Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07122007 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 12, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Brown, Robert Inaba, Jeffrey Horowitz, and Mac McManus MEMBERS ABSENT: Beth Beloff, Michael Silver and Les Albin CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Bob Kelly, Chuck Guffey and Mike Talianchich STAFF PRESENT: Michael Ross, City Manager, Chris Peifer, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director, Debbie Scarcella, City Planner, Sean Landis, Chief Building Official, Sallye A. Clark, Planning Assistant and James Dougherty, City Legal Counsel Call to Order - With quorum present at 6:15 p.m., Steve Brown called the meeting to order. 1. Minutes. June 14, 2007: Mac McManus made a motion to approve as written. Bob Inaba seconded. Ayes: Steve Brown, Robert Inaba, Jeffrey Horowitz, and Mac McManus Noes: none. Motion passed. Minutes approved. 2. Topics for review for 2006 - 2007; Other Amendments. James Dougherty, Legal Counsel went over the Preliminary Report relating to Mechanical Equipment in Rear Yards dated 7-9-2007. After discussion, Bob Inaba made a motion to approve the Preliminary Report as amended to include the wording "in the same location" in the second line of new replacement equipment. Jeffrey Horowitz seconded the motion. Ayes: Bob Inaba, Steve Brown, Jeffrey Horowitz and Mac McManus. Noes: none. Motion passed. James Dougherty went over the Preliminary report relating to driveways. After discussion, ZPC requested Debbie Scarcella, City Planner and Sean Landis, Building Official to look at this amendment, define loading area and revise to bring back to next month's meeting. ZPC also requested that staff bring back Old Stock housing amendment with a preliminary report. 3. Town Center and Commercial Areas; PDD's. ZPC and City Council discussed this item from the report dated July 9, 2007 from ZPC. Steve Brown gave a brief background that the redevelopment of the town center commercial area (approximately 102,000 sq. ft. between Rice and University on the east side of Edloe; becomes144,000 sq. ft. if JMH is included) has been a fixture of ZPC discussions since August 2003. Today, owners have two options. They can 3800 University Boulevard • West University Place, Texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.westu.org Zoning & Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2007 Meeting Page 2 of 3 redevelop under existing commercial-area rules or they can propose a Planned Development District (30,000 sq. ft. minimum) to the ZPC and City Council. ZPC efforts have concentrated on defining desirable objectives and proposed rules for a third option which might either stand on its own or replace existing "C" rules. ZPC has a list of objectives and Qualified Pedestrian-Enhanced Development design guidelines. Keys to the QPED approach for this area are community input and buy- in, a practical parking plan and property-owner interest. After discussion, Mayor Bob Kelly stated that this item may be put on a future City Council agenda to decide whether to continue Town Center efforts or to put on the shelf for the time being. 4. Framed Area and Related Regulations; Amendments. ZPC and City Council discussed this item from the report dated July 9, 2007 from ZPC. Proposals have included changes to framed-area rules (FA), building setbacks, building separation rules, building height, and open-area requirements, among others. Using this incremental approach, concerns raised by residents and commission members have been addressed and the ordinance tightened but often at the expense of increased complexity, making its use and administration more difficult. FA is the heart of West U's regulations controlling building size and bulk but it is cumbersome. Mayor Bob Kelly suggested that ZPC and City Council in the future have workshops so that ZPC is clear on City Council goals. Michael Ross stated that staff believes that Framed Area should be left as is at this time unless Council requests that it be looked at further. Craig Hughes, Builder in West U stated that ZPC will never satisfy all criteria and that tweaking to framed area needs to stop. Mike Talianchich, Councilmember, 2708 Werlein passed out a handout with pictures and gave a presentation on the 80% Rule. Mr. Talianchich believes that areas under breezeways and rear porches should not be counted toward framed area. David Agerton, 3020 Pittsburg and Eric Scheller, 2916 Lafayette spoke in opposition to the proposed garage separation ordinance amendment. Steve Brown read a letter from Byrlan Cass-Shively, Architect in opposition to the proposed garage separation ordinance amendment. Les Albin arrived at 8:40 p.m. Adjournment. Les Albin made a motion to adjourn. Bob Inaba seconded. Ayes: Steve Brown, Jeffrey Horowitz, Robert Inaba, Les Albin, and Mac McManus. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Attachments: Zoning and Planning Commission Report to City Council with attachments, dated 7- 9-2007 80% Rule Guideline handout with photos by Council Member Mike Talianchich (7 pages) Letter from Byrlan Cass-Shively, architect relating to garage separation Preliminary Report and amendment relating to mechanical equipment in rear yard or side yard (Table 7-6), dated 7-9-2007 Preliminary report and amendment relating to driveways and loading areas, Table 7- 5a, dated 7-9-2007 Zoning & Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2007 Meeting Page 3 of 3 PASSED THIS DAY, OF , 2007. Steve Brown, Presiding Officer AT ST: ye A. Cl k, Planning Assistant Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Zoning & Planning Commission Report to City Council West University Place, Texas July 9, 2007 The ZPC has devoted most of its time during the 2005-07 term to guidelines for redevelopment of the town center commercial area and to possible zoning ordinance amendments designed to control building size and bulk. We have also worked on possible ordinance improvements in other areas. There have been no requests for ZPC action on routine matters such as plats. Town Center Redevelopment of the town center commercial area (approximately 102,000 sq. ft. between Rice and University on the east side of Edloe; becomes 144,000 sq. ft. if JMH is included) has been a fixture of ZPC discussions since at least August 2003. Today, owners have two options. They can redevelop under existing commercial-area rules or they can propose a Planned Development District (30,000 sq. ft. minimum) to the ZPC and City Council. ZPC efforts have concentrated on defining desirable objectives and proposed rules for a