Loading...
05-08-08 PZ Agenda PacketTOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 8, 2008 7:00 pm WESTLAKE CIVIC CAMPUS - BOARD ROOM 2600 J. T. OTTINGER ROAD 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. CONTINUE A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, BY REMOVING APPROXIMATELY 107 ACRES FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 3- PLANNING AREA 3 (PD 3 -3) AND REZONING THAT ACREAGE TO BE CALLED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 3- PLANNING AREA 12 (PD 3 -12); AUTHORIZING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER, DATA CENTER, OFFICE AND RETAIL USES; DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS; DESCRIBING AND INTERPRETING THE PD CONCEPT PLAN, REGULATING PERMITTED USES, HEIGHT, LOT SIZES, BUILDING LINES, TOTAL FLOOR AREA, PARKING, LOADING AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; LANDSCAPING, FLOOD PLAIN, AND DRAINAGE; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE UPCOMING CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OIL & GAS WELL DRILLING SITES. 4. ADJOURNMENT. Town of Westlake Memo To: Chairman Bill Greenwood and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission From: Eddie Edwards, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Special called meeting of May 8, 2008 Date: May 5, 2008 ITEM Continue a Public Hearing and take appropriate action regarding an application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Westlake, Texas, by removing approximately 107 acres from Planned Development 3- Planning Area 3 (PD 3 -3) and rezoning that acreage to be called Planned Development 3- Planning Area 12 (PD 3 -12). BACKGROUND For review, the applicant desires to rezone approximately 107 acres generally located North of Dove Road and East of Ottinger. (See enclosed site plan.) This property is currently zoned within PD 3 -3, which means it is part of "Planning Area 3" of the "Planned Development 3" zoning district. The subject property is surrounded by property owned by the applicant. The surrounding property to the North and to the East is zoned PD 3 -3, the property to the West is zoned R -2, and South boundary is bordered by Dove Road with R -5 zoning across the road. By amending the boundaries of PD 3 -3, the planning area is reduced to approximately 257 acres. However, the entitlements including the allowable number of houses, square feet of resort hotel and the square feet of office use are not changed. Thus allowing the exact same potential square footage of structures previously approved for approximately 365 acres, to be constructed on the remaining approximate 257 acres. The newly created planning area PD 3 -12 (Planning Area 12 of Planned Development 3) has been specifically tailored to accommodate the proposed conference and education center, possible data center and their associated uses. The height increase requested is similar to that recently approved for the PD -1 (Maguire- Solana) planning district. The residential slope requirements are being changed from 5:1 to 4:1. At the regularly scheduled meeting of April 24, 2008, the Commission voted unanimously for a continuation of the Public Hearing until May 8, 2008 at 7:00 pm. Although the meeting continuation was requested by the applicant in order to allow more time for the completion of a traffic impact analysis, the Commission expressed several concerns as well and asked for additional information. The areas of concern are: • additional information concerning the impact to density for the remaining 257 acres within PD 3 -3 • current use plans and design for the remaining PD 3 -3 area along with types and percentages of open space • information in the traffic impact analysis for JT Ottinger Road and Dove Road and what that means for the school, bridges, increased traffic areas, etc. The Board of Aldermen met on Monday, April 28, 2008 for their regularly scheduled meeting and also voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing until May 19, 2008 at 7:00 pm. Additionally, the Board of Aldermen expressed the same concerns noted above by the Commission. Below is a list of attachments which includes the same items from the last P &Z meeting along with an updated memo from Staff, and the Traffic Impact Analysis with a summary, provided by the applicant. In addition, you will find an assessment of this analysis performed by a 3rd party traffic engineer hired by the Town and two letters. One letter is from the applicant, Hillwood, summarizing the effects of the PD changes, specifically regarding the density of the remaining PD 3 -3 and one from Deloitte's land broker, The Staubach Company, relating to the service /employee access. ACTION REQUESTED Make a recommendation to the Westlake Board of Aldermen to approve the proposed amendments to PD supplement as presented. (See enclosed Ordinance.) ATTACHMENTS Pate Number Draft of proposed Ordinance for the newly Pages 1 -21 created zoning district PD 3 -12 PD Concept Plan Pages 22 Vicinity Maps — 2 different aerial views Pages 23 -24 Applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis Pages 25 -42 with summary Traffic Impact analysis comments by 3rd party Engineer Pages 43 -44 Letter from The Staubach Company; Pages 45 -47 Re: service /employee access Letter from Hillwood; Re: allowable density Pages 48 -50 within the remaining portions of PD 3 -3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS BY REMOVING APPROXIMATELY 107 ACRES FROM THE PD 3 -3 PLANNING AREA AND REZONING THAT ACREAGE TO BE CALLED PD 3 -12. AUTHORIZING, AMONG OTHER THINGS A CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER, DATA CENTER, OFFICE AND RETAIL USES; DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS; DESCRIBING AND INTERPRETING THE PD CONCEPT PLAN; REGULATING PERMITTED USES, HEIGHT, LOT SIZES AND BUILDING LINES, TOTAL FLOOR AREA, PARKING, LOADING AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LANDSCAPING, FLOOD PLAIN, AND DRAINAGE; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on August 24, 1992, the Board of Aldermen (sometimes referred to as the "Board ") of the Town of Westlake, Texas (the "Town "), adopted a Comprehensive Plan (the 1992 Comprehensive Plan ") for the Town; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 1992, the Board, adopted a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance "); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance has been amended by the Board after receiving recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission "); and WHEREAS, on September 15, 1997, based on the recommendations of the Commission, the Board amended the Zoning Ordinance and the subdivision regulations by the adopting of a Unified Development Code (the "UDC ") for the Town, and WHEREAS, the UDC has been amended, with the most recent amendments being adopted on August 23, 2003; and WHEREAS, there is located within the corporate limits of the Town an approximately 365 acre tract of land (commonly known as Planning Area 3 - Resort and hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Planning Area"); and WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen agrees that the boundaries for PD 3 -3 must be amended and certain uses clarified in order to accommodate the aforementioned Conference and Educational Center and Data Center; and , 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page I ORDINANCE Page 1 of 50 WHEREAS, the Board believes that the interests of the Town, the present and future residents and citizens of the Town, and developers of land within the Town are best served by adopting this Ordinance, which the Board has determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, Open Space Plan, and Master Water and Sewer Plan all as amended: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: PART That the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated herein, adopted by the Town and declared to be true and correct. PART 1I That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Westlake, Texas, as codified in the Code of Ordinances and the Planned Development Supplement, , is hereby amended by this PD Ordinance, by amending the property described in the attached Exhibit 1 attached hereto by reference for all purposes. This PD will be subject to the concept plan, development standards, and other regulations attached hereto. PART III Upon the adoption of this PD, the Town Secretary shall promptly enter the new Planned Development on the Town's Official Zoning Map, which entry shall include the abbreviated designation "PD No. 3 -12" and the date that this Ordinance was adopted by the Board. PART IV It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Board of the Town that sections, paragraphs, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Ordinance since the same would have been enacted by the Board of the Town without the incorporation in this Ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. .2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 2 ORDINANCE Page 2 of 50 PART V This Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, ON THIS DAY OF ,MAYOR ATTEST: , Town Secretary , Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stan Lowry. Town Attorney '1009 PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center Page 3 ORDINANCE Page 3 of 50 CIRCLE T PLANNING AREA 3 -12 CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER ARTICLEI. GENERAL PROVISIONS ...................................................... ..............................1 SECTION1 SHORT TITLE .......................................................................... ..............................I SECTION2 PURPOSES ................................................................................ ..............................I SECTION 3 GENERAL DEFINITIONS ....................................................... ..............................1 Section3.1 Usage .............................................................................. ..............................1 Section 3.2 Words and Terms Defined ............................................. ..............................1 SECTION4 PD SUPPLEMENT .................................................................... ..............................2 SECTION 5 APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS ................ ..............................2 Section 5.1 Applicable Town Ordinances ......................................... ..............................2 Section 5.2 General Approval Criteria .............................................. ..............................2 SECTION 6 CONCEPT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND SITE PLANS .....................3 Section6.1 PD Concept Pl an ............................................................ ..............................3 Section 6.2 PD Development Plans .................................................. ..............................3 Section6.3 PD Site Plans ................................................................. ..............................3 ARTICLEII. USES ........................................................................................ ..............................4 SECTION 1 LAND USE SCHEDULE .......................................................... ..............................4 SECTION 2 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES ............................. ..............................8 ARTICLE 1II. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ........................................ ..............................9 SECTIONl DENSITY ................................................................................... ..............................9 Section 1.