HomeMy WebLinkAbout07102008 ZPC Minutes
OLM) City of West University Place
A Neighborhood City
® Recycled Paper ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION
BILL WATSON CONFERENCE ROOM
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
MEETING MINUTES
July 10, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Brown, Mac McManus, Janet Duncan, Selby
Clark and Dick Yehle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Allan Elkowitz
COUNCIL: none
STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Scarcella, City Planner; Sallye Clark,
Planning Assistant; and James Dougherty, City
Legal Counsel
Call to Order - With quorum present at 6:20 p.m., Steve Brown called the meeting to
order.
1. Minutes.
June 12, 2008. Janet Duncan made a motion to approve as written. Mac
McManus seconded. Ayes: Steve Brown, Mac McManus, Janet Duncan, Selby Clark
and Dick Yehle. Noes: none. Motion passed. Minutes approved.
2. Miscellaneous Amendments/Updates. Debbie Scarcella, City Planner informed
ZPC that the proposed amendments regarding Driveways and Parking and Garages
and Maneuvering Areas were on the agenda of the City Council workshop on July 14,
2008 at 5:00 p.m. At this time they are not on the agenda for the regular City
Council meeting for the first reading.
3. Variances and special exceptions. Debbie Scarcella, City Planner informed the
ZPC that the variances and special exception amendments were on the agenda of the
City Council workshop on July 14, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. At this time they are not on the
agenda for the regular City Council meeting to call a joint public hearing. James
Dougherty, Legal Counsel will be presenting a PowerPoint presentation about the two
amendments.
4. Excavations and Underground Structures. ZPC continued discussion based on
Debbie Scarcella's list of key issues dated June 9, 2008 and Dick Yehle's comments
dated June 10, 2008. The following is a list of Concepts that ZPC came up with from
the discussion:
3800 University Boulevard • West University Place, Texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.westu.org
Zoning & Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2008 Meeting
Page 2 of 3
• Second form of egress (window)to the rear only
• Beneath building footprint only
• Not in an easement
• No closer than 5 feet to the side property line
• Does not count as pervious area
• Framed area and number of stories (based on density & possible impact on infrastructure)
• Limiting to 50% of area of floor above
• Special engineering and hydrostatic pressure questions
• Drainage provisions must be included
• Sill heights for egress from basement areas
• Require a wider staircase (for safety/egress)
• Sprinkler requirements for the structure
• Simplicity and straightforwardness
• Restrict uses and occupancies
• Assume it will flood and protect against consequences
• No sanitary facilities below grade
• Vertical (inside) access only (no ramps or exits to outside)
• Look at pool construction rules for guidance
After discussion, ZPC requested that Debbie Scarcella, City Planner make a list from
the Excavations and Underground Structures document dated June 9, 2008 of which
duties would be overseen by the Building and Standards Committee and which items
would be overseen by the Zoning and Planning Commission. Steve Brown
encouraged ZPC members to email any comments they wanted forwarded to BSC for
their discussion of this item at their meeting on August 7, 2008. ZPC plans to
continue discussion at its next meeting.
5. Commercial District. Steve Brown handed out a Town Center Existing plan dated
February 12, 2004, a Town Center Parking document, dated December 8, 2005 and a
Town Center Property Parking: Existing and Required dated February 10, 2005 for
reference. Brief discussion took place to update that JMH was up for sale and that
Mathews motors has been purchased and it is being looked at to convert into
Mathews' Market. No formal application has been submitted. ZPC also understood
that the property next door, West U Plaza, has been sold.
Adjournment. Selby Clark made a motion to adjourn. Janet Duncan seconded.
Ayes: Steve Brown, Mac McManus, Janet Duncan, Selby Clark and Dick Yehle
Noes: none. Motion passed. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Attachments:
Preliminary report relating to Variances, dated 06-12-08
Preliminary report relating to Special Exceptions, etc, dated 06-12-08
Debbie Scarcella's list of key issues dated June 9, 2008
Dick Yehle's comments dated June 10, 2008
Town Center Existing Plan, dated 2-12-2004
Town Center Parking, dated 12-08-05
Town Center Property Parking: Existing and Required dated February 10, 2005
Zoning & Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2008 Meeting
Page 3 of 3
PASSED THIS _I DAY, OF , 2008.