third option which might either stand on its own or replace existing "C" rules. Our agenda for the town-center discussion at the November 2006 ZPC meeting (Attachment 1) shows our work outline. We have a list of objectives (Attachment 2) and Qualified Pedestrian-Enhanced Development design guidelines (available but not attached) and are now at step 3, a decision to move forward with outside help or to shelve this work. Keys to the QPED approach for this area are community input and buy-in, a practical parking plan and property-owner interest. The ZPC has spent little time on this topic since November. Building Size & Bulk The economic pressure to build ever-larger homes on the city's small expensive lots keeps the effort to control the scale of new homes being built in West U on the ZPC agenda month after month. Proposals have included changes to framed-area rules (FA), building setbacks, building separation rules, building height, and open-area requirements, among others. Using this incremental approach, concerns raised by residents and commission members have been addressed and the ordinance tightened but often at the expense of increased complexity, making its use and administration more difficult. Possible changes now being considered are summarized in Attachment 3. FA is the heart of West U's regulations controlling building size and bulk but it is cumbersome. A proposal for work that could lead to a simpler, easier to understand and administer, building-envelope approach to regulating size and bulk is outlined in Attachment 4. Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Other Proposals In response to concerns raised by residents, city staff or commission members, the ZPC is working on matters ranging from driveways, loading areas and garage space to mechanical equipment in side or rear yards. Current items are summarized in Attachment 3. Finally, I would like to say thanks. We could not do our job without strong support from Jim Dougherty, Debbie Scarcella and our secretary, Sallye Clark. Steve Brown, Chairman Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Architectural services to assist Z&PC in evaluating new, simplified regulations of building size, bulk, etc. April 2005 Overall Objective Balance the interests of property owners with the needs of the community in a new, simplified set of rules regulating building size, bulk, etc. Recommended Next Step (Immediate Action) Obtain architectural services, by contract, to assist the Z&PC in evalutating rules regulating building size, bulk, etc. (see objectives and possible approaches listed below). Services would include sketches, analyses, advice, etc. Objectives Of New Regulations 1. Architectural Freedom: Avoid undue interference with architectural freedom; allow many styles. 2. Light & Air: Reduce the adverse impacts of new buildings on penetration of daylight, circulation of air, etc. 3. Height: Control the height of buildings, especially in close proximity to other property. 4. Bulk & Size: Regulate the bulk and size of buildings; encourage reduction of bulk as height increases. 5. Yards, Open Space: Help to preserve yards and open spaces. 6. Density: Reduce overcrowding of structures and population; avoid undue concentration of population. 7. Emergency Access: Facilitate emergency access, especially to higher floors. 8. Neighbors: Encourage designs that respect privacy and quiet enjoyment of neighboring property. 9. Administration. Provide simple rules that produce predictable, consistent results (perhaps mathematical). Possible Approaches (To Be Sketched and Analyzed) 1. Palo Alto "daylight plane" approach 2. Bill May's "scale-based zoning" approach 3. Sloped-height setback approach, 2-8-05 (new Note 10 for Table 7-4b) 4. Others that may meet the objectives of the new regulations Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes When ready, the proposal must be tested and evaluated in comparison with FA. First it must do the job of controlling size and bulk without killing architectural freedom. Second it must be easy to understand and produce predictable, consistent results. In short, it must be user friendly for architects, builders and the city. These tests will probably require paid services from a second, independent architectural firm. If the tested proposal passes review by the ZPC, it should be recommended to City Council for a real-world trial (as an amendment to the zoning ordinance). During a trial period of at least one, but no more than two, years the proposal would be available to architects and builders as an authorized alternative to the FA provisions of the zoning ordinance. City staff and the ZPC would monitor the trial and report to Council at six- month intervals. At the close of the trial the ZPC would make a final recommendation to Council, either to use the new approach exclusively or to abandon it and return exclusively to FA. The likelihood of recommending indefinite use of parallel approaches to controlling size and bulk is remote because the key reason for this effort is to simplify the zoning ordinance. Structuring the trial legally may require some special effort but should be possible. The right to rebuild in the event of severe loss should be provided to those who choose the losing approach during the trial. The opportunity to simplify, saving time effort and cost for city staff, architects and builders, argues for requesting initial ideas and cost estimates for the proposal from architects familiar with West U. Steve Brown Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Regulating Building Size and Bulk May 27, 2007 In recent years West University Place's zoning ordinance has been updated several times to cope with the economic pressure to build ever-larger homes on the city's small, expensive lots. The members of the current Zoning & Planning Commission (ZPC) see a continuing need for action. They are united in wanting to protect the friendly, single- family-home character of our city by ensuring that new construction meets the test of "good neighborliness". Over the past few years the ZPC has spent much of its time attempting to improve West U's rules controlling building size and bulk. Proposals have included changes to framed- area rules (FA), building setbacks, building separation rules, building height, and open- area requirements, among others. Some patches have been installed and some holes plugged, often at the expense of complicating the ordinance and making its use and administration more difficult. Today we face a choice with FA. It is the key element in our control of size and bulk. It is a sound tool, but not straightforward. We