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9 SECTION2 MINIMUM LOT SIZE ............................................................... ..............................9 Section 2.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9 SECTION3 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH .......................................................... ..............................9 Section3.1 Office ............................................................................. ..............................9 SECTION 4 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ........................................... ..............................9 Section 4.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9 Section 4.2 Exceptions to Height Requirements ....................... ....... ............................... SECTION 5 MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE ................................................... ..............................9 Table of Contents 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page i ORDINANCE Page 4 of 50 Section 5.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9 SECTION 6 FRONT YARD SETBACKS ..................................................... ..............................9 Section 6.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9 Section6.2 General .......................................................................... .............................10 SECTION 7 REAR YARD SETBACKS ...................................................... .............................10 Section 7.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center ... .............................10 Section7.2 General ......................................... ............................... .............................10 SECTION 8 SIDE YARD SET BACKS ........................................................ .............................11 Section 8.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center ... .............................11 Section8.2 General .......................................................................... .............................11 SECTION 9 SLOPE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................... .............................11 Section 9.1 Residential Slope .......................................................... .............................11 Section9.2 Roadway Slope ............................................................ ..............................1 l SECTION 10 MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ... .............................11 Section 10.1 Hiking and /or Biking Trails .......................................... .............................12 Section 10.2 Landscape Irrigation ...................................................... .............................12 Section10.3 Fencing .......................................................................... .............................12 Section10.4 Lighting ......................................................................... .............................12 Section 10.5 Tree Requirement .......................................................... .............................12 ARTICLEIV, EXHIBITS ............................................................................ .............................13 EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of Planning Area 3 -12 EXHIBIT 2 PD Concept Plan Table of Contents 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page ii ORDINANCE Page 5 of 50 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Circle T Planning Area No. 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Ordinance ", or simply as the "PD Ordinance'. SECTION 2 PURPOSES This PD Ordinance is adopted to provide for a superior design of lots or buildings; to provide for increased recreation and /or open space opportunities; to provide amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community; to protect or preserve natural amenities and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and viewscapes; to protect or preserve any existing historical buildings, structures, features or places; and to provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to provide adequate supporting public facilities and services. SECTION 3 GENERAL DEFINITIONS Section 3.1 Usage For purposes of this PD Ordinance, certain numbers, abbreviations, terms, and words shall be used, interpreted and defined as set forth in this Section. Other terms and words are defined elsewhere in this PD Ordinance. Unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary, words used in the present tense include the future tense, and words used in the plural include the singular. The word "shall" will be interpreted as mandatory, and the word "may" as permissive. Section 3.2 Words and Terms Defined. Applicable Town Ordinances means the UDC and all other ordinances, rules, and regulations that are adopted by the Board and that are applicable to development within the PD District 3 -12. Board means the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Westlake, Texas. Commission means the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Westlake, Texas. Floor Area means the total area of all floors of all buildings on a lot or unified development site measured between the outer perimeter walls of the buildings excluding (i) area in a building or in a separate structure (whether below or above grade) used for the parking of motor vehicles, (ii) courts or balconies open to the sky, and (iii) roof area used for recreation. Masonry means brick, stone, cast stone, concrete, glass block, split -face concrete masonry unit, or other masonry materials approved by the Board. PD District means the planned development zoning district established by this PD Ordinance. Article 1. General Provisions 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 1 ORDINANCE Page 6 of 50 PD Concept Plan means a plan for development which enables the town to evaluate major impacts of a proposed zoning district or planned development district. PD Ordinance means this planned development zoning district ordinance, including any approved PD Concept Plan. PD Supplement means that certain Circle T Planned Development Zoning District As codified in the Planned Development Supplement. Town means the Town of Westlake, Texas. UDC means the Town's Unified Development Code, as amended. SECTION 4 PD SUPPLEMENT The Board adopted the PD Supplement. The PD Supplement includes additional standards that are applicable within this PD District. The PD Supplement establishes additional standards for the following: (i) concept, informational, development and site plans; (it) signs; (iii) landscaping; (iv) roadway construction, parking and loading; (v) fencing; (vi) lighting; (vii) other special standards; and (viii) illustrations. To the extent that there is any conflict between a provision in the PD Supplement and this PD Ordinance, the terms of this PD Ordinance shall control. SECTION 5 APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS Section 5.1 Applicable Town Ordinances Except to the extent provided by the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance and the PD Supplement, development within the PD District shall be governed by the following UDC standards: With respect to the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area, by the O -H Office Park -Hotel Except to the extent provided by the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance, and the PD Supplement, development within the PD District shall also be governed by the Applicable Town Ordinances. In the event of any conflict between (i) the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance and the PD Supplement and (ii) the Applicable Town Ordinances, the terms, provisions and intent of the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance and the PD Supplement shall control. Except as provided below, in the event of any conflict between the UDC and the Applicable Town Ordinances, the terms, provisions and intent of the UDC shall control. Section 5.2 General Approval Criteria To the extent, if any, that the Applicable Town Ordinances (and, in particular, the subdivision regulations of the UDC) grant to the Board, the Commission, the Town Manager or any other Town employee or consultant, the authority to approve any aspect of development within the PD District (including, but not limited to, preliminary or final plats or any aspect thereof or any agreements or permits related thereto) based on conformity with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan or Thoroughfare Plan (or with the objectives, goals or policies of such plans), then such authority shall be Article 1. General Provisions , 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 2 ORDINANCE Page 7 of 50 exercised to the extent necessary to determine whether the aspect of development being approved is consistent with the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance, the PD Supplement and the objectives, goals, and policies of such plan, ordinance and supplement. SECTION 6 CONCEPT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND SITE PLANS. Section 6.1 PD Concept Plan. A PD Concept Plan for this PD District shall be approved prior to the approval of any development plans and site plans required by this PD Ordinance. The PD concept plan shall comply with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Open Space and Trail Plan, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the Master Water and Sewer Plan of the Town and the Master Drainage Plan of the town and the UDC Section 6.2 PD Development Plans Article 1, Section 1-3, (3) of the Planned Development Supplement states that PD development plans shall not be required for development within any of the PD Districts. Section 6.3 PD Site Plans PD site plans are required for development within the PD District. Article 1, Section 1 -3 (4) of the PD Supplement governs the process by which PD site plans are submitted and approved (including, but not limited to, the submittal requirements, approval criteria, and conditions). Article I. General Provisions 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 3 ORDINANCE Page 8 of 50 ARTICLE 11. USES SECTION 1 LAND USE SCHEDULE Buildings, structures, and land within the sub -areas identified on the PD Concept Plan shall be used only in accordance with the uses permitted in the following "Land Use Schedule ". The symbol "X" shall mean that the use is permitted as a principal use by right. The symbol "S" shall mean that the principal use is permitted only af3er first obtaining a "Specific Use Permit" as set forth in the UDC. The symbol "A" shall mean that this use is specifically permitted as an accessory use to a main use (this does not exclude other land uses which are generally considered accessory to the primary use). A blank square shall mean that the use is not allowed as a principal use. CIRCLE T PLANNING AREA 3 -3 -B CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER AND DATA CENTER LAND USE SCHEDULE PERMITTED Permitted "X" USES Special Use "S" Accessory "A" AGRICULTURAL USES Orchard X Plant Nursery (Growing) X Plant Nursery (Retail Sales) X Fanns General (Crops) X Forms General (Livestock, Ranch) x Veterinarian (Indoor Kennels) Veterinarian (Outdoor Kennels) Stables (Private Use) S Stable,1 As a Business) RESIDENTIAL USES Single Family Detached Single Family Zero Lot Line Single Family Attached Duplex Home Occupation Ser+ants'Caretakers, Quarters Accommodation for Employees'Customers /V i sitors A Swimming Pool (Private) A Detached Garage (Private) A Sport Tennis Courts (Private) A Article Il. Uses 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page 4 Vrc uriVnrv� [ Page 9 of 50 PERMITTED USES Permitted `:k" Special Use "S" Accessory "A" INSTITUTIONAL, and GOVERNMENTAL USES Emergency Ambulance Service X Post Office (Governmental) X Mailing Service ( Private) X Heliport HelistopNeni -stop S Telephone, Electric, Cable, and Fiber Optic Switching Station X Electrical Substation S Utility Distribution Lines' X Utility Shop and Storage A Water and Sewage Pumping Station (below grade) x Water and Sewage Pumping Station (above grade) S Water Storage Tank and Pumping System (Elevated or Above Grade) S Water. Sewer. Electric, and Gas Meters X Electric Transformers X Private Streets /AlleyslDrives X Retirement Home Nursing %Convalescent Home Hospice Hospital Psychiatric Hospital Clinic A Child Daycare ( Public, 7 or more) Child Daycare (Private. 