donated to the Town (or its designee). 6 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 a designated building envelope for each lot. On each lot, the developer, lot owner, and home builder will only be allowed to remove trees in the designated building envelope and designated driveway area. In the side setbacks, any tree over 9 inches in diameter must be pre-approved for removal by the Town. Further, builders will be encouraged to use a “floating post-tension steel concrete slab foundation” to allow for minimal impact to tree root systems near each building envelope. 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 • 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. • Donation of approximately 35.6 acres of open space to the Town (or its designee) including an area to be designated as a 100% wildlife natural preserve (non-disturbance classification). This land area encompasses the setback areas that border on Granada, Glenwyck Farms, and Solana Boulevard. The “Mayor’s Hill” land area may be improved at the Town’s discretion. • 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 Any additional tree disturbance by a lot owner beyond the designated building envelope (and designated driveway area) will require further tree mitigation based on either a compensating payment based on a $100 per caliper inch 7 formula for protected trees approved for removal by the Town, or replacement tree planting equal to the tree loss. 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 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. 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. estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Discussion and consideration of a Resolution and ballot to cast (2) votes for nominees for the Tarrant Appraisal District Board of Directors as established by the Property Tax Code. STAFF CONTACT: Debbie Piper, Finance Director 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. Municipal & Academic Operations Exemplary Service & Governance - We set the standard by delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services at the lowest cost. Maximize Efficiencies & Effectiveness Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives Time Line - Start Date: January 1, 2018 Completion Date: December 31, 2020 Funding Amount: $ Status - N/A Source - N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) The five (5) member Tarrant Appraisal District (TAD) Board of Directors serve two-year terms which will expire on December 31, 2017. The Town of Westlake is entitled to cast two (2) votes collectively or separately for a nominee(s) to the Tarrant Appraisal District Board of Directors. All votes may be cast for one candidate or distributed among any number of candidates on the official ballot. Nominees – Tarrant Appraisal District (2 votes) Troy Alley – withdrew Marcario Belmontes - withdrew Daniel J. Bennett Johnny Bennett – withdrew Mike Leyman John Molyneaux Mike O’Donnell Joe Potthoff June Shrewsbury Mark Wood Resumes were obtained from Tarrant Appraisal District each and have been attached for your review prior to discussion and voting. RECOMMENDATION Discussion and staff direction to case vote on behalf of the Town. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Tarrant Appraisal District 2. Tarrant Appraisal District Ballot 3. Resumes of each nominee TO: D ENTON C EN TRAL APPRAISAL D1sTRICT 3911 MORSE STREET, p 0 Box 2816 D ENTON, TEXAS 76202-2816 MEMO All Taxing Jurisdictions FROM: Rudy Durham, Chief Appraiser DATE: October 26, 2017 SUBJECT: Candidates to Board of Directors of Denton Central Appraisal District Candidates to the Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors are listed below. The list is in alphabetical order by last name. Each voting unit must cast its vote by written resoluti on and submit it to t he Chief Appraiser before December 15th. The unit may cast all its votes for one candidate or may distribute the votes among any number of candidates. When a voting unit casts its votes, it must cast the votes for a person that was nominated and is named on the ballot. There is no provision for write-in candidates. The Tax Code does not permit the Chief Appraiser to count votes cast for someone not listed on the official ballot. The five nominees receiving the most votes will become the Board of Directors. The candidates nominated by the taxing jurisdictions are: (Please note Asterisk below) Candidate 1. Roy Atwood 2. Robert Gal lag her* 3. Mike Hassett 4. George Pryor 5. Connie Smith 6. Charles Stafford 7. David Terre Nominating Jurisdiction Lewisville ISO , City of Carrollton Town of Trophy Club Lewisville ISO, C ity of Lewisville, Town of Flower Mound , Town of Trophy Club Denton County Town of Trophy Club , City of Lewisville , Town of Flower Mound Town of Trophy Club , City of Lewisville , Aubrey ISO, Lewisville ISO Lewisville ISO, City of The Colony, Denton County, Northwest ISO Town of Trophy Club , City of Lewisville, City of Frisco *Robert Gallagher has in dicated that he does not want to be reappointed to th e Board of Directors. Since some of you may not be familiar with the process of selecting the Board, please do not hes itate to contact Kathy Williams at (940) 349-3974 for clarification and/or information. PHONE: (940) 349-3800 METRO: (972) 434-2602 FAX: (940) 349-380 I . . . Nominee Info r mation De nton Ce ntral Ap pr ai s al Di st rict B oa rd of Dire ctors Your name has been submitted as a candidate for the DCAD Board of Directors. The term is for two years beg innin g January 1, 2018, and ending December 31, 2019 . Please complete the following info rmation and feel free to attach any additiona l information . Pl ease return this form by October 25, 2 017. so that a c opy can be sent to the jurisdictions with t heir voti ng ballot. Name Address ' c 0-~ \... \....\c,'""-7500-Z City Zip 2-. l Y ~ S ~C"( -I ~ °t C'.\ Daytime Phone 2..ll.-\-li\.C.O -oS"2...? Evening Phone 1 . Are you a res iden t of Denton County and have you resided in De nton County for at least two years imm ediately preceding the beginning of this term? ~N o 2. Are you an employee of a taxing unit that participates in the Denton Appraisa l District? Ye €, Please provide work or personal experiences that would be applicable to serve on the DCAD Board of Directors. x ~'-.& ~~ ~ ~ G.. • ~~h c_ ... V-....~ °'-:\"9t"Y'-'S' \. \ ....,....._ ~ \:' :;;. O....s-=eQ.... <."-"...c:~ \S.~'i5 s,,_'-'"'c\ c::.. \'<::s.1,'c\.s:'-'--'"'\ CJ-G-G..v-v""C\1...~u--... ~'<XU c.._~ ~'-""-vv....~::. ~ '-<..)v:.., <.,, ~ C.o.....~ lfc".1 l \.-\y'-"., Ch.J<S> C- ~ ,,,,e__ \.c;,.,.-==.-\-\ '6 '=(1.'?o.s::s. 1 ~c\wc\ ~ ~ C -~\s=-~C ±w: C~-.-3G..... \ ~~--'~""'-c>1...:.-\:s ,, Mu ~s.cs:'f Cc~~,~---o.._y.,.d,J Return to : Kathy W ill iam s Denton Centra l Appraisal District P .O. Box 2816 Dento n, TX 76202 <~""-c.\.c..-cc4. fr<')C. ,c\ ( Roy T. At\.vood Partner Atwood Gameros LLP 6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75206 ro'{atwood@atwoodqameros.com +1 .214.559-7399 (T) +1.214 .481-5502 (F) Roy Atwood is a trial lawyer with extensive experience representing companies in complex litigation. He has represented clients in construction , toxic tort, product liabil ity, state and local tax, and business disputes of all kinds. He has tried cases in state and federa l courts in Texas and across the country and represented clients i'l arbitration. For over 15 years Roy has served as national coordinating counsel for a group of Fortune 100 companies in lawsu·ts involving tens of thousands of plaintiffs in more than 20 jurisdictions. As national coord inating counsel , he has served in leadership roles on steering committees and in joint defense groups. In 2001 and 2002, Roy was a member of a team of lawyers who obtained defense verdicts for clients in toxic tort cases, each of which The National Law Journal recognized as one of the top 20 defense wins of the year. In addition to winning at trial, Roy has successfully negotiated settlements for clients when settlement was the appropriate result, sometimes under very difficult circumstances. In one matter, Roy handled contentious negotiations for a cl ient that lasted five days and were conducted entirely in the presence of a United States Magistrate Judge. After 14 years as a partner, Roy retired from Jones Day at the end of 2012 and opened Atwood Gameros LLP. He made this move with the intent of providing clients with efficient and high quality service at reasonab le rates . Roy has been a frequent speaker on litigation-related topics and t eaches in trial skills programs. He served for many y~a rs on the board of the Trial Skills section of the Dallas Bar Association and is a member of the Dallas Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation. He is past president of the b oard of trustees of LaunchAbility, which helps people with developmental disabilities lead fulfilling lives. I n 2011, LaunchAbility honored Roy with their Milton P. Levy Jr. Volunteer Award. Roy is also a member of the board of the Down Syndrome Guild of Dallas. He has served on various boards and commissions in the city of Carrollton, Texas, including serving as a planning and zoning commission er. Roy also serves as a leader in the Student Ministries program at St. Andrew United Methodist Church. Roy has been recogn ized as a Best Lawyer in Dallas by D Magazine and has been recognized as a Texas Superlav1yer each year since 2009 and as a Best La wyer in America since 2014. U.S. News and World Report has recognized Atwood Gameros, LLP as a Best Law Firm since 2014. AREAS OF FOCUS Business and Tort Litigation Construction Special Ed ucation Law Product Liabil ity Litigation . , State & Local Taxation Disputes Multidi strict Litigation HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS National Law Journal "Defense Verdicts of the Yea( (2001 and 2002) Texas Super Lawyers (2 009, 2010, 2011. 