can continue to patch and plug a basically sound ordinance and pay the price of increased complexity or we can move to replace FA with a new approach that may be easier to understand, use and administer. In either case the primary tool must be well integrated with other key limitations, such as height, setbacks and open and pervious area requirements. A good alternative is unlikely to be found in another survey of other cities' actions to control size and bulk. Past surveys have helped the ZPC understand its options but have provided no solutions anywhere near ready to use in West U. No more effort should be spent in this area. In the ZPC's discussions a building-envelope (BE) approach (sometimes called "daylight plane" or "scale-based" zoning) has emerged as the most promising alternative to FA. The next step is to develop a BE proposal to the point where it can be carefully evaluated as a possible successor to FA. That will require the professional services of an architect who is familiar with the concept and is willing to design a proposal that fits well with the balance of West U's zoning ordinance. The April 2005 statement of "Architectural services to assist Z&PC in evaluating new, simplified regulations of building size, bulk, etc." (attached) lists overall and detailed objectives that remain sound. However, the recommended next step should be restated to make clear that the assignment is to prepare a full-fledged proposal with the blanks filled in and with the necessary illustrative drawings completed. The proposal should also address the growing problem of long, high walls near interior property lines and it should be free to suggest changes in others areas of the ordinance, such as increasing the open- area percentage requirement, to help control bulk. Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes - Status: Amendments to Tables 7-3 and 7-6 drafted. ZPC discussion ongoing 7. Require articulation of high walls near property lines - Purpose: Preserve neighborhood aesthetics, improve light and air access - Summary: Would require elements of articulation in long high walls near property lines - Status: Possibilities/ideas under development by ZPC members for future discussion Other Proposals 1. Mechanical equipment in rear yard or side yard - Purpose: Remove a ZBA-recognized hardship - Summary: Allow replacement of existing equipment (e.g., air conditioning condensers) without requiring relocation to ground level. Noise limitations would remain in force - Status: Amendment to Table 7-6 drafted. ZPC discussion nearing completion 2. Driveways and loading areas - Purpose: Encourage intended use of garages and driveways to reduce street and cross-sidewalk parking - Summary: Would set a minimum I 0-ft. driveway width (mirror to mirror) for new construction and require adequate loading/turning area in front of garages and possible minimum distance from garage openings to the property line - Status: Amendment to Table 7-5a drafted. ZPC discussion ongoing. 3. Garage space - Purpose: Encourage garage parking to reduce street and cross-sidewalk parking - Summary: In SF districts, raise to 2 the minimum garage-space requirement and set minimum garage and maneuvering-area dimensions - Status: Amendment to Table 7-4a drafted. ZPC discussion ongoing. SGB 7-3-2007 Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Possible Zoning Ordinance Improvements Overall Objective Balance the interests of property owners with the needs of the community. Controlling Building Size & Bulk 1. Buildings in rear yards - Purpose: Prevent building a high, solid wall along much of the length of a property, allow entry of light and air movement - Summary: Would require a separation between the principal building and any building in the rear yard (setback) - Status: Following preliminary report to City Council and public hearing (Nov. 2006) being reworked to allow a height-limited, enclosed transitional structure bridging the separation. Amendment to Table 7-6 drafted. ZPC discussion ongoing 2. Garages in side yards - Purpose: Continue to encourage rear garages by allowing transitional structures, as above - Summary: Would allow garages to continue to be within 3 feet of interior side property line in transitional-structure situations - Status: Amendment to Table 7-6 drafted. ZPC discussion ongoing 3. Framed area vs. lot area - Purpose: Preserve open space by scaling back the allowed framed area percentage for buildings on lots larger than 5000 sq. ft. - Summary: Would limit framed area to 4000 sq. ft. plus 50% of the area of the building site in excess of 5000 sq. ft. - Status: Draft amendment to Table 7-4b completed at 1-11-07 ZPC. Awaiting further ZPC discussion and testing 4. Sloped-setback height limits for buildings - Purpose: Limit bulk and preserve neighbors' enjoyment of light and air - Summary: Would limit the height of buildings near property lines by using a sloping setback from a starting height at each property line - Status: Amendment to Table 7-4b drafted. ZPC discussion ongoing 5. Remove certain attic spaces from framed-area count - Purpose: Simplify framed-area rules for attics - Summary: Would exclude from framed area most attic space meeting sloped-height setback rules - Status: Draft revision of Schedule FA discussed at 1-11-07 ZPC. Needs minor additions/clarifications 6. Increase portion of building site required to be open - Purpose: Control building bulk and preserve open space, light and air - Summary: Would increase open-space percentage from 40% to 55%, excluding eaves Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Provide the framework for orderly, planned and phased development The City could create the features and/or provide incentives, special exemptions, or variances for the developer to create the features that would support the kind of development desired, such as: 1. A gathering place in front of the structures through landscaping, pavement/street materials. 2. Extend its sidewalk planning to include a common landscaped, covered walkway feature to encourage pedestrian use. 3. Use of common landscaping/building features such as signage, lighting, awnings, etc. that could visually integrate the development. 