7 or more) A` School. K -12 (Public or Private) .School ( Vocational) College or University X Conununiiy Censer ( Public) Civic Club X Church or Place of Worship X Use Associated to a Religious Inst. X Government Building X Police Station X Fier Station X Library X Data Center X Article]]. Uses .2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page 5 ORDINANCE Page 10 of 50 PERMITTED USES Permitted "X" Special Use "S" Accessory "A" COMMERCLkL USES Multifamily (Apartmenis) O1lices (General) X Studio X Banks and Financial Institutions a Information Processing X Hotel- Motel X Hotel Motel with Conferencing Facility X Laundry Dry Cleaning ( <3,000 S.F.) A Laundry/Dry Cleaning (DropTick) A Shoe Repair A Beauty Parlor /Barbershop A Clothing Store A Quick Copy,'Duplicaling Services A Personal Services A Liquor Store Micro -brewer and Kline Production and Sales ( <30.000 S.F.) S Grocm Conw tience Store A Service Station Drug Store A Variety Store A Bakery Sales A Stationery and'or Book Store A Antique Shop An Gallery Muscums A Hardware Store Sporting Goods A Paint and Wallpaper Cloth Store Retail Stores - General (Excluding Second Hand Goods) A Restaurant. Cafe or Dining Facility X Auto,Truck Parts and Accessories Household Fumilure Appliances (including Sales and Service) Fanners Market Feed Store Parking Structure X Cafeteria I Private) A Article 11. Uses .2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page h ORDINANCE Page 11 of 50 PERMITTED USES Permitted "X" Special Use "S" Accessory `•A" Job Printing, Lithography. Printing. or Blueprinting A Vehicle Display and Sales (inside) Medical Laboratory R&D Laboratory A^ Conference Center X Live Theater A Motion Picture Theater A Custom Business Services X Electronic Appliances Store and - Computer Sales and Service Tavern, Bar or Lounge S Dance Halls /Nightclubs S AMUSEMENTRECREATION Golf Course ( Public or Private) X Park or Playground ( Public or Private) X Satellite Dish X Non - Commercial Radio Tower Race Track Operation Recreation Facility. Health Studio ( Public) X Country Club ( Private Membership) X Golf Clubhouse ( Public or Private) X Community Center (Private) X Recreation Center( Private) X Hike, Bike. and Equestrian Trails ( Public or Private) X Golf Maintenance Facility A Golf Pro Shop A Health'Spa Facilities (Private) A Athletic Fields ( Private) A Athletic Courts (Private) A Equestrian Center A Athletic Courts (Public) A Commercial Amusement (Inside) A Lake CruisefWater Taxi AUTO SERVICES Truck,Trailer Rental Auto Body Repair Auto Mechanical Repair A Article 11. Uses .2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center- Page 7 ORDINANCE Page 12 of 50 PERMITTED USES Permitted "X" Special Use "S" Accessory "A" Quick LubeOil Change Vehicle Maintenance (Private) A Vehicle Fueling (Private) A WHOLESALE TRADE Warehouse/Siorage (Inside) Warehouse'Storage (Outside) ScraP'Waste Recycling Collection andbr Storage GasiCheinical Bulk Storage Light ManufacturingiAssembly Apparel Manufacturing Packaging and-or Distribution Printing. Engraving and related Reproductive Services Distribution of & »ksiOther Printed Material Machine Shop Welding Shop Temporary Batching Plant S Temporary Construction Office X3 Temporary Construction Materials Storage X' Temporary SaltsOtlice X NOTES: 1. Individual retail occupants (except grocery store and drug store) cannot exceed 25.000 square feet. 2. Including water, sewer, electric, gas, cable, telephone, fiber optic. and other public and private utility distribution lines. 3. Limited to period of construction. 4. Limited to "build -out' period. 5. "Private" shall be deemed to include a daycare that is made available to any employee on the property. 6. Limited to white collar research and development (i.e., non - industrial, non - chemical, and non - water processing). SECTION 2 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES An accessory use or structure which is customarily incidental to the principal use or structure, and which is located on the same lot or tract of land, shall be permitted as an accessory use without being separately listed as a permitted use. Article II. Uses 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page R vRUrrvhrv�r Page 13 of 50 ARTICLE 111. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION 1 DENSITY Section 1.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center: The maximum aggregate floor area for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center shall be 1,250,000 square feet and limited to a total of 1,200 Guest rooms (Guest rooms defined as rooms used for overnight accommodations). SECTION 2 MINIMUM LOT SIZE Section 2.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum lot size for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 200,000 square feet. SECTION 3 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH Section 3.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum lot width for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 200 feet. SECTION 4 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Section 4.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center Except as provided below, the maximum height for all structures within the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be no higher that an elevation of 735.00 feet above mean sea level. Section 4.2 Exceptions to Height Requirements The height limits imposed above shall not apply to (a) chimneys and vent stacks, church spires, cupolas, entry features, skylights, or other architectural features that are not intended for occupancy or storage; (b) flag poles and similar devices; or (c) heating and air conditioning equipment, solar collectors, and similar equipment, fixtures and devices provided such equipment, fixtures, and devices are screened from view with a solid wall that is architecturally consistent with the design of the building to which they are attached. SECTION 5 MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE Section 5.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum building size for Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use shall be 3,000 square feet. SECTION 6 FRONT YARD SETBACKS Section 6.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum front yard for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 100 feet. Article 111. Development Standards 2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 9 ORDINANCE Page 14 of 50 Section 6.2 General A. Required front yards must be open and unobstructed except for fences and signs allowed by this PD Ordinance; provided, however, ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses, cornices, and other architectural features may not project more than 12 inches into the required front yard. A fireplace chimney may project up to two feet into the required front yard if its area of projection does not exceed 12 square feet. Cantilevered roof eaves and balconies may project up to five feet into the required front yard. B. The front yard setback is measured from the front lot line or from the required right -of -way, whichever creates the greater setback. C. If a lot runs from one street to another and has double frontage, a required front yard must be provided on both streets. If access is prohibited on one frontage by plat, the following structures or portions of structures in the yard along such frontage are governed by the rear yard regulations: swimming pools; game courts; fences; garages; and other accessory buildings. D. If a corner lot has two street frontages of equal distance, one frontage is governed by the front yard regulations and the other frontage by the side yard regulations. If the corner lot has two street frontages of unequal distance, the shorter frontage is governed by the front yard regulations and the longer by the side yard regulations. SECTION 7 REAR YARD SETBACKS Section 7.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum rear yard for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 100 feet. Section 7.2 General A. Required rear yards must be open and unobstructed except for fences and signs allowed by this PD Ordinance; provided, however, ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses, cornices, and other architectural features may not project more than 12 inches into the required rear yard. A fireplace chimney may project up to two feet into the required rear yard if its area of projection does not exceed 12 square feet. Roof eaves may project up to three feet into the required rear yard. Balconies may not project into the required rear yard. B. The rear yard setback is measured from the rear lot line. Article III. Development Standards .2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 10 ORDINANCE Page 15 of 50 SECTION 8 SIDE YARD SETBACKS Section 8.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum side yard for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 75 feet. Section 8.2 General A. Required side yards must be open and unobstructed except for fences and signs allowed by this PD Ordinance; provided, however, ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses. cornices, and other architectural features may not project more than 12 inches into the required side yard. A fireplace chimney may project up to two feet into the required side yard if its area of projection does not exceed 12 square feet. Cantilevered roof eaves may project up to three feet into the required side yard. Balconies may not project into the required side yard. B. The side yard setback is measured from the side lot line, except when a front yard is treated as a side yard, in which case, the setback is measured from the lot line or the required right -of -way, whichever creates the greater setback. C. Air conditioning units may be located in the required side yard, but not nearer than one foot to the property line. SECTION 9 SLOPE REQUIREMENTS Section 9.1 Residential Slope Except as provided below, non single family structures shall not exceed the height of aline drawn at a slope of 4:1 (including streets and other rights of way) from any single family lot line. If the grade of the ground rises or falls from the point of origin of the slope line, the maximum pennitted height shall increase or decrease by the difference in grade. Section 9.2 Roadway Slope Non single family structures shall not exceed the height of a line drawn at a slope of 2:1 (including streets and other rights of way) from the right -of -way line of any roadway. If the grade of the ground rises or falls from the point of origin of the slope line, the maximum permitted height shall increase or decrease by the difference in grade. SECTION 10 MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Section 10.1 Hiking and /or Biking Trails. If required by the Town, public hiking and biking trail(s) shall be located along and generally parallel to public rights -of -way and designed such that the trail(s) do not penetrate greater than 100 feet onto the subject property in any direction. The design of the trail pathway shall meander in keeping with the nature of the area and proposed development. Article III. Development