2012, 2013, 2014 2015, 2016) Best Lawyers in America-Commercial Litigation (2014, 2015, 201 6) Best Law Firms in America -2014, 2015, 2016 D Magazine Best Lawyers in Dallas (2014, 2105, 2016) 2011 Milton P. Levy Jr. Volunteer Award, La unchAbility Member, Da llas Bar Foundation Member, Texas Bar Foundation EDUCATION Southern Methodist University (J D. cum laude 1988; Order of the Coif; Editor-in-Chief, Journal of A ir Law and Commerce; National Moot Court and Mock Trial Teams) University of Illinois (B.S. 1979) BAR ADMISSIONS Texas Federal Courts for the Northern , Eastern, Sou thern and Western Districts of Texas REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Construction The Brandt Companies LLC arbitrates claims stemming from construction of satellite antenna station - represented The Brandt Companies LLC in a dispute with a subcontractor that arose during the construction of a satellite antenna sta tion south of Austin, Texas The Brandt Companies LLC construction contracts -reviewed and negotiated construction subcontracts for The Brandt Companies LLC on a wide variety of construction projects, including government projects Bridgestone defends again st action involvin g failure of Louisiana Superdome roof during Hurricane Katrina -represented BFS Diversified Products , LLC in connection with a suit brought by the State or Louisiana and the Louisiana Stad ium & Exposition District as a result of the failure of the roof of the Louisiana Superd ome during Hurricane Katrina* Vetrotex Certain Teed defends against arbitration brought by electrical contractor -represented Vetrotex Certa in Teed Corp oration in an arbitration brought by an electrical contractor* City of Austin challenges cost overruns on nuclear power plant construction -represented the City of Austin in a suit, which culminated in a four and a half month jury trial, over cost overruns during the construction of the South Texas Nuclear Project powe r plant* Anatole Partners achieves substantial settlement in action fo r fa ulty design and construction of hotel mason ry -represented Anatole Partners, LP, the owner, in claims against design p ro fessio nals and contractors for fa ulty design and construction o f the hotel's masonry system , resulti ng in a substantial settlement payment to the owner* Co m merc ia l D isput es Tesoro pursues insurance recovery for losses arising from pollution conditions at refinery -represented Tesoro in litigation to recover losses arising from pollution conditions at a refinery under Pollution Legal Liability Select Insurance Pol icy• Pepsi Bottling Group settles dispute during acquisition of Better Beverages -represented The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. in connection with a dispute over the acquisition of Better Beverages* Hospital in billing and management dispute -represented a hospital in a dispute witn former third-party billing and management companies related to alleged improprieties by those companies* ATOF INAobtains favorable partial summary judgment-on behalf of ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., obtained a favorable partial summary judgment ruling interpreting the term "occurrence" as used in commercial general liabil ity policies issued by Travelers. which took t he position that the existence of asbestos at Fina's facilities was one occurrence , and thus a settlement of $300,000 in one large case exhausted all of Fina's coverage for premises liability cases* Merritt, Hawkins & Associates arbitrates software development contract dispute against developer - represented Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, as software purchaser, in an arbitration dispute against the developer involving a software development contract+ Hom ecom ings Financial negotiat es pre-su it settlement of software development contract -represented Homecomings Financial , a GMAC company , as a software purchaser and negotiated a pre-suit settlement of a software development contracr Ka/ MacKay negotiates settlement of breach of contract an d misappropriation of trade secret action -on behalf of Kay MacKay, negotiated the settlement of brea c h of contract and misappropriation of trade secret claims relating to aluminum bats following a preliminary injunction hearing and on the eve of trial* TRW wins summ ary judg mant in antitrust action brought by