4. Relaxing of building setbacks to allow building to street right-of-ways and allow common walls for neighboring developments to maximize buildable space and reinforce the uniformity and continuity of development. Encourage buildings that reduce environmental impacts and meet green building standards Generate tax revenue for the community Real Estate taxes Sales tax Recognize structures of historic significance To the extent that any of the building structures on the existing site have significance, they could be preserved, partially incorporated or replicated thematically. Plan with input from the community Suggestions could include public meetings for design input, mail-out public opinion poll, Town Center "Hotline" Website Coordinate with City of Southside Place Project Possible integration/compatibility with City of Southside Place project on southeast corner of Edloe and University Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes POTENTIAL OBJECTIVES THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE TOWN CENTER From the June, 10-2004 ZPC Meeting Revised 101302006 Create a pedestrian friendly environment 1. Provide uses compatible with and enhancing of the quality of life of the community. 2. Encourage the development to move to the sidewalk (set a build-to line). 3. Minimize the strip center parking arrangement of typical shopping centers, which emphasizes the image of the car and detracts from the pedestrian or sidewalk cafd quality environment. This could mean locating on-street parallel parking in front, or angled parking with intermittent tree islands. 4. Locate employee and/or overflow parking behind the retail buildings along the ditch. 5. Encourage the use of landscaping and covered or arcaded sidewalks in front of retail to further encourage pedestrian use. This could mean a common feature (covered pedestrian/landscape zone) that links all of the building sites. 6. Encourage parking in the back by providing convenient, covered passageways from the back to the pedestrian arcades in front of the retail buildings. 7. Encourage the development of a rear service and parking area along the ditch to reduce pedestrian/traffic conflicts. Provide a gathering place for the community Design the street as an urban plaza for congregating, strolling, special events, etc. The design can accommodate the closing of the street during special events and celebrations. Create a mixed-use environment Potentially retail, office, residential and community service Create aesthetics consistent with an inner city urban single-family neighborhood Create Design Guidelines for development as a condition for special exemptions and/or variances. The Guidelines should prevent a typical suburban strip-center appearance. Be Compatible with adjacent existing uses 1. Single family residential 2. Maintain existing landscape buffer and provide additional screening/buffer for residential directly across Poor Farm ditch 3. West U Elementary School 4. Park, play fields, Scout House 5. Service, government Provide appropriate parking An incentive for redevelopment could be minimizing the parking requirement through a shared parking plan with other uses, such as the school. Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Draft date 11-7-2006 Agenda for Town Center Discussion ZPC November 9, 2006 1. Review/modify/endorse Potential Objectives from 6/1012004, revised 10/30/2006 2. Review/modify/endorse proposed resolution providing QPED design guidelines as revised 10/31/2006. Weigh need for a similar resolution to accompany C-PED zoning. 3. Decide to move forward on hiring a design/planning firm or on working with Kirksey pro bono to produce sketches that show conceptually what the design guidelines could produce and back-test the guidelines under various conditions. 4. Decide on a plan and timing for a public Town Center Design Workshop The proposal for discussion is a well publicized and well timed meeting of the ZPC at which our proposal for the town center would be presented to the public for their reaction/input/guidance. A facilitator would be employed to take the lead at the workshop and do the bulk of the work in preparing for it. The facilitator would work under the guidance of the ZPC and City staff. Envisioned for the workshop are a PowerPoint presentation to introduce the topic, outline important objectives, highlight key issues and options, and address the decisions that need to be made. To stimulate discussion there would be illustrations of what the town center might look like and photos of other towns where "desirable" redevelopment with similarities to ours is taking place. Small- group discussions would be encouraged and breakout guidelines for the workshop would be part of the facilitator's assignment. To ensure participation by key stakeholders, personal invitations by ZPC members to the property owners and nearby residents might be appropriate. 5. Discussion of proposed C-PED zoning regulations (if time permits) 0 0 RF,W AgeXIMS, ACCZ5S o 77, 0 ~fJ/tOrW1i o W4iXWAY Pa~v~".cgt~ Pik/~t/G o 0 0 PLAN R.O.W. MAN/MAG ORNO,gtAy. SE1?~AGC Rl.4R P~•r/~/G Q~P~'°L^'~ RPJ9R,8viiER FpNG6 • L~~rnscsloeV6 35FT. HB/6HT L/~Hf/T t ' sEc7'~oN Bob ► Ckc(o QVAL IREp FF~ Telft DWANCEp "V-r4ORMal S O 20 40 60 So looFT II d AY 2006 80% RULE GUIDELINE 50 x 120 lot = 6000 ft2 80% of 6000 ft2 = 4800 less 500 for garage = 4300 ft2 LOT COST = 6000 x $90/ft2 = $540,000 BUILDING COSTS = $150/ft2 ( this includes builders profit ) HOLDING COSTS = $100,000 (closing 1A, 113, and 2, interest payments and property taxes) HOUSE SIZE 4300 ft2 4000 ft2 3500 ft2 3000 ft2 r LOT COST $540,000 $540,000 $540,000 $540,000 HOUSE COST $645,000 $600,000 $525,000 $450,000 AT $150/ft2 HOLDING COSTS $100,000 $100,000 $95,000 $90,000 TOTAL COSTS $1,285,000 $1,240,000 $1,160,000 $1,080,000 ` SELLING PRICE AT $300/ft2 $1,290,000 $1,200,000 $1,050,000 $900,000 v Additional profit or loss to the builder +$5,000 -$40,000 -$110,000 -$180,000 Framed area 80% 75% 66.5% 58.5% l . FRAMING AREA LIMITATIONS 6) ~ As the rule is currently applied under the current administration, some non framed areas are counted as framed areas thus forcing the property owner to build a house with less than 80% framed area. The original intent of the framed area rule passed by council in 1994 was to put a limit on the size of newly constructed homes and framed area was construed at the time to mean an enclosure surrounded by walls and that this would count as flamed area. When a garage is placed at the back of the property and out of site of the street, the most efficient way to construct the house with useable space is to connect the house to the garage via the second floor and either place the master bedroom suite or media room over the garage. This idea is supported overwhelmingly by the buying public. The portion of the second story "flyover" which connects the gargage to the house is currently determined to be framed area. This is absolutely correct as it is enclosed by four walls of frarning. However, the portion underneath the flyover which is outside or open to the air and only has two sides of framing and is not enclosed by framing on all four sides, is also currently called "framed area". This should not be so. Usually this bogus framed area adds up to about 240 ft2 and at the differential between the selling price and cost price of this area, adds up to a loss to the homeowner or builder of some $40,000. 