Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-30-05 PZ Agenda Packet TOWN OF 9 TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 30, 2005 7:00 P.M. TOWN HALL BOARD 2650 J. T. OTTINGER ROAD 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 12, 2005. 3. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE WATER WELL TO BE LOCATED AT 2205 VAQUERO ESTATES BOULEVARD. 4. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE WATER WELL TO BE LOCATED AT 31 WYCK HILL LANE. 5. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE WATER WELL TO BE LOCATED AT 3060 HOVE ROAD. 6. ADJOURNMENT. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice was posted at the Town Hall of the Town of Westlake, 2650 J.T. Ottinger Road, Westlake, Texas, on Friday, August 26, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. under the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. Jer Dwinnell, TRMC, CMC, Town Secretary Present: William E. Greenwood, Chairman Allen Heath, Vice Chairman Larry Corson, Member Stan Parchman, Member Sharon Sanden, Member Trent Petty, Town Manager Jean Dwinnell, Town Secretary Absent: None [' Uun M IIIXII OR a of Chairman Greenwood called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. ��IK@jkyg ILVA I cv-1 ammou DI N 110 A motion was made by Commissioner Sanden, seconded by Commissioner Corson to approve the minutes as presented. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. Town Manager Trent Petty explained the site plan amendment was being considered in accordance with the Town Code and explained the proposal and the options of the Commission. Ms. Fran Eichorst, representing Fidelity Investments, introduced her colleagues and explained the business of Fidelity and the other uses of their campus for civic and community activities. She explained that by the year 2006 Fidelity would employ approximately 3,200 people and would ultimately employ approximately 3,420 people. She advised that the proposed site plan amendment is for the addition of 300 parking spaces. Mr. Dan Jenkins, Architect Partner with HKS, reviewed the location and proposed site and details of the project. Discussion ensued regarding the width of the proposed addition, reflectability of the surface, existing garage lighting, light reflection reduction management, placement of light fixtures, and usage of lighting only when necessary. Town Manager Trent Petty advised the Commission that their motion/action could include stipulations regarding the usage of the lighting on the upper levels of the parking garage. Chairman Greenwood opened the public hearing. There was no one present wishing to speak. Commissioner Corson moved, Commissioner Heath seconded the motion to close the public hearing. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Heath moved, Commissioner Sanden seconded the motion to approve the site plan amendment as presented. Discussion ensued regarding stipulations on the mitigation of unnecessary lighting. Commissioners Heath and Sanden agreed to amend the motion to "approval of the site plan amendment with the recommendation that the applicant make commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate lighting on both the new and existing building ". There was no further discussion and the motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Commissioner Heath, seconded by Commissioner Corson to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Greenwood declared the meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on Jean Dwinnell, TRMC, CMC, Town Secretary 2005. William E. Greenwood, Chairman Town of Westlake To: Chairman Bill Greenwood and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission From: Trent Petty, Town Manager Subject: Regular meeting of August 30, 2005 Date: August 23, 2005 Conduct a Public Hearing and take appropriate action regarding an application for a specific use permit for a private water well to be located at 2205 Vaquero Estates Boulevard. Staff recommends approval. The operation of private water wells supports the policy of the Town to provide for an aesthetic living environment that promotes the development of green spaces, the preservation of trees, and the maintenance of a rural setting. The extensive landscaping, tree preservation and mitigation policies of the Town are in fact dependent on the ability of the development community to maintain the living material in a healthy state. This requires that an alternative source of water, other than public water supply, be utilized with a larger tract of land. From a planning perspective the siting of a water well should address land use considerations such as compatible land uses, adverse performance impacts, and accessibility. There is ample opportunity to screen the site from adjacent property. In fact, water wells of this type are normally very low in profile and are usually screened by natural trees and vegetation. We do not see the need for dedicated rights -of -way or easements for the access roads, however, the applicant should illustrate how the well will be serviced so as not to interrupt neighboring property owners. As the Town considers the application for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a water well, it is important that we establish the appropriate standard of review. Specific Use Permits are generally applied to uses that encompass intensity levels of a type which require special treatment or location to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and uses. As an example, a convenience