credit repa ir cl inic -obta ined summary judgment for cl ient TRW Inc. in an antitrust action brought by a credit repai r clinic" Bank group defends claims related to processing embezzled checks -obtained summary judgment for a group of banks that had processed embezzled checks .. Products Liability and Toxic Torts Ka iser A lum inum defends against action involving fatal fire -represented Kaiser Aluminum Corporation & Kaiser Aluminum in connection with claims stemming from a fatal fire in a duplex that contain ed aluminum wiring" ATC resolves action aga inst Wood Group resulting from failure of submersible water pumps in Saudi Arabia -represented A. Abunayyan Tra ding Company (ATC) in claims against Wood Group ESP stemming from the fa ilure of submersibl e water pumps installed in water production projects in Saudi Arabia* Specialty Products and Bondex In ternational seek bankruptcy protection -represented Specialty Products Holding Corp. and Bondex International, Inc. in connection w ith valuing asbestos liabilities in their chapter 11 cases, which were commenced in the United States Bankruptcy Court for th e District of Delaware on May 31, 201 0 .. Westinghouse Electric preva ils in product liability suit involving high voltage circuit breaker -successfully defended Westin ghouse Electric Co rporation in a $6 million product liability su it involving an extra high voltage circu it breaker* Textro n and Bell Helicopter successfully defend against claims brought by two workers alleging cadmium exposure -successfully represented Textro n, Inc. and its Bell Helicopter subsidiary in connection ' l Nominee Information Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directo rs Your namo has been submitted as a candidate for tho DCAD Board of D l r ci;torn. The term ls for two yoa rs beginning January 1, ?.01 8, and ending December 31, 201 O. Plcaso comploto th e following informatjon and feel free to attach any additional Info rmation. Ploaso rotum thl s f o r m by Octo ber 25.i 2017, so that a copy c..1n bo sont t o tho Jurisdictions with t hoir votin g b~llot . Ylt)\ c~~&~t--ik~T..:r_ __ _ Name 3soo ~,rJEffe.8 C ~,(c Address F~ 1'> i~"5.r!.. A/JC><..\Nb City ·-~ l ~ -a .(,S -c1y·t·\·( . .-.;..) ____ _ Dayt!me Phone ' <>r1 d--(;j I -J,...-.;t);.__;;S;;_S.....;_. ____ _ Evening Phone 1 Arc you a resident of Denton Ccunty and have you res ided in Denton ""' County fer at least two ye ar s 1mm cd1.:i tel y preceding the b eginning of th;s tarm? " ~j!N o 2 . Are you a n employee of a taxing uni t that parltc ipates i n the Denton Appraisal Dis tr ;ct? Yes~~ Pl eas e provide work or personal experiences that would be applicable to serve on th e DCAD B oard of Directors . o A h~r~ G {i:e z::i) -----------------· Return to : Kathy Wiiiiams Denton Central Appraisal District P.O . Sox 28·16 n~ri t nn T'X' 7"?0? Work/Personal Experiences I am completing my first two-year term on the DCAD Board of Directors, and I believe that experience has been invaluable. I have a BBA in corporate finance from the University of North Texas, and a JD from the University of Texas School of Law. I have been a practicing attorney since 1996, and I am board certified in Civil Tria l Law by the Te xas Board of Legal Specialization. My professional practice includes substantial work in commercial real estate, as well as municipal and general commercial law. I firmly believe that my work and education experiences make me uniquely qualified to sit on the Board. While the Board's primary duties are the hiring of th e Chief Appraiser and the adoption of the budget, many times we are asked to approve contracts, review and consider for purchase various insurance policies, and set long term policies for the District. These functions are complimentary to what I do professionally on a day-to-day basis. I take the responsibi l ity of being on this Board very seriously. I h ave not missed a meeting in my two- years on the Board, and I have come to each meeting fully prepared, always having studied the agenda and packet documents. I ask that you kindly consider giving me another t wo-year term. THE UPS STOPE #5388 Denton County Boards & Committees Application for Appointment Date: _ S e:_p-t. ':l.V ~D 17 Coo1missioner Precinct#: I I --~- Name: Ge o T" J e.... /j_. ?r;.Yo Y Years in Denton County: /O Home Address: 1 S Z fa.. 5 o..-t:J~ m f" Dr . Zip Code: 7,5 0 3 'f Ce// Home Phone: 'l---14' -4(::, 7-/:l13 Wefk. Phooe: ..1./¢ -S-L! f'-75.f1/ Fa,x: Iv /A E-Mail: '!]'° o <:)e. rcyor@a.7 t. ne. T Profession!fype of Work: Re. f Ir e.d Se.N'roY F.cr. ~ fhzvc1ntes /ir~C ;t.f 11a:I Board or committee applying for: 'De..Vic?"N' Cou tJ+,y JYf..t!? JS aJ D/st=rJ(;'f Special experience, knowledge or skills you will bring to this position: Served k ye/.I YS ON The D. f:. f1tfr.,usal /?ev1 e "~ Bo a rd (A J?B2 Tb e L. n~± 2 8-L \/Ice.. L h R J ~ ..