240 x ( 300 - 130 ) _ $40,800. As a consequence of this current interpretation of the 80% rule it is difficult for a homeowner or builder to forgo this lost valuation to the property and therefore this encourages the construction of front loader housing in the City of West University Place. I gather from talking to residents, that the majority of people would prefer to have the garage at the rear of the property. I therefore ask the ZPC or BSC or Council to reconsider the interpretation to this rule and in my view not count the portion under the flyover as framed area unless it is enclosed by four walls of framing. A side note - during some of the other administrations in previous years, this was not counted as framed area 11 1 c ti rp, t," +as~T~ ~ P eif ~~~.E♦ ,fit - v a ~t f. E L T S - OF7 2. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR A 4300 ft2 HOUSE ON A 6000 ft2 LOT Lets compare a two storey house with approximately 2150 f12 on the first floor and 2150 ft2 on the second floor ( house 1) with a house which has 1800 ft2 on the first floor and 2500 ft2 on the second floor ( house 2 The total square footage is 4300 for both homes. ( House 2 ) with a "flyover" to the space above the garage would be the 1800/2500 M. The beauty of this design means the first floor is smaller and thus you end up with a decent sized backyard. The second floor has 2500 ft2 and this allows for a large master bedroom suite and a games/media room and computer room. This is a highly prized design on a 6000 ft2 lot. The other house ( house 1 ) with only garage space at the back of the property has many drawbacks. Because it is 350 ft2 bigger than ( house 2 ) on the first floor, you end up with a smaller backyard and really difficult access to the garage. In addition, the second floor is 350 ft2 less than ( house 2 ) and it is difficult to provide the same amenities as in the first house and thus becomes a less marketable product and has some dysfunctionallity. The third choice of course is to build a front loader ( house 3 This home will have a functional garage but less natural beauty. Because there is no rear garage, the backyard is the full width of the lot and allows room for a pool, however, it is difficult to achieve a good downstairs layout with the garage protruding into the house. 3. BULK AND HALF STOREY CONSIDERATIONS Consideration of making the code simple and easy to apply but still achieving the desired results. A half storey could be defined as follows: A half storey is permitted to be built on the 3rd floor if the following conditions are met. (a) Must be enclosed within the roof structure (b) The eaves of the roof must be no higher than the floor of the half storey. (c) The enclosing roof must be symmetrical and triangulated. Two dormers are permitted and each dormer must not have a floor area exceeding 40 ft2. If a roof structure is non triangulated or is triangulated but not symmetrical ( ie flattish or slightly sloping then the maximum roof height must not exceed 30 ft. This would reduce the bulk problem of contemporary homes but still give the homeowner sufficient flexibility to design a good looking home without overcrowding the neighbors. To alleviate the added burden for architects, city staff, etc to calculate volumetric numbers, it would behoove us to stay with the traditional square footage calculation methods used by appraisers and the Harris County Appraisal District. The traditional method is to ignore atriums and staircases, and simply to use outside to outside wall measurements for the first and second floor. This simple method ( staying within the 80% rule would take care of any bulk problems. AW- SrVRE Y IS PEQim i rTLQ 61P~ 35 T' 35 ffs R+AF is S Yml#E rRCc*t ~ TYP~c.ACr dl 1/° flooF~ ~"i~~ ~tC.o~rt,✓~ RvaFS' ARC' IYo T /°~Rm ~ e TEp 'ro c xr Arb 3 o Fr SYmwn~rR~c~t~ ~etsr' No r T'R IAN6-uLaTEv 0 3 ' "I ~ 5 7rnrnEfRic~t. ~uf nor ~'Rrk~/ 6-u ~rrE,D Sri ~o r 3b' S Ymin~ne/c.4L LowGR~N~ i~ 30 ~1~ tTS ~ gIiLKY Look of # I✓L~h! XomNF JA _~O R/67 ZPC~alq MOUJd~_ C a s s . S h i v e l y A R C H I T E C T S July 12, 2007 West University Place City Council and Zoning and Planning Commission West University Place, Texas 77005 Dear City Council Members and Zoning and Planning Commissioners: I am an Architect currently working on three residential renovation/ addition projects located in West University Place at the following addresses: 3020 Pittsburgh owned by Mallory and David Agerton, 6412 Westchester owned by Eleanor and Vic DiFranco, and 2916 Lafayette owned by Suzanne and Eric Scheller. Each of these projects would be adversely affected if Ordinance 5§0.&tAis passed as it stands. All of the last five projects that I have worked on in West University Place are connected to their garages, but only one even comes close to the 80% framed area rule. Only one has both the first and second floor addition connecting to the garage. None of the projects would have been feasible without being connected. These older homes have serious design constraints due to existing room arrangements, the positions on the site, the locations of existing driveways, garages, existing trees, etc. Today, homes without families rooms, utility rooms, spaces for computers, adequate closets, etc. are not viable for the way my clients, WUP families, live. A stated goal of West University Place is to encourage saving older homes. A viable option to tearing down homes requires supporting the housing needs of today's West University Place families. Please consider not proceeding with enacting this ordinance as it stands. Than u, Byrlan Cass-Shively, Architect ARCHITECTURE . PLANNING . INTERIOR DESIGN 4Town Oaks Place . Bellaire,Texas 77401. 