store with high traffic volumes and significant outside lighting, should only be allowed adjacent to residential homes when its harmful elements can be alleviated or compensated for by landscape screening, access restrictions, low -glare lighting, or the like. Allowing such a use "by right" would not allow for individual consideration of those factors. Conversely, prohibiting the use entirely would result in certain necessary uses being located only in areas where the use is impractical. Matters such as those discussed above constitute the proper standard of review when considering this SUP application. As is explained below, however, concerns about the protection of the Town's underground water supply are not a permissible basis for the denial of an SUP for a water well. The State of Texas operates under the same rule of capture with respect to both its water and petroleum resources. That rule can be best summarized by the most definitive Texas Supreme Court case on the issue of water use when it ruled as follows: absent malice or willful waste, landowners have a right to take all the water they can capture under their land and do with it whatever they please, and they will not be liable for their neighbors even if in so doing they deprive their neighbors of the water's use. Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc., 1 S.W. 3d 75, 76 (Tex. 1999). That decision, which makes clear that neither the Town nor the courts can regulate the amount of water taken from wells, is based on the premise that the Texas legislature has specifically reserved to itself the authority to establish rules regarding groundwater. Id. At 77. The legislative structure regarding the rule of capture has been in place since 1904. Id. At 78. In light of the existing precedent on this matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board should limit their review to the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding properties and uses. In summary, the SUP application filed by Scott Simmons for 2205 Vaquero Estates Boulevard should be considered based only on any potentially harmful impact its location and placement might have on adjacent properties and uses, exclusive of any consideration of groundwater conservation. In light of the location of the subject water well, and its limited potential impact on surrounding properties and uses, staff recommends approval. Town of Westlake Memo To: Chairman Bill Greenwood and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission From: Trent Petty, Town Manager Subject: Regular meeting of August 30, 2005 Date: August 23, 2005 ITEM Conduct a Public Hearing and take appropriate action regarding an application for a specific use permit for a private water well to be located at 31 Wyck Hill Lane. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval. BACKGROUND The operation of private water wells supports the policy of the Town to provide for an aesthetic living environment that promotes the development of green spaces, the preservation of trees, and the maintenance of a rural setting. The extensive landscaping, tree preservation and mitigation policies of the Town are in fact dependent on the ability of the development community to maintain the living material in a healthy state. This requires that an alternative source of water, other than public water supply, be utilized. From a planning perspective the siting of a water well should address land use considerations such as compatible land uses, adverse performance impacts, and accessibility. There is ample opportunity to screen the site from adjacent property. In fact, water wells of this type are normally very low in profile and are usually screened by natural trees and vegetation. We do not see the need for dedicated rights-of-way or easements for the access roads, however, the applicant should illustrate how the well will be serviced so as not to interrupt neighboring property owners. As the Town considers the application for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a water well, it is important that we establish the appropriate standard of review. Specific Use Permits are generally applied to uses that encompass intensity levels of a type which require special treatment or location to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and uses. As an example, a convenience store with high traffic volumes and significant outside lighting, should only be allowed adjacent to residential homes when its harmful elements can be alleviated or compensated for by landscape screening, access restrictions, low-glare lighting, or the like. Allowing such a use "by right" would not allow for individual consideration of those factors. Conversely, prohibiting the use entirely would result in certain necessary uses being located only in areas where the use is impractical. Matters such as those discussed above constitute the proper standard of review when considering this SUP application. As is explained below, however, concerns about the protection of the Town's underground water supply are not a permissible basis for the denial of an SUP for a water well. The State of Texas operates under the same rule of capture with respect to both its water and petroleum resources. That rule can be best summarized by the most definitive Texas Supreme Court case on the issue of water use when it ruled as follows: absent malice or willful waste, landowners have a right to take all the water they can capture under their land and do with it whatever they please, and they will not be liable for their neighbors even if in so doing they deprive their neighbors of the water's use. Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc., I S.W. 3d 75, 76 (Tex. 1999). That decision, which makes clear that neither the Town nor the courts can regulate the amount of water taken from wells, is based on the premise that the Texas legislature has specifically reserved to itself the authority to establish rules regarding groundwater. Id. At 77. The legislative structure regarding the rule of capture has been in place since 1904. Id. At 78. In light of the existing precedent on this matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board should limit their review to the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding properties and uses. In summary, the SUP application filed by Kevin & Dana Braun for 31 Wyck Hill Lane should be considered based only on any potentially harmful impact its location and placement might have on adjacent properties and uses, exclusive of any consideration of groundwater conservation. In light of the location of the subject water well, and its limited potential impact on surrounding properties and uses, staff recommends approval. uj J W -u_< )z Ox ow~ HA rn < < )z W p�l`D u cn J 1—:K To: Chairman Bill Greenwood and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission From: Trent Petty, Town Manager Subject: Regular meeting of August 30, 2005 Date: August 23, 2005 am Conduct a Public Hearing and take appropriate action regarding an application for a specific use permit for a private water well to be located at 3060 Dove Road. Staff recommends approval. The operation of private water wells supports the policy of the Town to provide for an aesthetic living environment that promotes the development of green spaces, the preservation of trees, and the maintenance of a rural setting. The extensive landscaping, tree preservation and mitigation policies of the Town are in fact dependent on the ability of the development community to maintain the living material in a healthy state. This requires that an alternative source of water, other than public water supply, be utilized. From a planning perspective the siting of a water well should address land use considerations such as compatible land uses, adverse performance impacts, and accessibility. There is ample opportunity to screen the site from adjacent property. In fact, water wells of this type are normally very low in profile and are usually screened by natural trees and vegetation. We do not see the need for dedicated rights -of -way or easements for the access roads, however, the applicant should illustrate how the well will be serviced so as not to interrupt neighboring property owners. As the Town considers the application for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a water well, it is important that we establish the appropriate standard of review. Specific Use Permits are generally applied to uses that encompass intensity levels of a type which require special treatment or location to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and uses. As an example, a convenience store with high traffic volumes and significant outside lighting, should only be allowed adjacent to residential homes when its harmful elements can be alleviated or compensated for by landscape screening, access restrictions, low -glare lighting, or the like. Allowing such a use "by right" would not allow for individual consideration of those factors. Conversely, prohibiting the use entirely would result in certain necessary uses being located only in areas where the use is impractical. Matters such as those discussed above constitute the proper standard of review when considering this SUP application. As is explained below, however, concerns about the protection of the Town's underground water supply are not a permissible basis for the denial of an SUP for a water well. The State of Texas operates under the same rule of capture with respect to both its water and petroleum resources. That rule can be best summarized by the most definitive Texas Supreme Court case on the issue of water use when it ruled as follows: absent malice or willful waste, landowners have a right to take all the water they can capture under their land and do with it whatever they please, and they will not be liable for their neighbors even if in so doing they deprive their neighbors of the water's use. Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc., 1 S.W. 3d 75, 76 (Tex. 1999). That decision, which makes clear that neither the Town nor the courts can regulate the amount of water taken from wells, is based on the premise that the Texas legislature has specifically reserved to itself the authority to establish rules regarding groundwater. Id. At 77. The legislative structure regarding the rule of capture has been in place since 1904. Id. At 78. In light of the existing precedent on this matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board should limit their review to the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding properties and uses. In summary, the SUP application filed by A.D. Youngblood for 3060 Dove Road should be considered based only on any potentially harmful impact its location and placement might have on adjacent properties and uses, exclusive of any consideration of groundwater conservation. In light of the location of the subject water well, and its limited potential impact on surrounding properties and uses, staff recommends approval. P-6 N.D