Standards 2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 11 ORDINANCE Page 16 of 50 Section 10.2 Landscape Irrigation. Upon the submission and approval by Town staff of a landscape design utilizing low water or Xeriscaping plantings, the inclusion of an automated landscape irrigation system may be waived for part or all of the subject property. A temporary irrigation system my be utilized at the owner's discretion to allow for the establishment of plantings, but such a system may be temporarily or permanently disengaged, at such owner's sole discretion. Section 10.3 Fencing. Fencing around any data center use may exceed seven feet in height if such height is reasonably required for the security of such data center; provided, that any fencing that exceeds seven feet in height be screened from adjacent rights of way or properties by topography, structures or plantings. Section 10.4 Lighting. A. Luminaries used for building security or to illuminate building facades, entrances, parking areas and loading and service areas may be installed (i) on the building fagade but not above the building roof line; and (ii) anywhere on the lot with a maximum height of 25 feet, but not higher than the building roof line. B. Luminaries used to illuminate pedestrian areas shall have a maximum height of 12 feet, and no pedestrian walkways are allowed to run parallel to a line of upright fixtures (excluding bollards 12 feet or less in height) and a building. Walkways connecting pedestrian areas and adjacent buildings shall be allowed to be located in this area, so long as the primary intent is to connect the pedestrian walkway and the building. Section 10.5 Tree Requirement. No more than 25 large trees (including existing trees) per acre of the site's permeable green space shall be required. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to portions of the site dedicated to open pasture, and any additional trees required shall be concentrated in appropriate areas to provide buffering from adjacent sites and public rights of .gray. Article Ill. Development Standards , 2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 12 ORDINANCE Page 17 of 50 ARTICLE IV. EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of Planning Area 3 -12 EXHIBIT 2 PD Concept Plan Article IV. Exhibits 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page 13 ORDINANCE Page 18 of 50 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PD 3 -12 BEING a tract of land situated in the Jesse Gibson Survey, Abstract Number 592, the Wilson Medlin Survey, Abstract Number 1958, the Charles Medlin Survey, Abstract Number 1084 and the G. Hendricks Survey, Abstract Number 680, Tarrant County, Texas, and being a portion of that certain tract (Tract 2) of land described by deed to AIL Investment, L.P., as recorded in Volume 13275, Page 542, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8 inch iron rod with plastic cap stamped "Carter & Burgess" set being an ell corner in the southerly property line of said AIL Tract 2, said point also being the northeast property comer of that certain tract of land described by deed to Lakeway Land, Ltd., as recorded in Volume 13978, Page 222, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE S 89 049'56 "W, 787.23 feet along the common property line of the southerly property line of said AIL Tract 2 and the north property line of said Lakeway Land tract; THENCE N 00 045'29 "W, 35 7.8 7 feet; THENCE N 20032'l 0 "E, 243.20 feet; THENCE N 24 °21'01 "E, 227.62 feet; THENCE N 26 047'41 "E, 340.17 feet; THENCE N 58 007'29 "E, 281.95 feet to the beginning of a non - tangent curve to the left; THENCE with said non - tangent curve to the left, an arc distance of 504.70 feet, through a central angle of 23 °33'27" having a radius of 1227.50 feet, the long chord of which bears N 88050'l 9"E, 501.15 feet; THENCE N 77 003'35 "E, 1563.23 feet; THENCE S 00 03243 "E, 762.66 feet; THENCE S 40 002'39 "W, 871.03 feet; THENCE S 01 005'24 "E, 1442.77 feet to north right -of -way line of Bove Road, as shown in that certain tract of land described by deed to the Town of Westlake, as recorded in Volume 16798, Page 279, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE S 88 °54'36 "W, 1153.05 feet along the north line of said Dove Road; C &B Job No. 015007.094 ACF #2412 CTR April 15, 2008 J:VOB\ 01500701\ 094 \SLTR \WP\LEG\PD3- 12ZONING.doc Page l oft Page 19 of 50 THENCE S 87 036'29 "W, 138.19 feet continuing along the north line of said Dove Road to the east property line of that certain tract of land (Tract 1) described by deed to AIL Investment, L.P., as recorded in Volume 13883, Page 335, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE N 00 °31'56 "E, 1296.32 feet along the east property line of said AIL Tract 1 and then along the east property line of the aforementioned Lakeway Land tract to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 4,677,277 square feet or, 107.375 acres of land more or less. NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC S663.21. AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE USED TO CONVEY. OR ESTABLISH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY, EXCEPT THOSE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. C &B Job No. 015007.094 ACF #2412 CTR April 15, 2008 J:\lOB\ 01500701 \094\SUR \WP\LEG\PD3- 12ZONING.doc Page 2 of 2 Page 20 of 50 z li e II n cc ■ N -r- 'i m. I -D 0 Uo.s 2&4 04 0 CPU w t 'D V` r gz-k a a C, cOO -ac-- -"� 07,g a I Lb 0 9 - c C3 O ID =E:&000 5 m c a o– RICHARD. EADS SURVEY A5STXAt7 HURAVER 402 BURYJEY $TRACT HUNIBE&.20241A ----------------------- 7j�— - APPROX IMATE y L I N E /111� SURVEY CHARLES INCEPLIN SURVEY ADSTRACV MUMMER 1004 z JESSE SUTTON SURVEY ABSTRACT WUMBER 1451 PD 342 W7.375 ACRES 41L INVESrww, L.P. FD PG RFNiAJNDER IAZIF 2 VOL . .542 3-3 FART I ®p Ih�pdb Ot 51, cc D ills L4<EW4y LANO, L7-0. 0. Vk VOL. 13978. PC. 222 1 ! t f i a cn C) i DOVE RD L AN EXHIBIT SHOWING PD 3-12 ZONING AND THE REMAINDER OF THE PD 3-3 ZONING TOWN OF WE5TLAKE, TARMNT COUNTY, TEXAS =n-kPPROXIMAIE WRVEY LINEI f ABSTRACT NUN3E­A- 9idi-- APPROXIMATE SURVEY LINE REMAINDER FD 3-3 Iz PART 2 'v' uj uj O 1"A-< .0 .4 ... JAMES .....:........ J.... F. KASSON ............. ......... 4;500 0 I'lLE1 )-\JOB',01500701',094\SUR\5D0794zl.dgn 04TE. 15-Apr-08 12,38-nij, -cenninn . — , GENERAL SITE CONCEPT NOTES.- PLAN r Turner Lake z =U-7 AMk e gay J-/ Flood Plain v.w,•,mv,e,,,,.,..mrnwvear . rmmm xe�.ran,m ;��ry/ / / /��) l V'� k '0 4;p cc c, 43 Pr.. 1,J'r., It ..rd., coo In Eritryl R—pt— Pr sed Primary intry Road Gar'g, St—tufe t Trip, G-or.r. tu,ildrl 30 I , H., 11 1. 70 It. gh COQ op.. sp... mr., C"? Ftz 0 1 OK C In Ful— P..d Aft CIMI, ..... . PrIvnie Recreatiorl 1 rop"ed Sefy 0 s OU I Cre —10011 dt/ N' and S,, P, t, BuOdmnp 70 11�.ghttt a % < "I 'i ll¢ co .43 P,,bi,. T,a 11 . . . . . . . . . . . CD P pi K) K) 0 U1 0 FY 3 PD Site Concept Plan: gpproximately`1071 et idelity R.gmual Camp,,s 40 -M lot lk I,. U Z W mi U m 23 of 50 1 • ♦ *♦ � ♦e �, o .�f s. *rte• *• ♦." � : t -. • � b y�iip ♦ � � 4 � -� � .... � ���7' .f " _ �_ �� ��._�.' - _ ... - _�_, fix. � • a r. • .i �wR � � • • t, IL - 04 * �� 40 46 • � w �f* � • � s t s ' 1)+ r I N A CD CIRCLE RANCH" 0 `� t *too • M t Summary of Relevant Findings — Traffic Impact Analysis Service Vehicle Traffic Service vehicles would enter the site via Ottinger Road. Based on the estimates of service vehicles from our two finalist operators, DeShazo, Tang & Associates has indicated that service trips to the site are considered relatively low in number, and not considered high enough to impact normal traffic flows. While not impacting traffic significantly, it is understood that the town may wish to minimize potential impact on active school zone timeframes. Both operators have indicated that service vehicle traffic/deliveries can be scheduled at times that would have no material conflicts with school zone hours. Guest Traffic O All guests arriving at the facility would enter and exit the site from Westlake Parkway. Guests would arrive via shuttlelvan/coach, private or rental automobile, or taxi. Employee Traffic All employee traffic is expected to normally access the site via Ottinger Road. Two groups of employees will need access to the site: operator employees and owner employees. Based on DeShazo Tang's findings, including current background traffic and added traffic due to employees, the Level of Service (as defined by Transportation Research Board as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual — (HCM)) for Ottinger Road at the emergencylservice /employee entrance on Ottinger is rated `A` or "B° at peak traffic hours. The HCM rating system, A — F, generally provides that a level "D" or better indicates an acceptable level of performance for intersections in urban or surburban locations, while rural locations may demand a better level of service, Although the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that Ottinger Road should be only minimally affected by the added traffic, the Operators and Owner have indicated the ability to 1) adjust shift change times to avoid peak school hours, and 2) stagger shift changes to spread traffic over a longer period of time. Page 3 of 3 Printed on, 4129108 Page 25 of 50 Summary of Traffic/Transportation Assumptions for Project X Used by DeShazo, Tang do Associates, Inc. for Trip Generation /Parking Demand Models Based Upon: Phone Interview w/ Owner, Gensler, DT&A; plus, DT&A assumptions All information pertains to original construction phase, unless otherwise stated. (PRELIMINARY, subject to review and revision) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Number of Guest Rooms: 800 2. Assembly Area: 94,000 SF PROGRAM INFORMATION 3. Typical range of duration: 1 day to 2 weeks 4. Typical Start /end time of other programs: a. 8:00 AM -6:00 PM (one day) b. mid -day to mid -day (varies) 5. Attendance: a. >75% of capacity from June through mid- Decernber; <75% of capacity from January through May. b. highest Monday through We, nesdap, lower on Thursday and Friday, no weekend attendance except for extended -period programs NUMBER OF GUESTS 6. Typical range in number of guests 50 -1000 per program 7. Maximum number of guests on site atone tune, when considering overlap of multiple programs: 1,500 (not all guests stay overnight) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 8. "Operator': 460 employees in three shifts a. 65% on Shift 1: 7:00 Alva 3:00 PAM b. 32% on Shift 2: 3:00 PM -11:00 PM c. 3 % on Shift 3: 11:00 PM -7:00 AM 9. "Owner ": 100 employees on one shift (8:00 AM -5:00 PM) 14. Data Center employees: 12 employees on one shift (5:00 AM -5:00 PM) ASSUMED TRAVEL MODE 11. Guests: a. Shuttle Bus /Coach - 65% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 20 persons per vehicle) b. Drive Alone (Personal Auto, Local /Regional origin) -10% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.2 persons per vehicle) c. Drive Alone (Rental Car) -10% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.5 persons per vehicle) d. Taxi /Other Drop -off -15% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.0 s perons per vehicle) e. If off -site activities are included in program, travel will most likely be arranged by private coach. Page 1 of 2 Printed on: 4/22108 Page 26 of 50 12. Staff: a. "Operator' -Drive AIone (Personal Auto) -100% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.1 persons per vehicle) [NOTE: "Operator" mould consider arranging private transportatimi to reduce traffic, if required.] b. "Owner' -Drive Alone (Personal Auto) -100% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.1 persons per vehicle) c. "Data Center" -Drive Alone (Personal Auto) -100% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.0 persons per vehicle) ESTIMATED SERVICE VEHICLE NEEDS 13. Estimated number of "18- wheeler" vehicles serving the site: 14 per week 14. Estimated number of "Single Unit" trucks service the site: 15-25 per week 15. Deliveries can be scheduled by the Owner, as needed END OF DOCUMENT Page 2 of 2 Prin lyd ar_ 412W Page 27 of 50 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CORPORATE CONFERENCE CENTER IN WESTLAKE, TEXAS Pmp"d for. Gensler 711 Louisiana, Suite 300 Houson, Texas 77002 Prepred by DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Engineers • Planners 400 South Houston Street Suite 330 • Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone 214/748-6740 Fax 214/748 -7037 April 21, 2008 DT&A 007252 Page 28 of 50 DRAFT - DrSliasq Tang & Associatrs Inc. April 21.2004 Traffic Impact Analysis for Corporate Conference Center — DT &A Projed Ne. 07L52 — Table Of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................. ............................... INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ ............................... i Purpose ....... ......... ........ ....... .. ................. ........ .... . ................. .. ....................... . ............. 1 ProjectDescription ........ .. ........................................ ................... ....... . ...................... 2 StudyParameters .... .......................... _. .......................................... ..................... ......2 StudyArea .. ............................................ .. ......... _ ............................................ ... ..... 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................... ............................... 3 Approach .............._ ............. .._........._.................. __ ..................... ....�.......................3 Background Traffic Volume Data .............. . ...... .. ............ .. ............................................ 3 Site - Related Traffic »... ...... ... . ................... ..................................... .............. ...... 3 Trip Generation and Mode Split ....................................................... ..............................3 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................ .................................... ............... 4 Site - Generated Traffic Volumes... .................................... ..................................... ..... 5 Traffic Operational Analysis — Roadway Intersections ..................................... ........ 5 AnalysisMethodology ................................................. ............................... Analysis Traffic Volumes ................................ .............................................................. 8 Summaryof Resul ts ................................ ..................................................................... 6 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. ............................... 8 CONCLUSIONS......................................... _............................................................ 9 Corporate Confi-rcne<4iiter Traffic tnrlxict Avalpis Table of Cottents Page 29 of 50 DRAFT - De$hazo, Tang & AssocWes, ltic. ApH121, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The services of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. (DT &A) were retained by Gensler on behalf of the Owner to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for development of a Corporate Conference Center in the Town of Westlake, Texas ( -the Project "). The 106.9 - acre site is part of the Circle T Ranch and is currently zoned as a Planned Development District The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the TIA for use by the Owner in a request for an amendment to the existing PD zoning to facilitate the Project The proposed development does notoperate like a traditional hotel or other land uses,so no standardized trip generation characteristics are available for this analysis. Hence, trip generation projections for the Project were calculated by a trip generation model developed by DT&A based upon estimated information provided by the Owner and from DT &A's own assumptions based upon professional judgment. For purposes of this analysis, two traffic assignment scenarios were considered: Scenario 1 - All traffic (except service vehicles) accesses the site through the main entry via Westlake Parkway. Scenario 2 - All guests traffic accesses the site through the main entry via Westlake Parkway; while all staff traffic access the site through a secondary driveway located on Ottinger Road. Since most of the property immediately surrounding the site is currently rural in nature, the roadway network serving the site is commensurately rural in character and /or is only partially constructed to the ultimately - planned cress- section. Due to the intermittent nature of site traffic and the extensive use of private transit, the traffic impact to the local roadx,ay network will be moderate. Depending upon the decision of whether to designate staff traffic through the main entrance or a side entrance on Otti.^,ger Road, traffic to road-ways other than Westlake Parkway may be negligible. As future development occurs and the local thoroughfare network is expanded, reconfiguration of the site driveways may be appropriate in order to achieve proper intersection spacing and traffic capacity. END Cor --Ic C0'1fi'W"& C"Aler Traffic ifll[wct Amalysis Page i Page 30 of 50 DRAFT DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Engineers Planners 400 South Houston Street. Suite 330 Dallas, TX 75202-4899 214.748.6740 • FAX 214.748.7037 www,deshazotang.corn Technical Memorandum To: Mr. David AIderete— Gensler From: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Date: April 21, 2008 Re: Traffic Impact Analysis for Corporate Conference Center in Westlake, Texas DMA Project No. 07252 INTRODUCTION The services of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. (DT &A) were retained by Gensler on behalf of the Owner to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for development of a Corporate Conference Center in the Town of Westlake, Texas ("the Project "). DT &A is an engineering consulting firm providing Iicensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic /transportation engineering. The proposed Project is a conference center for the private use of a corporate tenant located on a 106.9 -acre site. The subject site is part of the Circle T Ranch and is currently zoned as a Planned Development District A site location map is provided for reference in cxhibiti. Purpose The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the TIA for use by the Owner in a request for an amendment to the existing PD zoning to facilitate the Project. The TIA will be provided to the Town of Westlake staff ( "the Staff") for technical review to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. Cor7`o C-1111 7 raffic I ni pacr Analysis Page 1 Page 31 of 50 DRAFT- De9m a, Tmig & Associates, Inc. Aprt7 21, 2408 This TIA analyzes the anticipated impact, if any, of background traffic growth and site - related traffic at specified buildout conditions. Based upon the results of this analysis, DT &A has recommended traffic - related measures considered commensurate and appropriate to mitigate excessive or undue projected impacts. It is intended that the findings and recommendations presented herein be considered a credible basis to determine the traffic - related improvements essential for the Project to operate safely and efficiently. Project Description The proposed development will initially include a conference center with 800 guest rooms and 94,000 square feet of assembly space. The proposed zoning request would allow an expansion to up to 1,200 guest rooms. For purposes of this analysis, occupancy of the project is anticipated to occur in 2009. A preliminary site plan for the Project as provided by Gensler is provided in Exhibit 2 Study Parameters This TIA will analyze the day -to-day traffic operational conditions that are anticipated to be the most critically impacted by the proposed Project at buildout conditions- Based upon the traffic generation characteristics of the Project and the prevailing background traffic conditions, the following periods shall be analyzed. • various weekday peak hours of adjacent street and site - generated trip generation o at existing conditions o at site buildout year 2009 with site - generated traffic The following technical assumptions were also made in this analysis. • Background traffic volumes were obtained from DT& A's Traffic Impact Analysis for Phase ll construction•, of the Fidelity Investments corporate carnpus (i.e., background traffic volumes include the projected volumes from Fidelity Investments) - base traffic volumes were collected in March 2007. StudyArea Based upon the scale of the proposed Project, the TIA study area was defined in order to assess the most relevant traffic impacts to the local area. The following locations are included in the study area. Intersections: (a) SH -114 interchange with Westlake Parkway: fraffrc- signer - controlled (b) Westlake Parkway at Capital Parkway: STOP- controlled on Capita! Farkuny (Molakc Parkway curnnfly fenninofes of 1 e inlerseclion) (c) Ottinger Road at Secondary Driveway (future): STOP- ronlrelledondriveimy Corporate C&"A —, cc Cr„rrr Trerffie Impart Analysis Page 2 Page 32 of 50 DRAFT- De5hivzo, Twig &Asso6aks, Arc. Apnl 21, 2008 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS In accordance with the requirements for site plan approval in the Town of Westlake, submittal of a Traffic Impact Analysis is required for the Project The study is provided to the Staff for review of the projected traffic impact; and, Staff review comments are provided to the Town of Westlake Planning and Zoning Con-unission and Town Council for consideration Approach The TIA presented in this report will analyze the operational conditions for the peak hours and study area as defined above using standardized analytical methodologies where applicable- Current traffic volume data were collected throughout the study area to represent existing traffic conditions. Growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to project future background traffic at the site buildout year conditions. Then, traffic generated by the proposed development was projected using the standard four -step approach: Trip Generation, Mode Split, Trip Distribution, and Traffic Assignment By adding the site - generated traffic to the background traffic, the resulting site - plus - background traffic impact to operational conditions may be assessed from which approach mitigation measures may be recommended. Background Traffic Volume Data Traffic volumes derived in the 2007 Traffic Impact Analysis for Fidelity Investments Phase II (conducted by DT&A) were used to reflect the current peak period traffic volumes on Westlake Parkway and Dove Road (base data collected by DT &A on March 20, 21, and 27, 2M and are summarized in Exhibit 3. Current daily roadway link volumes on Ottinger Road were collected by DT &A (subcontractor) on April 17 -18, 2008. Detailed data are provided in Appendix C. Site - Related Traffic Tri Generation and Mode Split The proposed development does not operate like a traditional hotel or other land uses, so no standardized trip generation characteristics are available for this analysis. Hence, trip generation projections for the Project were calculated by a trig; generation model developed by DT &A based upon estimated information provided by the Owner and from DT &A's own assumptions based upon professional judgment. Description of use The proposed development will host corporate employees from local, regional, and national offices. Various corporate programs will be held for guests during their stay. The duration of programs will range from one day to L— o weeks; the number of attendees of p rogran,s cdgp 'nfe ca" fccc"-Gufci Traffic An fnct Auadysis Page 3 Page 33 of 50 DRAFT- DrShnzo, Tmrg & Associates, lire. April2l, M will range from 50 to 1,000. Start and end times for programs also vary - 8:00 AM -6:00 PM for one day programs, and mid -day start and end for other programs_ For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that approximately 65% of guests will arrive by private shuttle or coach; 10% by private auto (local /regional traffic); 10% by taxi; 15% by rental car. It is also estimated that the site will employ up to 460 "operator" staff (in three work shifts), 100 "Owner" staff; and 12 data center staff. Additional detailed assumptions and detailed trip generation and parking assumptions are summarized in Appendix A. An overview of the hourly site - related trip generation is summarized in Table L Table 1. Weekday Site Trip Generation Summary (from DT& A Trip Generation Model) One -Hour Period Begbuiing TOTAL IN OUT 6:00 AM 276 276 0 7:00AM 110 98 13 8:00 AM 8 8 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 10:00 AM 33 33 1 0 11.00AM 33 33 0 12:00 PM 40 33 7 1.00 PM 47 33 13 2:00 PM 280 167 113 3.