713 661-7676 . Fax 713 661-7669 v 1 City of West University Place Harris County, Texas Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE CALLING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS REGARDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN REAR YARDS; PRESCRIBING PROCEDURES AND NOTICES; CONTAINING FINDINGS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Zoning and Planning Commission ("Z&PC") of the City of West University Place, Texas ("City") has submitted a preliminary report on a proposal to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City, as last reformatted and re- adopted by Ordinance No. 1672, adopted March 12, 2001, and as amended thereafter ("Zoning Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the Z&PC's preliminary report is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to call a joint public hearing on such proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE: Section 1. The City Council hereby calls a joint public hearing before the City Council and Z&PC on the proposal described in Exhibit A. Unless rescheduled, the hearing shall be held in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, West University Place, Texas 77005 during the City Council meeting set to begin at 6:30 p.m. on . The hearing may be recessed and continued to the City Council meeting set to begin at 6:30 p.m. on at the same place, unless rescheduled. The City Manger may reschedule either date and time, or both, to accommodate other pending matters, but the rescheduled date(s) and time(s) may not be later than 30 days past the later of the two dates set by this ordinance. Section 2. The purpose for the hearing is to provide an opportunity for parties in interest and citizens to be heard in relation to the proposal described in Exhibit A Section 3. The procedures for adoption of the proposal shall be as follows: (1) notice as required by this ordinance, (2) hearing as called by this ordinance, (3) report by the Z&PC, and (4) vote by the City Council on the question of adoption. The procedures for enforcing the proposal shall be as set out in the existing Zoning Ordinance. The proposal described in Exhibit A is hereby submitted and re-submitted to the Z&PC for its consideration. R./o7 V(C Section 4. The City Secretary shall give notice of such hearing as prescribed by this section. The notice shall be in substantially the form set out in Exhibit B, which is attached and made a part of this ordinance by reference. The notice shall be published in the City's official newspaper (or another newspaper of general circulation in the City) at least once on or before the 16th day preceding the date of the hearing. In addition, the notice shall be mailed to the persons on the mailing list for the City Currents newsletter. The notices shall be deposited in the United States mail on or before ninth day preceding the date of the hearing, properly addressed with postage prepaid. The notices may be included within the newsletter, or with utility bills or may be separate. The City Council specifically approves giving combined notice of two or more hearings in a single notice document, as this would save money and also provide better information about the full scope of possible amendments to all interested persons. Section 5. The City staff is authorized to make all necessary arrangements for the hearing and to assist the Zoning and Planning Commission and the City Council. Section 6. If any word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other part of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall ever be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance and the application of such word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other part of this ordinance to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict only. Section 7. The City Council officially finds, determines and declares that sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of each meeting at which this ordinance was discussed, considered or acted upon was given in the manner required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended, and that such meeting has been open to the public as required by law at all times during such discussion, consideration and action. The City Council ratifies, approves and confirms such notices and the contents and posting thereof. Section 8. Because the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance is vitally important and should be considered at the earliest possible date, a state of emergency is declared requiring that this ordinance be read and adopted finally at this meeting. Accordingly, this ordinance shall be adopted finally on first reading and shall become effective immediately upon adoption and signature. 7//a-/D 7 2-RC PASSED, APPROVED, ADOPTED AND SIGNED on , 20 Attest/Seal: Signed: City Secretary Mayor Recommended: Prepared: City Manager James L. Dougherty, Jr. Approved as to legal form: City Attorney forms/ORD 54 o calling zoning hearing 7-06 Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Exhibit A f Zoning & Planning Commission City of West University Place, Texas 3800 University Boulevard West University Place, Texas 77005 July 12, 2007 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 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN REAR YARDS 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. The current ordinance requires mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning equipment) located in a rear yard to be installed near the ground. The proposal would allow replacement equipment to be installed on an elevated structure, if there is older equipment lawfully installed on that structure. The proposal would require a wall (at least 50% solid, such as lattice) to separate the equipment from the rear lot line. The principal purpose is to allow replacement equipment to be installed where there is existing equipment, which should help to avoid expensive retrofitting and help to save energy (retrofitting generally involves longer coolant lines, which are less efficient). 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) Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes 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 voted "aye;" no "noes;" absent. Respectfully submitted: ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS By: For the Commission Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Amendment relating to mechanical equipment in rear yard or side yard Draft (Table 7-6) 7-9-07 Amend Note 6 of Table 7-6 as follows: Note 6 Equipment In Rear or Side Yard. REAR YARD: Indicated equipment may project into a rear yard only if: (a) separating the equipment from any building site across the rear lot line, there is a solid wall at least one foot higher than the highest part of the equipment; (b) if the equipment occupies any part of an easement under the control of the City, the City has issued a separate acquiescence or consent to the occupancy of the easement; (c) there has been formally granted to the city any utility easement deemed necessary by the City's chief utility official; (d) the base of the equipment is not higher than 14 inches above