--e 4'di'11';J 1.1)~/ Reason you w)sh to serve: J;; 1 &P VJ de. Q t..J ~( 'tV° ~ fe.Ve..Alce- 7,? 7J11 f-v.e v··°?~ i //'7 j'"·Ct#//t-Co oAlr.j A:/ ,,y"c; ~..,Y Have you ever served on a Denton County appointed board or committee? /e. S:: I If yes, give name of board or committee and dates served: Community Activity: Pa . .sr 19 ,,r:nqmen+-DLrec;...ypy ' /-}/f/d v f. ~ f Er/scoLEJke.r-ft!e-#~ ~i,C Signature: ld;,/J . ~ Dare: "?'-,;;1.,P'-/ 7 Boards ifl)d Committee Applications arc kept on file for two (2) years io. the Aide-to·tbe-Court's Office. Board and Committee h'form.:i.tion is avuilable in the Aide-to-the-Court's rn:fice . Return to: Aide-ro-the-Court' s Office Courthouse-on -the -Square 110 W est Hickory .Dtmton, Texas 76201 Attach Resume/Bio Nominee Information Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors Your name has been submitted as a candidate for the DCAD Board of Directors . The term is for two years beginning January 1, 2018, and ending December 31 , 2019. Please complete the fo llowing information and feel free to attach any add itional information . Please return this form by October 25, 2017, so that a copy can be sent to the jurisdictions with their voting ballot. Name ~IQ> ~ffit0 ~~ GJ Address h.D._~0 1~-r:><U City (Li lie) lJJo '3'2 S\o Zip Daytime Phone ( tJ'{)lcdo· 32-8-e Evening Phone 1. Are you a resident of Denton County and have you resided in Denton County for at least two years immediately preceding the beginning of this term? ~/No 2. Are you an employee of a taxing unit tha t participates in the Denton Appraisal District? Yes~ Please provide work or personal experiences that would be applicable to serve on the DCAD Board of Directors. :c· 00~ 'J L,\Q_~_s D\-f'Q.Cj Q:s\:uk ~pR.\ftOCiL i Qoci DlW\ \tQ uQQSS r-;]-0-c.CQJ.a~il'\C-, E>xpR)'\?->'>'--e . T ha 0£._, S%:ji>D~;~~~~~~~~~Gr= ~~=~' =~=;£ ====--~2 Q-u.,Q Dt 1)Nc..kXS ~C 4 ~°'I\~ 1 ~rn\0\\-CQCQ&2.. o.s \J 1cQ_,- 0~1"\'Y\Oo. 3 ,&Nui.o\ ~ \'ll0not\Qc1 Jo ~ C\ ppD; f')ed -k n oo\~ r .\Qc li"'f\ . . Return to: Kathy Williams Denton Central Appra isal District P.O. Box 2816 Denton , TX 76202 Nominee Information Denton Central Appraisal Dist r i c t Board of Directors Your name has been submitted as a candidate for the DCAD Board of Directors. The term is for two years beginning January 1, 2018, and ending December 31, 2019. Please complete the following information and feel free to attach any additional information. Please return this form by October 25, 2017, so that a copy can be sent to the jurisdictions with their voting ballot. Address ~.-rx City 7 Zip tr'-/o S1S: 7~3 Daytime Phone Evening Phone 1. Are you a resident of Denton County and have you resided in Denton County for at least two years immediately preceding the beginning of this term? $11No 2. Are you an employee of a taxing unit that participates in the Denton Appraisal District? Yes@ Please provide work or personal experiences that would be applicable to serve on the DCAD Board of Directors. Return to: Kathy William s Denton Cen tral Appraisal District P .O. Box 2816 Denton, TX 76202 Den ton County Boards & Con1m ittees Application for Appointment Date: Commissio n er Precinct#: 2. ~ arne · _\2.Q \J \ d \ ~\I e. Years in Dcnto!1 Count;: \_~--- ; Io:ne Add;:-:55 3 ~ L'\ ~ Te.a \ CQ '1 e _ --Zip Code: 1 sos {p Home Phor:c: \Vor~ Phan~: ~1£ lYO · Lf52(o Fax· None Profess:on Type of Work: _ E-\lail: t ~,..re. cl 0-_\I I d_e_:J o..ho D . c.o M Re-t:w·eci Board or committee applying for _D_l f\ \) _ ~ ;o. < d Special experien ce, kn owledge or skills you \\.ill bring ro this position: ~7-~\ \ -~o ~I_ \"'he _~o\q_~___t~~ Counc\ l __ _ '2:µ D ~ -'2. O \ \ \h _s:_GJ \on_'/-~~ 7-._ beet'=-_ d R~ason} ou \\ ish to:o s~rv." I-~ \ \ -e."1~ I ~-Se.'< '1 \ Le. 0. I'\ c\ r'r\ '-/ --r _Li _'{_-go.!:" _!'~co rd b0_ \)Cf\D iQ-J.r cl__h G\ s be-e.~-:>r0Cl t\C1+ve eA~D ~ o.1.-.?l e. ~ H.1\e you c\'er :;-::·, -:d uL rr U .. :n~.rn Co:mty appoint~c hoard or comm itte~? lX:f\b OT\\ 'f If ye:>, gi,·>.! na:nc C'f board or comm itt ee and dat-:s served C o mmunity Acti\·ity: :\~_e: Co \0'f\ '/ C.~':t1-Cu4Y)C;_ \~ _ 2 b l \_j-o Pre.5e.r\t- • \Y\e w\o'f\'-/ \Jc. -l ~l.Jat-c\ 2bo~ +o '}_o\ \ I ~~~- .. \\A e... G \DI"\'-/ C,,"'a. YY\ 'oe v-of } ct) T'("\ ('A e (""' c.e h '""'""-'o~J 0 r GI \v\ e..--h-D R-e-l \ e/' -\= Y \ e..