Steve Brown, Presiding Officer
AT ST:/I H/ J'q' a5j~k
qa1 %1yeA. C k, Planning Assistant
Exhibit A
Zoning & Planning Commission
City of West University Place, Texas
3800 University Boulevard
West University Place, Texas 77005
June 12, 2008
Honorable Mayor &
Members of the City Council
City of West University Place
3808 University Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77005
Subject: Preliminary report on a proposal to amend the
zoning ordinance of the city of West University
Place, Texas ("City") relating to VARIANCE
LIMITATIONS
To the Honorable Mayor
& Members of City Council:
The Zoning & Planning Commission of the City submits this,
its preliminary report, on the subject proposal, for the
assistance of the Council as well as other interested persons.
Scope of Proposal. Sometimes, owners try to obtain
variances for structures built in violation of a zoning
ordinance. State zoning law makes this very difficult---even
impossible. The law requires both "special conditions" and an
"unnecessary hardship" to support the granting of any variance.
A "personal" or "self-created" condition usually does not count.
In a 2006 variance case (called City of Dallas v. Vanesko),
the Texas Supreme Court ruled that building a house in violation
of a height limit was a "personal" or "self-created" condition
that could not support the granting of a variance. In part, the
Supreme Court relied upon language limiting variances in the
Dallas zoning ordinance.
This proposal would recognize the Supreme Court's ruling by
putting similar language into the City's zoning ordinance. The
new language would be as follows:
A "special condition" or "hardship" that is self-
created, personal or based only on financial reasons
is not sufficient to support the issuance of a
variance.
This language reflects the traditional approach taken by the
zoning board of adjustment in this City.
The proposal would also clarify that the applicant carries
the burden of proof when seeking a variance (or special
exception). This, too, reflects actual practice at zoning board
of adjustment hearings.
Preliminary Recommendation. Based on the limited review
given this matter so far, and subject to further review
following public hearing, the Commission: (i) finds that the
proposal, if adopted, would be in the public interest, (ii)
makes a preliminary recommendation favorable to the proposal,
.(ii) recommends that the City Council call a joint public
hearing to consider this matter. The Commission invites all
interested persons to participate in the joint public hearing.
The Vote. The vote on approval of this report was as
follows: Commissioners Brown, McManus, Elkowitz and Stafshede
voted "aye;" no "noes;" Duncan, Yehle, and Clark
absent.
Respectfully submitted:
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
By : - - z-.
For the Commission
Amendment relating to
variances, etc.
Draft 5-8-08, recommended by ZPC 6-12-08
Amend Section 11-102 as follows:
Section 11-102. Findings; burden of proof.
(a) Variances. The ZBA may not issue or modify a variance unless all of the following
circumstances are present:
(1) The ZBA has made all findings and determinations required by state law for
the granting of a variance. A "special condition" or "hardship" that is self-
created, personal or based only on financial reasons is not sufficient to support the
issuance of a variance.
(2) The ZBA has made any additional findings and determinations required by a
specific provision of this ordinance which relates to the variance.
(3) The variance has been reduced to writing and includes any conditions
prescribed by the ZBA or required by this ordinance for the variance in question.
(b) Special exceptions. The ZBA may not issue or modify a special exception unless all
of the following circumstances are present:
(1) The ZBA has determined that the proposed special exception will not cause
any significant increase in on-street parking, will not cause any substantial traffic
congestion, will not cause any substantial increase in traffic or an unreasonable
burden upon utility systems or upon any other public facility or public service.
(2) The ZBA has determined that the proposed special exception will be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance.
(3) If the proposed special exception involves a bar, the ZBA has found that the
applicant has clearly demonstrated that there is a readiness, willingness and ability
to comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances relating to
alcoholic beverages.
(4) The ZBA has made any additional findings and determinations required by a
specific provision of this ordinance.
(5) The special exception has been reduced to writing and includes any conditions
prescribed by the ZBA or required by this ordinance for the special exception in
question.
(c) Burden oLproo . The applicant has the burden of presenting evidence to the ZBA and
persuading the ZBA that:
(1) each circumstance required for a variance or special exception is present; and
(2) each required finding and determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Exhibit A
Zoning & Planning Commission
City of West University Place, Texas
3800 University Boulevard
West University Place, Texas 77005
June 12, 2008
Honorable Mayor &
Members of the City Council
City of West University Place
3808 University Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77005
Subject: Preliminary report on a proposal to amend the
zoning ordinance of the City of West University
Place, Texas ("City") relating to SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS FOR WORK UNDER PERMIT
To the Honorable Mayor
& Members of City Council:
The Zoning & Planning Commission of the City submits this,
its preliminary report, on the subject proposal, for the
assistance of the Council as well as other interested persons.