the ground (Exception: the base may be elevated to the minimum level of the lowest floor of the principal building, as established by the City's flood damage prevention ordinance, if that level is higher than 14 inches above the ground.), and (e) if located within five feet of any property line, the equipment is fully encased in a sound-absorbing cabinet or is otherwise designed and operated to comply with the City's noise regulations; see Chapter 54 of the Code of Ordinances. SIDE YARD: Indicated equipment may project into an interior or street side yard (but not closer than three feet to a property line) only if it is fully encased in a sound-absorbing cabinet, or is otherwise designed and operated to comply with the City's noise regulations; see Chapter 54 of the Code of Ordinances. However, equipment replacing older equipment in a side yard may project as close as 18 inches to a property line, if the fire marshal determines that such projection will not significantly interfere with emergency access, either on the same site or on another site NEW AND REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT: These rules apply to all new and replacement equipment. Exce )tion: If older equipment was lawful installed can n e evated structure in a rear yard replacement equipment nta be in_stal_le (ie s i .izc- strut urc. If the older e ui men.t was lawfully installed without the required se parati wall the wall must be provided but it may be either solid. or at least 50% solid e.g. lattice), All other miles apply. 71IR107 2~0C rn) Exhibit 8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS The Zoning & Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of West University Place, Texas ("City") will hold joint public hearings in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005 during the City Council meeting set to begin at 6:30 PM on . Each hearing may be recessed and continued to the City Council meeting set to begin at 6:30 p.m. on at the same place. The purpose for the hearings is to provide an opportunity for parties in interest and citizens to be heard in relation to proposal(s) to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance, as follows: Mechanical Equipment in Rear Yard. The current ordinance requires mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning equipment) located in a rear yard to be installed near the ground. This proposal would allow replacement equipment to be installed on an elevated structure, if there is older equipment lawfully installed on that structure. The proposal would require a wall (at least 50% solid, such as lattice) to separate the equipment from the rear lot line. [Insert others] Additional details on the proposal(s) as well as the Zoning Ordinance are all available for public inspection in the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005. The proposed changes to the Zoning ordinance would apply generally within the City, and any person interested in such matters should attend the hearings. The proposal(s) may be adopted only after notice and hearing and would control over anything inconsistent in the current Zoning Ordinance. Date: /s/ Kay Holloway, City Secretary Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes Exhibit A `w Zoning & Planning Commission City of West University Place, Texas 3800 University Boulevard West University Place, Texas 77005 July 12, 2007 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 DRIVEWAYS 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. The proposal would: (i) specify a minimum driveway width of 10 feet; (ii) require a driveway loading area at least 18 feet long; and (iii) require hard surfaced pavement for most vehicular areas. The proposal mainly applies to single-family detached houses (SFD uses), and it includes details for measurement and locations. There is a special provision for prior non-conformities (PNC's). The principal purposes are to make driveways easy to use, particularly for large vehicles, and to provide driveway loading areas that can be used without blocking sidewalks. 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. Attachment to 7-12-2007 ZPC minutes The Vote. The vote on approval of this report was as follows: Commissioners voted "aye;" no "noes;" absent. Respectfully submitted: ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS By: For the Commission Amendmenreaing2-2007 zrc minutes to driveways ~fj 7-9-07 w® ko~ Draft Amend table 7-5a and notes as follows: `o General Rule Every building site, vehicular area and related structure must Table 7-5a: conform to the applicable regulations shown, by District, in this table. ("N/A" means the rule does not apply.) Exceptions/Special Rules (1) See special rules noted in Parking, driveways, etc. table. (3) See Article 9 regarding Planned Development Districts. (3) See Note 7 regarding special exceptions. (4) See Article 10. Item Regulation SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 TH GR-1 GR-2 C Number, Depends on land use, layout, etc. See this Tahle, Tahle 7-4a, and Article 10 Off-street parking spaces and location, size, (including maneuvering areas, design requirements, "same site"rule, yards, street parking areas design areas, loading spaces, etc.). Grouping or Not allowed, except in a QMDS platted parking reserve serving two or more DU's. Other regulations sharing. But see Note 2. apply," see, e.g. Article 10 Use of parking Parking spaces for non-SFD uses may only be used for motor vehicle parking. See areas Note 3. Minimum 20 ft, via public or private street, to each principal building and each DU (or to an Emergency accessway width. adjacent open area accessible to firefighters and equipment). Other regulations also See Note 1, apply, e.g, fire code. For SFD use: (i the ininimum width is 10 ft. and. (ii) there must be a drivewa Minimum loadinx= area at least l 8 feet loner either on the builcliny,ite or in the adiacc nt street width,: lengt11 area (or party= in each) but not encroaching upon any part of a public: sidewalk See Note 1. existin or proposed) or roadway. For non-SFD residential use the minimum width is - 10 feet, or 17 feet if two-way and serving three or more DU's. For SFD use: (i) Driveway serving any single-bay garage: 12 feet. (ii) Driveway in a Driveways and Maximum front yard serving rear garage or side-facing garage: 12 feet. (iii) Driveway in side private streets width street area of a corner site serving a side-facing garage with three or more bays: 30 See Note 1. feet; (iv) Any other driveway: 20 feet. For other residential uses- 24 ft. (or 35 feet if connecting to a major thoroughfare). For any other use: 30 