-00 PM 305 0 305 4:00 PM 8 0 a 5:00 PM 74 13 61 6:00 PM 147 20 127 7.00 PM 67 33 33 8:00 PM 47 33 13 9:00 PM 20 20 D 10:00 PM 26 26 0 11:00 PM 134 0 134 12:OOAM 0 0 0 Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic generated by the proposed development was assigned to the study area roadway network based upon a subjective interpretation of the geographic distribution of population and by DT &A`s professional judgment and understanding of the available roadway network. (NOTE: This analysis only considers the existing roadway network Future roadway improvements, extensions, and /or expansions are not considered in this analysis and may require further consideration as those projects are implemented.] For purposes of this analysis, two traffic assignment scenarios were considered: Copromlr ConlrnmaCenter Trnffic lynparl Apialysis Ngr 4 Page 34 of 50 DRAFT - DeShrtzo, Tang &AssocWn, fttc. April 21,20M Scenario 1 - All traffic (except service vehicles) accesses the site through the main entry via Westlake Parkway. Scenario 2 - All guests traffic accesses the site through the main entry via Westlake Parkway; while all staff traffic access the site through a secondary driveway Iocated on Ottinger Road. For both scenarios, service traffic is assumed to access the site through the secondary access point on Ottinger Road. An illustration of traffic assignment assumptions for each scenario is summarized in Exhibit 4. Though this may include larger service vehicles, including W1 -50 trucks (approximately 14 per week), those service trips are relatively low in number and can be scheduled at the discretion of the Owner. The volumes of service vehicles were not considered high enough to merit an independent analysis of intersection capacity, though the impacts should be considered subjectively. Site - Generated Traffic Volumes Site - generated traffic is calculated by multiplying the trip generation value (from Table i) by the corresponding traffic assignments (front Exhibit 4). The resulting cumulative (for all uses) peak period site - generated traffic volumes at buildout of the Project are summarized in Exhibit 5. Traffic Operational Analysis — Roadway Intersections Analysis Methodology Traffic operatlonal conditio. ns for traffics : gnal - controlled ("signalized" 11 roadway intersections are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle through the intersection as a function of roadway capacity and operational characteristics of the traffic signal. The standardized methodology applied herein was developed by the Transportation Research Board as presented in the Higlavay Capacity Manual (HCM, HCM also qualitatively rates the overall delay conditions in terms of "Level -of- Service" (LOS) ranging from "A" (free - flowing conditions) to "F" (over - capacity conditions). Generally, LOS D or better is considered an acceptable condition for signalized intersections in urban and suburban conditions, while rural locations may demand better level -of- service. A detailed description of HCM LOS for signalized intersections is provided in Appendix E. The standard methodology for measuring the operational conditions of STOP-controlled ( "unsignalized ") intersection capacity was also developed by the Transportation Research Board and presented in the HCM. These operational conditions are also qualitatively defined in terms of LOS ranging from "A" to "F" and are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle —but as a function of acceptance gaps in the opposing traffic stream(s). LOS for unsignaiized locations are not measured for the entire intersection; Conwate Conference Cos ter Trafftc hHJWC1 Anslysis P's, 5 Page 35 of 50 DRAFT- peSha2o, Tail & AssoeioK Jett. April 11, 2008 rather, LOS is only calculated for individual traffic movements that must stop or yield right - of -way (traffic movements that do not stop or yield have no effective delay). A detailed description of LOS for unsignalized intersections is also provided in Appendix E. NOTE The HCM methodology for unsignalized intersections was originally designed to analyze low- to rnoderaie-volume locations where the traffic is, generally, evenly distributed throughout the intersection (e,&, an intersection of two local streets). However, for unsignalized intersections located on maior thoro� ughfares (where traffic volume or roadway capacity is very high and/or vastly disproportionate; or "unbalanced"}, the methodology is deficient. Although LOS D or better is desirable, LOS F (calculated) commonly results and cannot be operationally mitigated unless a traffic signal is installed (subject to the findings of a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and subsequent approved of traffic signal installation by the responsible transportation agency). External factors such as gaps in the traffic stream created by nearby traffic signals are not sufficiently accounted for in the methodology but may, in fact, provide better- than-calculated conditions. Since no alternative analysis methodology exists, the results directly obtained from the calculated values are pmented herein. It is recommended that analysis results for such locations be taken in the context of darto -day experience rather than as an absolule determination of inadequacy. Analysis Traffic Volumes Determination of the Project's traffic impact is measured by comparing the incremental change in operational conditions with and without site-related traffic. Exhibit 6 summarizes the background -plus -site peak period traffic volumes at the analysis period. Summary of Results Intersection capacity analyses presented in this study were performed using the Synchro 7 software package. Table 2 and Table 3 provide a summary of the intersection operational conditions for traffic - signal -controlled intersections and unsignalized intersections, respectively during the peak periods under the analysis conditions presented previously. Detailed software output is provided in Appendix F. NOTE Signalized intersection results were obtairxd directly from the optimized sofm-are output based upon signal phasing and cycle ienglits observed in the field and may differ slightly from actual signal operati�cms. Coq -rate Conference C -nter Traffic furpacr Aenfysis pngr 6 Page 36 of 50 DRAFT - De5ltaro, T'ling & Associates, lttc. Al►ri121, 1008 Table 2. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Signalized Intersections) Table 3. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Unsignalized Intersections) Existing Scenario I (All Access via Westlake Scenario 2 (Access via Westlake Scenario 2 (Aauss via We5llake Parkwai, and Seconds Drive) COl11460115 Parkway) irk-roiN and Seconda Drioc) 5:00 PM 6:00 PAf 7,•00 5:00 700 5.00 6:00 6.00 2:00 3:00 7:00 5:00 7.00 5:00 7.00 5.00 rda AM PM AM PM AM PM PM PAf AM PM AM PM AM PM {dB 6:00 6.00 8:00 6:00 7:00 7.00 3.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 6:00 8:00 6.00 AM PM AM PM AM PM PM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM W arktva Oltin cr Road WEIR ►drt a/rt n/a It/a rda at/a r ✓a r ✓a A A A A At WB SH 114 FR B C B C ►t/a ova 11/4 rda 8 D ►da rda Ida rt/a Westlake Parkway A I g/a At EB SF1 114 FIZ Q Q D D rt/a rda ►t/a rt/a Q D rt/a rt/a rdn rt/n Table 3. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Unsignalized Intersections) KEY: AM and PM peaks based upon actual conditions. A.D.(:D,E,F— Level of service ror intersection approach movement, N0, SB, EB, W8 . North -, South•, East -, Westbound approach; t. T R - App- -k turning mt +vemonr. 'O v Corporate Conference Cnuer m Traffic Impact Anol ysis V Page 7 O 01 0 Existing Conditions Scenario 1 (All Access ilia Westlake Per Very) Scenario 2 (Aauss via We5llake Parkwai, and Seconds Drive) 7,00 AM 8:00 AM 5:00 PM 6:00 PAf 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 5:00 PM 6 :00 PIVf 6:00 AM 700 AM 6:00 PM 7.00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 3.00 PM 4:00 PM 7.00 AM 8.00 AM 5:00 PM 6:00 Phi 7.•00 AM 8:00 AM 5.00 PM 6:00 PM 700 AM 8:00 AM 5:00 PM 6.00 PM Westlake Parkcva • WO rda rt/a A C ►t/a rt/a rt /a I rt/a A C rt/a rt/n rt/a rda at Capital Pkiv •, {dB ►du It/,I A A ►da n/a rda rda A A ►da rda rda rda SB rt/u rdrt r A ►du rda ►da ►t/a r A ►t/a ova Ida n/a Oltin cr Road WEIR ►drt a/rt n/a It/a rda at/a r ✓a r ✓a A A A A A B at SCt'O11LIar Drive I SBLT rdir 1 rt/,r 1 rda rda rt/u rt/a rda rda A ►t/a A rt/a A I g/a KEY: AM and PM peaks based upon actual conditions. A.D.(:D,E,F— Level of service ror intersection approach movement, N0, SB, EB, W8 . North -, South•, East -, Westbound approach; t. T R - App- -k turning mt +vemonr. 'O v Corporate Conference Cnuer m Traffic Impact Anol ysis V Page 7 O 01 0 DRAFT- DleShauL ]'wig &Associaks, fee. April 21.200E As noted in the results, the capacity analysis indicates that existing operational conditions at traffic - signal controlled interchange of SH -114 and Westlake Parkway generally operate efficiently and at acceptable Levels of Service. Acceptable conditions are expected to be maintained through the addition of site - related traffic. For the unsignalized intersection of Westlake Parkway at Capital Parkway, it is recommended to add STOP - control to each approach in order to maintain a conventional traffic control at the intersection (as opposed to create an unusual two-way configuration not anticipated by motorists). By introducing the southbound STOP control, the southbound approach results in a Level -of- Service F during the AM peak hour due to the heavy background traffic volume. However, this condition is only expected to dissipate at once the AM peak hour traffic normalizes. Other intersection approaches will operate at satisfactory conditions before and with the addition of site traffic under both site access scenarios (1 and 2). Under Scenario 2, where staff traffic accesses the site via the secondary driveway, the intersection operations are expected to operate at acceptable Level -of- Service conditions with the addition of site - related traffic Since background traffic is very Iight, delays at the intersection are expected to be nominal. RECOMMENDATIONS NOTE: Recommendations for public improvements within the study area presented in this report reflect the opinion of DT&A based solely upon technical analysis and pmfessiorud judgment and are not inten&4 to define, imply, cr allocate funding sources nor required improvements. Applicable legal precedent indicates that the Owner of a Project should only be rNuijed to proportionately fund necessary infrastructure improvements that are directly attributable to implementation of the Project Such requirements will depend ulkn the individual cirrurrs tares of each project that may be viewed differently by each par titutar agency /municipjlity. 