Scope of Proposal. Under the current zoning ordinance, a
structure can acquire prior-non-conforming status (PNC status)
if it is "constructed or established in conformance with the
zoning ordinance. On the other hand, if a structure violates
the ordinance "when built," it usually cannot obtain PNC status,
even if the violation is minor or temporary.
Example: Because of a mistake in roof pitch, a new house
gets built with a roof ridge that violates the maximum
height limit by 12 inches. The mistake is not
discovered until the house is almost completed.
Sometimes, owners try to obtain relief for "when-built"
violations by seeking variances. State zoning law makes this
very difficult---even impossible. The law requires both
"special conditions" and an "unnecessary hardship" to support
the granting of any variance. A "personal" or "self-created"
condition usually does not count.
In a 2006 variance case (called City of Dallas v. Vanesko), the
Texas Supreme Court ruled that building a house in violation of
a height limit was a "personal" or "self-created" condition that
could not support the granting of a variance. (Note: In a
companion report, the Commission is recommending that the City
recognize this Supreme Court ruling by amending the ordinance
section on variances.)
This proposed amendment would allow the zoning board of
adjustment to grant relief for an item built in violation of the
ordinance, but only if certain circumstances are present,
including all of the following:
(1) the violation must have been shown in plans and
specifications submitted to the City;
(2) neither the owner, the designer, the surveyor, the
contractor nor any other person assisting with the
work knew about the violation;
(3) the violation was covered by a City permit;
(4) upon learning about the violation, the owner promptly
conferred with City staff (and voluntarily halted any
non-conforming work);
(5) granting relief will not cause a health or safety
hazard, or any significant impact upon another person
or property;
(6) the violation can be cured---by bringing it into
conformance with the ordinance---within a set time
period and at a modest or reasonable cost. Notes:
Cure is not required if the impact on others is either
nil or extremely small. The cure period (if there is
one) ends early if ownership is transferred, unless
the new owner acknowledges the special exception and
cure period before the transfer.
If all these circumstances are present, the board could
issue a special exception granting PNC status for the item built
in violation of the ordinance.[ ] Such a special exception
could also require reduction of the violation, mitigation, etc.
Normal PNC rules would also apply. They require that non-
conforming items be brought into compliance when certain events
occur, e.g., when a new house is built.
This proposal would provide some flexibility for dealing
with inadvertent violations of the zoning ordinance, but only if
all the listed circumstances are present. Perhaps the most
important circumstance is that the violation may not have a
significant impact upon others.[ ]
Preliminary Recommendation. Based on the limited review
given this matter so far, and subject to further review
following public hearing, the Commission: (i) finds that the
proposal, if adopted, would be in the public interest, (ii)
makes a preliminary recommendation favorable to the proposal,
(ii) recommends that the City Council call a joint public
hearing to consider this matter. The Commission invites all
interested persons to participate in the joint public hearing.
The Vote. The vote on approval of this report was as
follows: Commissioners Brown, McManus, Elkowitz and Stafshede
voted "aye;" no "noes;" Duncan, Yehle, and Clark
absent.
Respectfully submitted:
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
For--the Commission
Amendment relating to
special exceptions for
work under permit
Draft 6-6-08 recommended by ZPC 6-12-08
Add a new Section 12-106, as follows:
Section 12-106. Special Exception, Certain Work Under Permit.
