Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02122008 ZPC Minutes OLM) City of West University Place A Neighborhood City ® Recycled Paper ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM 3826 AMHERST STREET MEETING MINUTES February 12, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Brown, Dick Yehle, Patric Stafshede and Mac McManus. Selby Clark arrived at 6:45 MEMBERS ABSENT: Janet Duncan and Allan Elkowitz COUNCIL: Charles Guffy STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Scarcella, City Planner and James Dougherty, City Legal Counsel Call to Order - With quorum present at 6:30 p.m., Steve Brown called the meeting to order. 1. Minutes. January 10, 2008: The minutes were table until the March 13, 2008 meeting. 2. Miscellaneous Amendments/Updates. ZPC and staff had discussion for information purposes and reminders to the members that the joint public hearing requires a quorum of both City Council and the ZPC members. Staff reported on the status of the postings and notices. The members requested staff to e-mail reminders to the ZPC members. 3. Variances and special exceptions. Jim Dougherty presented a brief slide show illustrating the role of the different discretionary approvals inherent in zoning regulations. The two approvals focused on were variances and special exceptions. A recent opinion from the Texas Supreme Court (Vanesko vs. City of Dallas) seems to indicate that with variance requests, the "special conditions creating an unnecessary hardship" test cited in West U's zoning regulations should be expanded to include the language used in the Supreme Court's ruling. Special Exception criteria was also discussed, with Mr. Dougherty suggesting that the ZPC should consider creating a special exception category for those situations where a permit was granted in error. The current ordinance does not have a "relief valve mechanism" in place for this type of situation, so an applicant's only course of action is to comply or request a variance. There was a great deal of discussion involving this item. Staff was instructed to draft separate documents -one for variances and the other for a possible new (very narrowly defined) special exception category and present to the commission for further discussion. 4. Fences. This item was discussed at length with the focus of the discussion centered on hedgerows and "virtual" fences (landscape features that actually block the front or side yard views) with some discussion on masonry, stone, and stucco fencing. There 3800 University Boulevard 9 West University Place, Texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.westu.org Zoning & Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2008 Meeting Page 2 of 2 were varying opinions on the subject. The commission was instructed consider these and while driving through town, observe different lots with these situations to get a real feel for the discussion. This item will be placed on a future agenda for further discussion. 5. Commercial District. The commission members' discussion centered mainly on the JMH property located north of Rice Blvd. at the corner of Edloe and the parking area north of the building. A realtor (Katherine Wildman, of Wulfe and Co.) representing the property owner was in attendance. The property was initially granted a special exception to use the parcel north of the store as parking. The property is actually zoned single- family residential. This special exception was granted in 1950 through Ordinance No. 517. In 2000, the property owners went to the ZBA and requested an extension of prior non-conforming status. The request was approved for a period of twenty years. The ZPC is concerned with viability of another commercial enterprise at the location for many reasons, the primary two being the time limit on the PNC status request and the limitation of the types of businesses that could legally operate given the required parking space regulations. The ZPC instructed staff to explore the avenues open to either proactively change the zoning designation so that the entire property is zoned commercial and thus no time limit would exist, or remove the commercial zoning classification from the parcel, thereby making it all single-family residential. The commission was split on whether or not tax roll value wise, another commercial enterprise was the best for the city. Adjournment. Dick Yehle made a motion to adjourn. Mac McManus seconded. Ayes: Steve Brown, Selby Clark, Mac McManus, Dick Yehle and Patric Stafshede. Noes: none. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Attachments: Letter dated November 25, 2007 from Richard Yehle, 6401 Rutgers, re: Virtual fences. l~ PASSED THIS 439 DAY, OF 2008. Steve Brown, Presiding Officer ATTEST: af&,La&tk_,_ Sallye A. Clark, Plann' Assistant 6401 Rutgers Houston, TX 77005 November 25, 2007 Ms. Debbie Scarcella City Planner City of West University Place 3800 University Boulevard Houston, TX 77005 Dear Debbie, After the ZPC finishes dispatching with old business, I presume new issues can be taken up and I would like to offer an idea for new business. I suggest there are at least three situations pertaining to fences that should be considered. 1. Virtual fences created by hedges that exist in locations where constructed fences would not be allowed. 2. The placement of structural-appearing masonry fences that is permitted where buildings would not be allowed. 3. Certain masonry and metal fences that may impede ingress by emergency crews. Virtual Fences Regulations governing fences fall short of achieving what may be a commonly-held ideal that fences are for backyards and that front yards should be relatively open except for decorative vegetation and perhaps a low picket fence around the perimeter. This is because the introduction of tall hedges circumvents the fencing ordinances by creating virtual fences in the front and side street yards where regular fences are not allowed. Examples of the possible problem can be found at 6315 and 6331 Brompton where hedges adjacent to the sidewalk virtually obscure the fronts of the houses and interrupt an otherwise open streetline. Another example can be found at 3731 Tangley where a hedge in front of a (vacant) lot again interrupts the streetline. An example of liberty being taken with side streetline is at 6355 Rutgers where a hedge is growing in the right of way. In all cases no fence or building would have been allowed where the "fences" are, suggesting they do not conform to the unspoken ideal. I suggest that if the concept of "open" yards is a shared value, there are three situations to consider with regard to virtual fences: 1. Fences that obstruct views of the fronts of houses. 2. Fences that obstruct views of the sides of (corner lot) houses. 3. Fences perpendicular to houses that obstruct or interrupt an otherwise open streetline. I suggest consideration should be given to modifying the definition of fences to include those created by hedges. It could be accomplished by creating some form of height and coverage formula for vegetation (not trees) growing more than 10 feet from the street side of any house. Such vegetation could be considered a fence and subject to the fence ordinance if it is more than three feet tall and obstructs more than 40% of the subject house. The idea is only to Re: Fences07 manage vegetation that forms a virtual fence and not to preclude most vegetation growing along side a house or in the street yard. Consideration should also be given to vegetation that projects in a perpendicular manner from the house toward the street line, also forming a virtual hedge. It may not obscure the front of a house but it does interrupt the general streetscape if it is tall and dense, thereby blocking the view. Masonry Fences There are numerous examples of corner lots that have fences along the setback line. Sometimes wooden fences are used but frequently they are wrought iron or masonry. Wrought iron fences, even those with integrated vegetation usually retain the feeling of openness. On the other hand most masonry fences take on the appearance of a structure which would not have been allowed in that location. The point is that the use of such fences in side yards, especially street side yards, interrupts the visual streetscape for all residents. A second issue with masonry fences in side yards is that they may present unreasonable obstacles to emergency crews seeking access. Wooden fences can quickly be dismantled in an emergency, wrought iron can also be quickly taken down with a little work but masonry fences can only be brought down with difficulty. Given the narrow side yards in the City this may be a hazard to both the owner of the fence and the adjacent neighbor. Consideration should be given to the placement and use of masonry fences, especially the safety elements of tall masonry fences erected within 5 feet of a structure. Regards, (By E-mail) Richard Yehle Commissioner Zoning and Planning Commission Re: Fences07