1. For Scenario 1 (all traffic accessing the site via Westlake Parkwav), configure the intersection of the Westlake Parkway - Capital Parkway intersection as illustrated in Exhibit 7. Installation of an all -way SLOP is recommended in order to maintain a traditional traffic control. [NOTE: Once Westlake Parkway is extended in the future, a new driveway location for the subject site may be required in order to maintain proper intersection spacing from the existing location of Capital Parkway.] 2. For Scenario 2 (guest traffic accessing the site via Westlake Parkway, staff traffic accessing the site via secondary driveway on Ottinger Road), also configure the intersection of the site driveway on Westlake Parkway - Capital Parkway intersection as illustrated in Exhibit 7. 3. Owner should attempt to schedule service trips to minimize impact on surrounding community. Corp vfe r-ouf "werct'ifer Tm, J9c Impact Asa lysis 1'ngr 8 Page 38 of 50 DRAFT - DeShazo, Tang S Assocrafrs, laac April 2r, 2008 CONCLUSIONS Development of the subject property to an 800 -guest room corporate conference center is proposed on currently undeveloped property. The proposed development will generate very unique traffic generation patters, much of which will arrive /depart by private shuttle or coach. Since most of the property immediately surrounding the site is currently rural in nature, the roadway network serving the site is commensurately rural in character and /or is only partially constructed to the ultimately- planned cross- section. Due to the intermittent nature of site traffic and the extensive use of private transit, the traffic impact to the Iocal roadway network will be moderate. Depending upon the decision of whether to designate staff traffic through the main entrance or a side entrance on Ottinger Road, traffic to roadways other than Westlake Parkway may be negligible. As future development occurs and the local thoroughfare network is expanded, reconfiguration of the site driveways may be appropriate in order to achieve proper intersection spacing and traffic capacity. END OF MEMO Corleorale Confercrrcr Gvik-r Traffic Impact Awlysis Page 9 Page 39 of 50 Inbound `ol OC e� 1 u $CCOlidary Driveway i -- - &cond-ry � Driveway Westlake �b Oc F ��llf �y}wsY Cam ' �- I No T. Snh Ji _t��r►a $rte 14'6 / - r "! WcmlAc Psrkway Y t Exhibit 4A Site Traffic Assignment (Scenario I ) Corporate Conference Center Traffic Impact Analysis Leycnd: " = Traffic Assisnnxrit ror Staff f- rY "frarlic Assignment far Guc'J.t —f— %u Page 40 of 50 Inbound a Y C O $o° M. Outbound k� s� ►�a 90% , 0% 1I ,ao We dake Parkway 1 � t Scconda[r _Privew'%' 1 � P�tiaaY �• r c' < R L•1 O: I `J Wcsllake Pwkway t. Delve-ay 1 � i u Exhibit 4B Site Traffic Assignment (Scenario 2) Corporate Coiirerence Ccnlcr Traffic linpacL Analysis �C G Wt ToSuk 9Q% esq ��Rgti 1` �r V ,0% � i- f; - Rsfl /,qF ; scR4ld ,0% Rwa _ / � 9016 �l Foo I Legend: = Traffic Assignrmw for Siaff _ = Traffic Asmpinent fist Guests pare Page 41 of 50 Existing Condition Recommended Condition 1 1 .1 t Future Site Driveway (Conceptual) A" i i i �1 a 0 n A ,A 1 ` i 1 n f: i J / Exhibit 7 ' Westlake Parkway- Driveway Intersection Configuration Corporate Conference Censer Traffic Impact Analysis (N Hw Ts sclk Page Page 42 of 50 A Civil EuginWllltg, ftC6M Thomas E "mer, Town Manager Eddie Edwards, Director of Planning and Development 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, Texas 76262 Re: Traffic Impact Analysis 071A) for the proposed Corporate Conference Center I have reviewed the traffic study and city's comprehensive plan. I offer the following general and technical comments: General Review The separation of the service vehicles from the main traffic is confusing to some extent due to the lengthy route being proposed fnr service vehicles. If there was a more direct route for service vehicles, it would seem reasonable. Consideration and planning for a more direct route should be incorporated into the final plan. One option is to extend a new collector from the service entrance on Ottinger westward to Roanoke Road. A second option is to extend Westlake Pkwy westward and bring a service entrance off that extension n:nning in a southerly direction along the west side of the Deloitte property. The volume of traffic being generated by this site is not being developed using standard trip generation analysis. This is clearly stated up front in the report. The report indicates that this type of facility does not operate like a traditional hotel; therefore, the standard trip generation methods would not apply. The developer is indicating there are several conditions in which guests will be brought to the hotel_ These assumed conditions significantly reduce the potential traffic impacts and have significant influence on the results ofthis sttudy. If the Town determined it was comfortable with these assurned conditions, the applicant should be required to incorporate these conditions into the actual site plan during that process of the development such that they can be measured and enforced by the Town. The conditions are 65% of the guests will arrive by shuttle or coach; 100/0 by private auto; 100/6 by taxi; and 15% by rental car. While this methodology seems reasonable, it has an overwhelming impact to the TIA results and volume of traffic being generated. Methods of measuring the amount of guests and service vehicles should be incorporated into the site design to ensure the site functions as proposed and that it is enforceable as proposed. Examples of ways to do this are video tracking or gated entry with codes for the different types of vehicles. The applicant should provide a method of tracking the number and types of vehicles using the ser,6ce entrance- The applicant could also commit to a specific route to be used by service and employee vehicles to access the service entrance. Technical Review 2109 Franklin Drive Cell (817) 945 -8448 Arlington, Texas 76011 3cien4Csbcglo6ei_.n�t Fax (817) 462 -8202 Page 43 of 50 3 -q rB;9C3 Y.-T. r8. A Civil Enginc aatg Practice • A more detailed analysis of the traffic and impact should be considered during the detailed site plan process. A detailed modeling of the signalized intersections, existing traffic counts, and the actual timings plans is necessary to establish the existing conditions. • Proposed changes to the timing plans or new timing plans should be developed to minimize the flow of traffic during the peak hours for the signalized intersections. • Table 3 should inc[ude the existing conditions for all times of day for comparison to Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Improvements should be proposed and incorporated into the plan to eliminate the `D' and `F levels of service. • The traffic report should be revised and resubmitted with the detailed site plan. Considerations for improvements and new timing plans could be proposed at that time. Given the assumed conditions in the applicant's TiA the development of this site does not propose to have any substantial negative impacts to the traffic in Westlake. however, a number of issues need to be examined and agreed to: ■ Improvements should be considered to offset the impact to southbound movement for Westlake Pkwy at Capital Pkwy. ■ The existing traffic conditions of Dove Road should be studied to identify the volume and type of traffic. What type of increase to the traffic on Dove Road is being proposed? ■ The existing structure of Dove Road (pavement thickness and sub - grade) should be analyzed to ensure the additional service vehicles will not cause or accelerate the deterioration of Dove Road. lion an Lntenkn basis that service is allowed off Ottinger, a new route could be extended westward to Roanoke Road in 3 years and then further extended to Hwy 371 within 6 years. If that is not palatable to the applicant, then Westlake could consider allowing the use of DovelOttinger for a period of 3 years (or what ever period the Town sets) at which time the service traffic could be re- routed to a service entrance coming off the extension of Westlake Pkwy with a service drive that extends in a southerly direction along the west side of the Deloitte property. These are my findings from the report submitted. Sincerely, car_i Charles F. Dibrell, III, PE 2109 Franklin Dyne Arlington, Texas 76011 3denaCsbcglabal net Ceti (817) 995 -8646 Fax (817) 462 -8202 Page 44 of 50 STAUBACH I World of Real Estate Knowledge May 2, 2008 Mr. Thomas E. Brymer Town Manager Town of Westlake 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, TX 76262 RE: Potential Deloitte Project Dear Mr. Brymer: As a follow -up to our meeting on April 29th, I want to first thank you again for the time you and Eddie Edwards spent with us and the valuable input you provided_ As requested, I am providing you with a summary of the issues we discussed as well as our concerns and proposed operating solutions. During our meeting, we collectively identified the following three Operating /Transportation Scenarios identifying how Guests, Employees and Service vehicles would access the site: Scenario 1: All Guests arrive via Westlake Parkway and a private drive from the north. All Employees arrive via a drive off of Ottinger Rd.. All Service vehicles arrive via the drive off of Ottinger Rd by way of Dove Rd. Scenario Z: All Guests, Employees and Service vehicles arrive via Westlake Parkway and the private drive from the north, with Service and Employees splitting off at some point and taking a different route to the loading dock and employee parking located on the western and southern portion of the site. Scenario 3: All Guests and Service vehicles arrive via Westlake Parkway, with Service vehicles splitting off at some point and taking a different route to the loading docks. All Employees arrive via the drive off of Ottinger Rd. We fully understand and appreciate the Town's desire to maintain its "rural nature ". That nature is one of the characteristics that drew Deloitte to the site. Both the Town and Deloitte are aligned in that desire. We also understand that the Westlake Charter School is located north of our proposed Ottinger Rd. service drive, and there is a concern with traffic or trucks mixing with school traffic during school zone hours. It's not surprising that the Town has had concerns and reservations about this access and potential impact on traffic without having the benefit of a thorough understanding of the actual operations. Now that we can present you the actual operating information below and Deloitte's willingness to work with the Town to minimize the impact on the surrounding area, we hope your concerns will be mitigated and that we can work together going forward. 