feet (or 35 feet if Other regulations connecting to a major thoroughfare). apply; see, e.g. Article 10. For non-SFD uses: 160 feet, driving distance to the nearest street area, measured Maximum along centerline from farthest end point. A longer driveway is allowed if there is an length approved turnaround or second means of egress, or if the driveway is platted as part of the common area in a QMDS. Route, location See Note 6. N/A Spacing For non-SFD uses: There must be at least 40 feet between the "inside" apron edges (at their narrowest points) of driveways serving the same building site. For SFD use: Hard-surfaced pavement required for , ,h foqtkifed parking s pRee ,ill Pavement Required type vehicular areas; twin "ribbons" of pavement are permitted for driveways. For all See Note 4. other uses: Reinforced concrete, with curbs and drains required for all vehicular areas. Exceptions: See Table 7-3 (pervious pavement) and Note 4. Markings; wheel Required type For non-SFD uses: Parking spaces must be clearly marked on the pavement, and stops. wheel stops are required. See Note 12. Curb cuts Number For SFD use: Maximum one per subdivided lot abutting the street. For non-SFD use: Maximum one per 50-ft. segment of street line.See Note 5. Otherregu atlons Max. width per Four feet (for aprons) plus the maximum driveway width allowed. Each curb cut apply; see, e.g. 50-ft. segment must be confined to the part of the street area that directly abuts the building site(s) Article 10. of street line served. See Note 1. Visibility triangles Forbidden The following are forbidden on parts of a building site within i~,y ngle: See definitions structures, structures, plants or other things taller than 2.0 ft. or shorter is does in Article 2 Plants and other things not require removal of trees in existence on July 1, 1992, if kept pruned. Note 1. Width measurement methods. Minimum driveway width refers to 46t4-unobstructed vehicular access path and. for zzc3n S _ pavement. Maximum driveway width refers to maximum width of pavement in a front yard or street area, excluding complying curb cut aprons. Maximum curb cut width refers to the width of the driveway plus aprons, measured at the edge of the roadway. Note 2. Grouped or shared parking. Article 10 also provides for a special exception, in certain circumstances. Note 3. Parking exclusivity (non-SFD uses). Required parking spaces must be kept open, readily accessible and used for parking only, with no sales, dead storage, display, repair work, dismantling or servicing of any kind. Required guest parking spaces must be kept open and reserved for that use only. Note 4. Pavement. The ZBA may issue a special exception to allow other materials if it finds that they will provide equal or better durability. Note 5. Curb cuts. The ZBA may issue a special exception for additional curb cuts. Circular driveways specifically allowed by another ordinance are not prohibited. Note 6. Route, Alternating Driveways . Each driveway must connect garage space to the street by the most direct route. On narrow sites where alternate side yard areas apply (see "Yards" table), the following special restrictions also apply: (A) there must be a driveway located as nearly as practicable to one side of the site; (B) the side is determined in accordance with the established driveway pattern for the block face in question, if there is such a pattern; and (C) if there is no such pattern, and if there is an adjacent driveway on one adjoining building site but not the other, the driveway must be on the side farthest from the adjoining driveway. Exceptions: (i) this paragraph does not prohibit circular driveways specifically permitted under another ordinance of the City, and (ii) a driveway may be curved or moved away from the most direct route to the extent reasonably necessary to avoid destroying or seriously injuring a tree. Note 7 Special Exceptions. The ZBA may issue a special exception for a parking area, garage or driveway (or other maneuvering area) in another location or with a different design than prescribed by this ordinance, if it finds that: (i) the other location or design will not unreasonably interfere with available light and air and will not significantly alter access for firefighting and similar needs; (ii) the other location or design will prevent the destruction of a qualified tree; (iii) in the case of the remodeling of a principal building, the location requested is the same location as an existing parking area, garage or driveway; or (iv) the location or design requested is necessary for safety considerations. Note 8. Curb Cuts in PDD-TH1. (i) If a building site abuts both Bellaire Boulevard and another street, then all vehicular access shall be from the other street, and no more than two curb cuts shall be allowed. However, in the case of the development of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and the east ten feet of Lot 10, Block 1, Kent Place Addition, if Lot 6 is included in the same building site or in a joint development with the other lots, vehicular access shall be limited to one curb cut on Mercer Street. (ii) If a building site abuts only Bellaire Boulevard, vehicular access shall be limited to two curb cuts. Note 9. Curb Cuts in PDD-TH5. (i) If a building site abuts both Academy and Bissonnet, no curb cuts on Bissonnet and no more than two curb cuts on Academy are permitted. (ii) If a building site abuts only Bissonnet, there may be no more than two curb cuts. Note 10. Driveways in PDD-TH7 Cul-de-sac driveways in PDD-TH7 may not exceed 50 feet in length, or 200 feet if a terminus is provided with dimensions adequate for turning. Note 11. Curb Cuts in PDD-TH2. (i) If a building site abuts both Kirby Drive and another street, there may be one curb cut on Kirby Drive and on each other abutting street. (ii) If a building site abuts only Kirby Drive, vehicular access shall be limited to two curb cuts. Note 12. Curbs as Wheel Stops. Curbs may be used as wheel stops. Area outside a curb-wheel stop counts toward minimum parking space dimensions if actually usable as "overhang" and not needed for maneuvering area. Amend subsection (g) of Section 12-103 as follows: (g) Driveways. If the PNC item is non-compliance with driveway regulations in an SF District (other than nuninium width. maneuverin area or loading, area regulations), PNC status is lost if: (i) a new driveway is constructed, (ii) an existing driveway is either replaced or expanded, or (iii) space is added to the principal building so that its gross floor area is increased to 200 percent or more of its gross floor area on the 1987 effective date.