~-'----- Signature ££,I.A Jv; __ Date: Boards an j Co:nr..ittee Appli:ations are kept on file for two (2) }ears in the Aide-to-the-Court's Office Board and Committee informatio n is available in the Aide -to-the-Court's Office. Re:um to: Aide-to-the-Court's Office Courthouse-on -the-Square 110 West i-lickory Denton, Texas 7620 I Attach Resume/Bio David Terre 3941 Teal Cove The Colony, Texas 75056 972 740-4526 EDUCATION Moberly Communit y College (2 Years) Drake University Earned a BS Degree in Business Administration and a Minor in Economics EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Enjoyed a wonderful 46 year career working for Wilson Sporting Goods; rose through the ranks to become VP of Sales responsible for all domestic sales . A long the way, a lso managed European Sales Operations wh il e living in Germany; worked in marketing, coordinating successful new product introductions; and, a lso managed West Coast Distribution Operations. THE COLONY PLANNING and ZONING COMMISSION Served 3 years-2008 thru 2011 as a m e mber and Vice Chair of the board. T HE COLONY CITY C OU NCIL • Elected in 2011 and received the honor of being elected Mayor Pro Tern during my first term. • In 2012 appointed to the Local Development Corporation Board of Directors to oversee Grandscape (Nebraska Furniture Mart) Development. • ln 2013 became the first Council Member from The Colony to ever be elected to Denton County Tax Appraisal District Board of Directors. • Was reelected in 2014 to a second tenn on council, receiving 71 % of the total vote in a three candidate race. HON ORS RECEIVED 1982 Drake University B asketball Hall of Fame 1994 Moberly Conununity College Basketball Hall of Fame 1995-2003 Three-time Senior Olympics Gold Medal Winner playing for the USA Basketball Team 1999 Received Wilson \Vall of Fame Honor 2007 Selected as Moberly Community College Outstanding Alumni of The Year 2013 Received Washington H igh School Hall ofHonor Award 1 ........ ' . .-,. Wh y I b eli e ve I am uniqu ely qu alifi ed an d very m u c h des ir e to c o ntinu e servin g on th e D ento n A ppra isa1 Dis tri ct Boa rd of Director s: • Throughout my life 1 have served in leadership positions, particularly d uri ng my W il son career and my City Counci l \.\·ork. My formula for success has always been to work hard, stay organized, use common sense and live by the Golden Rule. • I ha\·e enjoyed scn·ing on this Board and I believe I have made significant contributio n s during my two terms. Based on my experience and pcrfonnancc, l am asking fo r your votes so I can win reelection to a third term. Thank you for your consideratio n of th is request. ACCOMP LIS HMENTS During my I '' two year term I have worked with my fellow Board Members to achieve the follow ing meaningful results: l. Make sure we have a Quornm and I personally am able to contribute to each Board of Directors meet ing by being there. 2. Help develop A n nual Operating Budget and ensure that spending stays within budgeted funds whi le always looking for opportunities to save on expenses . 3. Participate in the development and actua l evaluation of the Chief Appraisa l Officer each year. 4 . To better serve all Denton County property owners. We have opened an offsi te location in th e Lewisville Career Center so that folks who live or work in that area can go to an alternate location as opposed to driving all the way to Denton to fi le a properl y tax protest. 5. We have a lso started an on li ne service that pem1 its property own ers to fil e property tax p rotest electron ic ally. T hus elim inat ing the need to have to drive to our D enton locati o n and fi l e in p erso n. 6 . To i mprove empl oyee m orale, we have imp le mented a structured very successfu l flex wo rk sch e dul e for A LL em ployees. If you h ave any questio ns or desire additiona l information, p lease contact me by p hone @972- 740-45 26 or v ia emai l terre .dav id@ yahoo.com 2 Resolution 17-43 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION NO. 17-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO CAST TWO (2) VOTES FOR NOMINEES FOR THE TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPERTY TAX CODE WHEREAS, the Tarrant Appraisal District is one of the appraisal districts for the Town of Westlake and it has a governing board of directors that are selected by participating political subdivisions; and, WHEREAS, the term of service for each of the five (5) members of the Tarrant Appraisal District Board of Directors will expire as of December 31, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Town was advised by the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District that the governing body of the Town of Westlake is entitled to cast two (2) votes collectively or separately for the following nominees for the Board of Directors of the Tarrant Appraisal District: Troy Allen – withdrew Marcario Belmontes - withdrew Daniel J. Bennett Johnny Bennett – withdrew Mike Leyman John Molyneaux Mike O’Donnell Joe Potthoff June Shrewsbury Mark Wood WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interest of the citizens of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake herby casts its votes for a position on the Board of Directors of the Tarrant Appraisal District for a term of two years beginning January 1, 2018, as follows: _____ votes for _________________ _____ votes for _________________ Resolution 17-43 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 2: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. SECTION 3: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura L. Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ ______________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Discussion and consideration of a resolution and ballot to cast one (1) vote for nominees for Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors as established by the Property Tax Code. STAFF CONTACT: Debbie Piper, Finance Director 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. Municipal & Academic Operations Exemplary Service & Governance - We set the standard by delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services at the lowest cost. Maximize Efficiencies & Effectiveness Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives Time Line - Start Date: January 1, 2018 Completion Date: December 31, 2020 Funding Amount: $ Status - N/A Source - N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) The five (5) member Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors serve two-year terms which will expire on December 31, 2017. The Town is entitled to cast one (1) vote to the Denton Central Appraisal District. Nominees – Denton Central Appraisal District (1vote) Roy Atwood Robert Gallagher – does not want to be reappointed to the Board Mike Hassett George Pryor Connie Smith Charles Stafford David Teere Applications have been attached for your review prior to discussion and voting. RECOMMENDATION Discussion and staff direction for the casting of the Town’s vote. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Denton Central Appraisal District 2. Applications for nominees for DCAD c¥Ai1 Tarrant Appraisal District Mr. Thomas Brymer Town Manager Town .of Westlake 3 Village Circle, S. 202 Westlake, Texas 76262 Dear Mr. Brymer: Jeff Law Executive Director Chief Appraiser October 27, 2017 The terms of the five current Directors of the Tarrant Appraisal District expire December 31, 2017. The deadline for nominations has passed. Enclosed is a list of candidates for these five (5) positions and an official ballot, in the form of a resolution. The Property Tax Code requires the governing body of the taxing unit to determine its votes by resolution. All votes may be cast for one candidate or distributed among any number of candidates listed on the official ballot. There is NO provision for write in candidates. Votes cast for someone other than the candidates listed on the ballot cannot be counted. The deadline for voting and submitting the signed ballot resolution to TAD is December 14, 2017. You may mail the ballot resolution, fax to (817) 595-6198 or email to mmccoy@tad.org. The five (5) candidates receiving the most votes are elected to a two (2)year t~rm 1'eginning January 1, 2018. 2017. JL:mm All tax units will be notified of the results of the election before December 31, Sincerely, aw xecutive Director· Chief Appraiser r I crArl Tarrant Appraisal District ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS r of Tarrant Appraisal· We, the governing body of Town of Westlake having been advised by the Chief Appraise District that we are entitled to cast 2 votes collectively or separately for the following can of Tarrant Appraisal District: Mr. Troy Alley Mr. Marcario Belmontes Mr. Daniel J. Bennett Mr. Johnny Bennett Mr. Mike O'Donnell Mr. Joe Potthoff Ms. June Shrewsbu Mr. Mark Wood Mr. Alley has notified TAD that he withdraws his name consideration for election to TAD's Board of Directors. Mr. Bennett has notified TAD that aftertwo terms on t does not want to be considered for another term. didates for the Board from he Board he do hereby resolve and order that Town of Westlake cast and does hereby cast its votes as follows: VOTES FOR· Mr. Troy Alley Mr. Marcario Belmontes Mr. Daniel J. Bennett s his name from Mr. Alley has notified TAD that he withdraw consid.eration for election to TAD's Board o f Directors. Mr. Johnny Bennett Mr. Bennett has notified TAD that after tw Board he does not want to be considered f o terms on the or another term. Mr. Mike Le man Mr. John Mol neaux Mr. Mike O'Donnell Mr. Joe Potthoff Ms. June Shrewsbu Mr. Mark Wood Passed this day of ________ _, 2017 · Presiding ~officer ATTEST _____________ , Secretary or Clerk, Town of Westlake IMPORTANT: This ballot must be'returned by December 14, 2017 to Jeff Law, Chief Ap Appraisal