(a) Generally. The ZBA may issue a special exception to grant PNC status for a
structural item that did not conform to this ordinance when it was constructed or established if
the ZBA finds: 6) the non-conformance was clearly and specifically shown in plans and
specifications duly submitted to obtain a City permit; 60 before the work was done neither the
owner, the designer, the surveyor, the contractor nor any other person assisting with the work
knew about the non-compliance; (iii) the non-conformance was clearly covered by the City
permit (the same permit for which the plans and specifications were submitted) and the permit
.vas otherwise regularly issued; (iv) after learning of the non-conformance, the owner promptly
conferred with the administrative official, (and voluntarily halted any further non-conforming
work); (v) the item will cause no heaith or safety hazard and no significant impact upon another
person o property; and NO the item can be brought into conformance with this ordinance within
the time period specified in the special exception at a modest or reasonable cost Exception:
Bringing the item into conformance need not be required if the ZBA finds that the impact of the
item on other persons or properties is either nil or extremely small
(b) Time to comply, conditions No such special exception is effective unless it specifies
a time period within which the item must be brought into conformance with this ordinance (if
required; see above). PNC status granted for a specified time period is lost when the specified
time period expires or if ownership is sooner transferred (unless the new owner acknowledges
both the special exception and the date the time period expires by written instrument filed with
the administrative official before the transfer) Any fsl special exception issued under this
section may contain conditions designed to: 6) reduce non-conformance 60 mitigate (or
compensate for) the effects of non-conformance (iii) achieve conformance sooner than the
specified time period, or (iv) any combination of the foregoing-
(c) Scope of exception. For good cause shown such a special exception may llow
completion, minor modification and occupancy of the structural item without losing PNC status
EXCAVATIONS AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES
By Debbie Scarcella, city Planner; June 9, 2008
The key issues regarding excavations and underground structures are as follows:
1. A. Should the underground structure project into the yards and if so, then how much?
Should the excavation area be allowed to project into the yards? (ZPC)
Table 7-6 of the Zoning Regulations lists those items allowed to project into the regulated
yards. Underground items are not restricted at all as to the limits of their encroachment
into these yards. Conceivably, a basement would technically- be allowed to span the
entire building site from property line to property line unrestricted.
B. Should underground structures be allowed on narrow lots taking the 3/7 alternate side
yard exception?
Narrow lots (less than. 55' wide) are given an option to use alternat- side -yards. This is
allowed to encourage rear situated garages. If a structure built underground on a narrow
site is constructed when. taking the alternate side setback allowance, should there be
limits and restriCtionS on the proximity of the basement wall and the excavation to
adjoining property lines.
2. If an underground structure is allowed in the yard areas, should there be special rules for
lot drainage regulations? (BSC)
Chapter IS provides regulations for building site drainage and controlling the runoff rate
based on a l" per hour rainfall. Slabs on grade will provide a small amount of pervious
area underneath the foundation for water absorption. If a full basement is built, will this
impact the drainage in a significant enough manner to require additional drainage
pleasures not specified in Chapter IS?
3. Underground structures in the 100 year floodplain are strictly controlled. Should there be
additional regulatory language controlling the basements outside the 100 year
floodplain?(BSC)
Enclosed portions of structures located in the 100 year floodplain which are below the
base flood elevation are not allowed. unless they meet criteria established in Section 8323
of the 2003 IRC and Chapter 18 Article Ids: of the city's Code of Ordinances, There are
no similar regulations for Structures outside the floodplain.
4. Should there be additional engineering criteria for the foundations of underground
structures? (BSC)
Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances deals with the Technical Codes and arnerrdnients
to those codes. West U has amendments dealing with requirements for different types of
foundations. Basement walls are not addressed in this amendment. Section R403 of the
2003 IRC addresses some aspects of basement construction, but does not address
proximity to adjacent sites, depth of excavation, etc.
5. Should the area included within the walls of an underground structure be counted toward
framed area? (ZPC)
1=°rained area definition in :article 2 of the Zoning Regulations lists basements of a certain
depth and less dean 8' ceiling, height as an exemption to inclusion. in the framed area
calculations.
6. Should the area included between the floor and ceiling of an underground structure be
counted as a story? (7.PC)
The current. definition of a story ir) the zoning regmiations would include the basement as
a story- for compliance with the 2 1,2 story rule. If certain basements do not count toward
framed area, then should they be counted as a story? Or if we count the basement area as
a story, should it be counted toward the maximum allowable framed area?
7. What types of uses of an underground structure will be allowed? (ZPC or BSC)
Anv enclosure located below base food elevation is limited. to parking. access to the
structure, and storage. We could limit a basement to these uses only and not allow any
habitable areas in a basement.
Sallye Clark
From: Richard Yehle [reyehle@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:01 PM
To: Debbie Scarcella
Cc: Sallye Clark
Subject: ZPC Meeting of June 13, 2008
Attachments: Underground structures.doc
Debbie,
I will not be able to attend the ZPC meeting on Thursday due to attending my daughter's graduation in Boston.
Nevertheless, I wish to offer comments on Items #3 and #4 of the agenda.