15601 Dallas Parkway, Suitc 400 Addison, Texas 15001 The Staubach Company (972) 361 -5000 Fax (972) 361 -5910 provides global coverage www.staubach.com DTZ Scaubach Tir <1 of 50 As we discussed, Deloitte and their consultant team believe Scenario 1 above is the only fimctional and practical approach to access this site. We were quite taken back when it was suggested this option might not be approved by the Town, and this suggestion has raised serious reservations about the site in Deloitte's mind. However, we are confident that, once the true character and quantity of the vehicular access to the site is evaluated and understood, the Town will see that this impact would be very minimal. To summarize the options and issues: Scenario 1— Deloitte and their design team have gone to great lengths to create a site layout that preserves the nature of this special site, and that allows for a scripted entry into the facility for arriving guests. A private "rural- type" entry drive will wind through the site and trees to create a unique arrival and decompression zone for Deloitte's guests. Our programmed arrival provides for the segregation of the arriving guests from other traffic into the site. This arrangement meets each of those desires, and keeps guest and service traffic separated, which allows us to meet one of our major programming requirements. It is also important to note that this option is the only scenario that is consistent with the current "long -term" thoroughfare plan which would eventually take all service traffic due west from the site and away from both Dove and Ottinger. Scenario 2 — While it keeps all traffic off of Dove Rd. and Ottinger Rd., this scenario creates major hurdles for the site design. First, we would greatly diminish the entry experience for arriving guests. Second, bringing large trucks in this way would cause us to have to build a more substantial road, losing the scripted rural feel, and more importantly, at the crossing of the creek, a more "commercial" bridge would have to be constructed, at great expense and further diminishing the country feel. Upon splitting off from guest entrance, the service and employee drive would have to go through adjacent prime sites to the north of the proposed Deloitte site, greatly damaging the developability of those sites. You will recall that Deloitte is as concerned with the development character and use of these sites as the proposed Deloitte site itself. Finally, a separate service drive would have to cross through the heavily treed area to the north and west of the facility, most likely traveling adjacent to or near the Town of Westlake's future "Hill" park site thus degrading those views and, again, the rural feel. Deloitte is trying to develop the site in a manner that preserves most trees on the property. Scenario 3 — This scenario basically presents the same issues for Deloitte as Scenario 2 and does not work for Deloitte. We have provided you with a Traffic Impact Analysis that has been prepared by DeShazo Tang & Associates, a recognized leading traffic engineering consultant. Their report is based on information provided by the two finalist facility operators that Deloitte is considering. These operators operate some of the finest similar conference centers in the U.S. In summary, the report is based on the following traffic data: = Estimated number of "18- wheeler" vehicles serving the site —14 per week ■ Estimated number of "bobtail" "single unit" trucks serving the site —15 -25 per week ■ Estimated number of employees: o Operator employees — 460 in 3 shifts Page 46 of 50 o Owner employees —100 in 1 shift Consequently, you can see that we will only average 2 18- wheelers per day, a negligible number. The bobtail trucks would average 2 -4 per day, and are basically no more than large vans and very common on collector streets such as Dove Road. DeShazo Tang's report indicates that the automobile traffic on Dove Rd. and Ottinger Rd. would not create a traffic problem. Based on DeShazo Tang's findings, including current background traffic and added traffic due to employees, the Level of Service (as defined by Transportation Research Board as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual — (HCM)) for Ottinger Road at the emergency /service/employee entrance on Ottinger is rated "A" or "B" at peak traffic hours. The HCM rating system, A — F, generally provides that a level "D" or better indicates an acceptable level of performance for intersections in urban or surburban locations, while rural locations may demand a better level of service. While we do not believe that the minimal number of trucks above will create any sort of negative to the surrounding streets, we have reached out to our operator candidates to determine potential operational arrangements to mitigate any concerns about these trucks. They have indicated that they could dictate to the providers that no 18- wheeler deliveries could occur during school zone hours. Additionally they can dictate that arriving service deliveries come from stove as opposed to from the north. This would ensure that a truck never went past the school., as our Ottinger service entry is around 800 feet south of the school. Of course, you cannot control or predict nature, breakdowns and the like, but this should allay any fears of large trucks presenting a danger to school traffic or creating a traffic problem along our proposed Dove Rd. /Ottinger Rd. service entry. Regarding automobile traffic, although the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that Ottinger Road should be only minimally affected by the added traffic, the operators and Deloitte have indic.atcd the ability to 1) adjust shift change times to help avoid peak school hours, and 2) stagger shift changes to spread traffic over a longer period of time. I hope this summary helps dispel any concern that Deloitte wants to be anything other than a good neighbor, and has the same desire as the Town in preserving the rural nature of the area. Sincerely, THE STAUBA H C PANY Torn _y M. a.*rett A- A Exec eV e President Design & Construction Consulting Services Cc: Deloitte Hillwood Page 47 of 50 HI I H I LWOOD A PEROT COMPANYe May 2, 2008 Mr. Thomas E. Bryrner Town Manager Town of Westlake 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, TX 76262 Re: DU Project Rezoning Proposed PD 3 -12 Westlake, Texas Dear Mr. Brymer, As a follow -up to our April 29 meeting, l would like to thank you and the Town Staff for all of your time and effort in assisting us through the rezoning process for the proposed Deloitte University Project at the Circle T Ranch. We know the Town is as excited as we are about bringing a world class facility such as the Deloitte University to Westlake, and we greatly appreciate your continued efforts. Pursuant to your request, we are providing you with a summary of the effect of the proposed PD 3 -12 rezoning and the remaining portion PD 3 -3 land use allocations. The PD 3 -12 consists of approximately 107 acres which is proposed to be rezoned to provide for the specific uses(s) required to facilitate development of the Deloitte University Conference and Training Facility currently not allowed in PD 3 -3. The currently zoned PD 3 -3 encompasses 365 acres and includes 117 acres of single family residential leaving 248 net acres of resort hotel and office. The 248 acres provides for 500,000 s£ of resort hotel and 164,700 sf of office space. We understand that the Town's primary concern is the impact of residential development on the school and maintaining open space throughout the Circle T Ranch. As part of the original PD 3 -3 rezoning in March of 2004 (which was combined with a rezoning for areas 3-4 and 3 -5) a total of approximately 275 single family residential units were deleted from the overall development plan on the Circle T. This reduction was agreed upon by Hillwood in order to alleviate some of the Town's concerns regarding overcrowding of the school. We remain committed to the overall zoning on the Circle T Ranch, and maintaining open space (particularly on the southern portion of the Ranch). 13600 Heriwgr Parkway Suite 200 Farr Worth, Texas 76177 Pbone 817224 6000 Fax 817 224 6060 or 6061 hdkiwdcom Page 48 of 50 Letter - Mr. Thomas E. Brymer May 2, 2008 Page 2 PD 3 -12 consists of approximately 107 acres that will be removed from the existing PD 3 -3 which was approved on the Town via Ordinance of 453 on March 22, 2004. When PD 3 -3 was approved it was anticipated that the office and resort hotel buildings would be one (1) story in height, resulting in a "building site coverage" in those zones of approximately 6.15 %. The building footprints and building coverage for the residential areas would be dictated by lot layouts, terrain, roadway layouts and other items that would normally affect the development of a single family residential project. With the rezoning of PD 3 -12 there will be a gross acreage remaining in PD 3 -3 of approximately 258 acres, Netting out the 117 acres of single family residential, the resort hotel and office components will have a total building coverage of 3.61% assuming that these buildings will be three (3) stories in height. The increase in height on the buildings is allowed in the zoning, allows for better utilization of the property, and maintains open space. When the DU Project, and &.e office and resort hotel are built, we calculate overall composite building site coverage of approximately 4.8% resulting in a decrease in building coverage of approximately of 1.28% or 3.7 acres. This assumes that 117 acres of single family residential, which is currently allowed in PD 3 -3, remains and the associated building foot prints open space and other items are constant given the normal constraints for development of single family residential property. I have attached a spreadsheet showing these calculations for clarity and ease of presentation to the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of Alderman. Once again, we appreciate all the Town's assistance and cooperaticr, in this rezoning case. We look forward to our presentations at both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board Alderman coming up in the month of May. Please feel free to call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely oseph C. Schneider Vice President JCS/kk Enclosure cc: Russell Laughlin, Hillwood Bill Burton, Iillwood Mike Berry, Hillwood Page 49 of 50 CT PD 3-3 Rezoning Comparison Table May 2, 2008 0 cn One Story Option DU rezoning open space analysis.xlsx Printed: 5/5/2002 12:12 PM PD 3-3 ORD 453 PD 3-12 DU Project PD 3-3 Remainder Composite of Remainder 3-3 and 3-12 Gross Acres 365 AC 107 AC 258 AC Net Resort/Office Acreage 248 AC 107 AC 141 AC 248 AC Building Types Square Footage Stories Square Footage Stories Square Footage Stories Square Footage Stories Conference Center and Educational Facility - 0 1,250,000 4.10 • 0 1,250,000 4.10 Resort Hotel 500.000 1.00- 0.00 500,000 3.00 500,000 3 Office 164,700 1.00• 0.00 164,700 3.00 164,700 3 Total "Foot Print" 664,700 304,878 221,567 526,445 Increase (Decrease) in Bldg. Coverage Change from 3-3 - Ord 453 "Building Coverage" 6.15% 6.54% 3.61% 4.87% -1.28% (3.17) Acres (Building Coverage is reduced) Residential Acreage 117 - 117 0 cn One Story Option DU rezoning open space analysis.xlsx Printed: 5/5/2002 12:12 PM Page 1 of 1 Kim Sutter From: Tom Brymer [tbrymer @westlake- tx.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:41 PM To: Allen Heath (aheath @us.ibm.com); Bill Greenwood(zephyr1994 @aol.com); Sharon Sanden (ssanden @airmail. net); Tim Brittan(infinityog @msn.com); Walter Copeland (walter_copeland @verizon. net) Cc: Laughlin, Russell; Schneider, Joe; Brad Selner; Tommy Parrett; Tom Brymer; adegan@westlake- tx.org; dpiper @westlake - tx.org; dwilson @westlake- tx.org; eedwards @westlake- tx.org; gawtry@westlake- tx.org; jgreenwood @westlake- tx.org; ksutter @westlake - tx.org; tmeyer @westlake - tx.org; ToddWood (twood @westlake - tx.org) Subject: Request for Continuance on Deloitte Site Zoning Change Request The applicant for the Deloitte zoning change request, Hillwood, has requested a second continuance on the public hearing scheduled for tomorrow's P &Z Commission meeting in order to perform further work on site access options. Staff concurs with this request and will be recommending to the Commission tomorrow evening granting this public hearing continuance to the date requested by the applicant which is May 22nd. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this. Thanks. 700 " Town Manager Town of Westlake 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, TX 76262 817 - 490 -5720 direct 817 - 430 -1812 fax tbrymer @westlake- tx.org 5/8/2008