District, 2500 Handley-Ederville Rd., Fort Worth, Texas, 76118, by mail or by fax or by email to mmccoy@tad.org. praiser, Tarrant to (817) 595-6198 Resolution 17-44 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION NO. 17-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO CAST ONE (1) VOTE FOR NOMINEES FOR THE DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPERTY TAX CODE WHEREAS, the Denton Central Appraisal District is one of the appraisal districts for the Town of Westlake and it has a governing board of directors that are selected by participating political subdivisions; and, WHEREAS, the term of service for each of the five (5) members of the Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors will expire as of December 31, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Town was advised by the Chief Appraiser of the Denton Central Appraisal District that the governing body of the Town of Westlake is entitled to cast one (1) vote for the following nominees for the Board of Directors of the Denton Central Appraisal District: Roy Atwood Mike Hassett George Pryor Connie Smith Charles Stafford David Terre WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interest of the citizens of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake herby casts its votes for a position on the Board of Directors of the Denton Central Appraisal District for a term of two years beginning January 1, 2018, as follows: 1 vote for _________________ SECTION 2: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. Resolution 17-44 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 3: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura L. Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ ______________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager b. Section 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation: Cause No. 348-290326- 17 - Neil and Janelle McNabnay, Colin and Melanie Stevenson, Yair and Sandra Lotan, Jay and Jana Still, Biswajit and Chandrika Dasgupta, Michael and Michelle Granfield, Michael and Stef Mauler, Rudy and Christy Renda, David and Jenn Riley, Joseph Mohan and Maria De Leon, Roberto Arandia, and Patrick and Erin Cockrum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") vs. Town of Westlake c. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada d. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 e. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Water contract f. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Solana Public Improvement District’s Service and Assessment Plan g. 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 Town Council Item # 12 – Executive Session Town Council Item # 13 – Reconvene Council Meeting NECESSARY ACTION a. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager b. Section 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation: Cause No. 348-290326-17 - Neil and Janelle McNabnay, Colin and Melanie Stevenson, Yair and Sandra Lotan, Jay and Jana Still, Biswajit and Chandrika Dasgupta, Michael and Michelle Granfield, Michael and Stef Mauler, Rudy and Christy Renda, David and Jenn Riley, Joseph Mohan and Maria De Leon, Roberto Arandia, and Patrick and Erin Cockrum (collectively, "Plaintiffs") vs. Town of Westlake c. Section 551.087 Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) for the following: - Maguire Partners-Solana Land, L.P., related to Centurion’s development known as Entrada and Granada d. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 e. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Water contract f. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney 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: Solana Public Improvement District’s Service and Assessment Plan g. 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 Town Council Item #14 – Necessary Action FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Any Council member may request at a workshop and / or Council meeting, under “Future Agenda Item Requests”, an agenda item for a future Council meeting. The Council Member making the request will contact the Town Manager with the requested item and the Town Manager will list it on the agenda. At the meeting, the requesting Council Member will explain the item, the need for Council discussion of the item, the item’s relationship to the Council’s strategic priorities, and the amount of estimated staff time necessary to prepare for Council discussion. If the requesting Council Member receives a second, the Town Manager will place the item on the Council agenda calendar allowing for adequate time for staff preparation on the agenda item. - None Town Council Item # 15 – Future Agenda Items Town Council Item # 16 – Adjournment Regular Session