3. Variances and special exceptions
I am still struggling with item #6 of the Special Exception language. Making it a requirement that the violation must
eventually be cured (even at reasonable cost and at some future time) in order to get the Special Exception seems to go
against the purpose of the Ordinance. I point to the Vanesko steel-frame roof as an example of something that could
never be realistically fixed, yet by all reports (I have heard) was not an issue to anyone in the neighborhoods.
So long as the other provisions of the ordinance are properly evaluated and there is no significant impact on another
person (#5), it seems that #6 could offer two solutions. The first would be the requirement proposed to remedy the
violation at "modest or reasonable" cost whenever possible. Perhaps the reasonableness of the cost dimension could be
defined in either absolute dollars or expressed as a percentage of the fair market value of the structure at the time the
Special Exception is granted. The second would allow the violation to exist on a grandfathered basis under the theory
that it is doing no harm and is too expensive to fix. Once either course is determined, it could not be altered except by
another ZBA Special Exception, which presumably would be very difficult to achieve.
4. Excavations and Underground Structures
I have annotated the Staff analysis included with the Agenda. My comments are obviously without the benefit of
discussion and therefore should not be taken as final. However, I am reasonably resolved that underground space should
not be considered as Framed Area and probably should not count toward the 2 '/z story rule. Please see the attached
document.
Regards,
Dick Yehle
ZPC Commissioner
EXCAVATIONS AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES
The key issues regarding excavations and underground structures are as follows:
1. A. Should the underground structure project into the yards and if so, then how
much?
Should the excavation area be allowed to project into the yards? (ZPC)
Table 7-6 of the Zoning Regulations lists those items allowed to project into the
regulated yards. Underground items are not restricted at all as to the limits of their
encroachment into these yards. Conceivably, a basement would technically be allowed
to span the entire building site from property line to property line unrestricted.
For the sake of protecting neighboring properties from damages arising from
subterranean encroachment "standard" sideyard and rearyard setbacks should
apply. An exception might be made for frontyard setbacks, perhaps allowing
development to the street setback line or perhaps only to the allowed front porch
projection.
Excavation should be managed on a case by case basis considering existing
structures, driveways and trees, but in no case be closer than 3 feet to the
property line. While that limitation might impede some underground construction,
it would avoid issues such as already exist with neighboring properties being
encroached by some construction jobs such as brick laying.
B. Should underground structures be allowed on narrow lots taking the 3/7
alternate side yard exception?
Narrow lots (less than 55' wide) are given an option to use alternate side yards. This is
allowed to encourage rear situated garages. If a structure built underground on a narrow
site is constructed when taking the alternate side setback allowance, should there be
limits and restrictions on the proximity of the basement wall and the excavation to
adjoining property lines.
As suggested in A. above, for the purposes of protecting adjoining properties,
underground structures would not be eligible for the 317 alternate sideyard
exception but could be built with the standard 5 foot (or 10%) setback. The 317
rule could still apply to the above ground parts of the structure.
2. If an underground structure is allowed in the yard areas, should there be special
rules for lot drainage regulations? (BSC)
Chapter 18 provides regulations for building site drainage and controlling the runoff rate
based on a 1" per hour rainfall. Slabs on grade will provide a small amount of pervious
area underneath the foundation for water absorption. If a full basement is built, will this
Note: Comments in Italics are those of Dick Yehle prepared 6/10/08 1
impact the drainage in a significant enough manner to require additional drainage
measures not specified in Chapter 18?
The incidental water storage under a slab is too small to be a factor and should
be ignored. Evidence suggests that too much credence is given to the water
absorption capabilities of West U soil. Once the soil is saturated, which is said to
happen quickly, unpaved areas don't retain much more water than paved areas.
The site drainage rules should continue to be enforced, especially for any sump
pump drainage originating from the underground structure.
3. Underground structures in the 100 year floodplain are strictly controlled.
Should there be additional regulatory language controlling the basements
outside the 100 year floodplain?(BSC)
Enclosed portions of structures located in the 100 year floodplain which are below the
base flood elevation are not allowed unless they meet criteria established in Section R323
of the 2003 IRC and Chapter 18 Article IX of the city's Code of Ordinances. There are
no similar regulations for structures outside the Floodplain.
Appropriate floodplain rules should apply.
4. Should there be additional engineering criteria for the foundations of
underground structures? (BSC)
Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances deals with the Technical Codes and amendments
to those codes. West U has amendments dealing with requirements for different types of
foundations. Basement walls are not addressed in this amendment. Section R403 of the
2003 IRC addresses some aspects of basement construction, but does not address
proximity to adjacent sites, depth of excavation, etc.
Standards for basement walls and floors should be developed, to include any
issues with subterranean drainage. There could be issues of sump pump
discharge into the sanitary sewers to consider.
5. Should the area included within the walls of an underground structure be
counted toward framed area? (ZPC)
Framed area definition in Article 2 of the Zoning Regulations lists basements of a certain
depth and less than 8' ceiling height as an exemption to inclusion in the framed area
calculations.
The concept of framed Area is concerned with managing the appearance of bulk
in a structure not its overall size. Therefore (the subterranean part of)
basements should not count toward Framed Area.
Note: Comments in Italics are those of Dick Yehle prepared 6/10/08 2
6. Should the area included between the floor and ceiling of an underground
structure be counted as a story? (ZPC)
The current definition of a story in the zoning regulations would include the basement as
a story for compliance with the 2'/z story rule. If certain basements do not count toward
framed area, then should they be counted as a story? Or if we count the basement area as
a story, should it be counted toward the maximum allowable framed area?
As with the Framed Area rule, the 2 % story rule is in part primarily intended to
manage the appearance of size in structures. Space below grade does not add
to size and should therefore not a be a factor. (See #7 for further comments.)
7. What types of uses of an underground structure will be allowed? (ZPC or BSQ
Any enclosure located below base flood elevation is limited to parking access to the
structure, and storage. We could limit a basement to these uses only and not allow any
habitable areas in a basement.
An additional consideration of the 2 11 story rule is the safety of living areas on
the "third" floor, especially egress. To the extent habitable areas are allowed in
basements, minimum standards for stairwells and windows should apply.
An additional concern might be with parking in basements. Having vehicles
under the house with limited means for emergency crews to access the space
(i.e. realistically only the driveway), could be an issue. Also the standards for
driveway access to a basement garage may need special consideration about
the angle of descent and possibly uncontrolled storm drainage.
Note: Comments in Italics are those of Dick Yehle prepared 6/10/08 3
Existing Plan
ice A h st Univer ity
s
{
TT''
r "
Poor Farr -Ditch
`err ra' ~ i t{~, ~ ~ ~ ~•s 'r ry.~v,
xti ~h'=., t~_, y ~ ~ ~S'~f~a ~ ~ t if' ~1i? • ,1, -~f~.. i ~~'+c~, ~±i ~i~ l ~:}~,Ei ' i ~ ~'$r F~'
a
l.f.
x
I ••F" r . ~ ---.,--r-r..~.~~ * f ~C r C ' a~ 1 _ ~ A~'~~~ !j 'lR~~~ ~ R
~t 9i a ~ p
JMH Bank Masonic Mathews West U Changing
Lodge Motors Plaza Look
Town Center Parking
Off-Street Parking -377
On-Street Parking (marked) - 209
Total 586
Location of off-street parking # Spaces
West University Methodist 61
Rabon-Reid Development 19
West U Limited (Matthews Motors & strip 24
center)
Moe Deli/Lod e 6
Fidelis 17
Bank 27
JMH 57
HISD-off Goode Street 14
HISD-off University 25
City of WUP 23
City of WUP 12
WU Baptist Church 82
WU Baptist Church 10
Parking spaces easily accessible to the
Edloe/University/Rice Commercial Area
Off-Street -189
On-Street - 168
Total 357
Town Center Property Parking: Existing & Required
Address Owner Merchant Lot Area B jlding Area Minimum Actual Parking
tr Parking Spaces
x - Requirement
3642 University Jules Roger Martin 19,375 14,627 58 21
Rosenbaum Realtors,
Changing Look I'(
6203 Edloe West U Limited Mathew's 23,250 13,572 54 12
Motors
6207 Edloe Retail 11,625 8,400 33 24
6119 Edloe Janet Carter Edloe Deli 3,100 1,486 6 0
6125 Edloe ' Masonic Lode Lod e/offices 7,750 7,896 32 6
3633 Rice Compass Bank Bank 36,871 8,517 34 30
6115 Edloe
3636 Rice Rice Edloe JMH grocery 42,366 10,907 57 CAP u ,=r 57 t'
J
Partners
TOTAL 274 150
On Street Parking on west side of Edloe = 36+150= 186