Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12062007 BSC Minutes i City of West University Place A Neighborhood City ® Recycled Paper Building & Standards Commission Located in the Bill Watson Conference Room, 3800 University Blvd, West University Place, Texas 77005 Meeting Minutes December 6, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Dave Miller, Muddy McDaniel and Frank Griffin MEMBERS ABSENT: David Flame, J. Denis Powers and Gerry Spedale STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Sean Landis, Permit Technician Josie Orosco, James L. Dougherty and Urban Forester Craig Koehl GUESTS PRESENT: Susan Ramsey, Scott Ramsey, James Miles, Robert Riquelmy and Les Albin [Call to Order] Bryant Slimp called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. 1. Notices, Rules, Etc. Bryant Slimp welcomed BSC members, visitors and staff members to the • meeting. Bryant Slimp stated Frank Griffin, Dave Miller and Muddy McDaniel would be the alternate voting members. BSC members discussed changing the regular scheduled meetings for January and July 2008 due to the holidays. Dave Miller made a motion to move the January 2, 2008 meeting to January 9, 2008. Dr. Peter Benjamin seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed. Dave Miller made a motion to move the July 3, 2008 meeting to July 9, 2008. Brian Hoogendam seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed. 2. Meeting Minutes. Dr. Peter Benjamin made a motion to approve the November 1, 2007 minutes as amended. Dave Miller seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Meeting minutes passed. 3. Docket No. 07-03, regarding property at 3781 Georgetown/a variance request by Scott A. Ramsey for a variance to "Building and Development", Section 18-171, Subsection 1 of Setbacks, location, etc. BSC moved into hearing mode. Josie M. Orosco stated all notices were posted. Bryant Slimp briefly discussed the rules of procedures for the hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Susan Ramsey gave a brief overview of the variance they were requested. Mr. Ramsey stated they are requesting a variance due to the separate requirement of Section 7-101, Table 7.2, that the interior side yard setback be greater of 10% of the building site width (as measured from the • front of the lot), which is 61.45'. Mr. Ramsey stated they are required to have a 6.145' setback on the east side of the house, despite the fact that most of the lot is significantly less than 61.45' wide as it necks down to 50' wide at the back of the long along the Auden curve near Rice Blvd. Which has required them to move the house far enough toward Auden that the pool will only just 3800 University Boulevard • West University Place, Texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.westu.org Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes December 6, 2007 over 5' from the foundation and thus potentially a safety risk. Mr. Ramsey stated that since the pool will be totally enclosed in a masonry/wood fence on the corner of the property, which faces Auden, the variance would not have an effect on the City of West University Place or neighbors. Mr. Ramsey stated that it is possible to comply with the requirement as written at no significant additional cost. The primary issue is not cost, but safety and risk due to the proximity of the pool to the house itself. Sean Landis stated that staff has no further direction regarding the variance. There were questions from BSC regarding overhead power lines, square footage of the house, size, width, and location of the proposed swimming pool. Dave Miller stated from prior BSC discussions regarding the edge of the pool being closer than 5' from the property line, that one of the items discussed was that when a swimming pool fails, it would take out the adjacent property and it was hard to justify having the pool moved any closer than 5' from the property line. Mr. Ramsey stated there was about 2' of grass area between the existing fence on the property line and the sidewalk. Sean Landis the setback requirement is taken from the back wall of the swimming pool, not the water's edge. Dave Miller made a motion to deliberate. Dr. Peter Benjamin seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. NOES: None. Motion passed. Dave Miller stated an exceptional hardship was not met. Dr. Peter Benjamin stated the remedy was to make the pool smaller. Dave Miller stated that the doors could be shifted or relocated. Mrs. Ramsey stated that a larger pool could be safer. Dave Miller made a motion to deny the variance because it does not meet the requirements imposed on conditions one and two. Dr. Peter Benjamin seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. • NOES: None. 4. Docket No 07-04, regarding property at 5918 Charlotte/a variance request by James Miles for a variance to Section 84-4(b) of the city's Code of Ordinance, titled "Tree Permits". Josie M. Orosco stated all notices were posted. Bryant Slimp briefly discussed the rules of procedures for the hearing. Mr. James Miles requested he is requesting a variance to the Urban Forest Enhancement Ordinance (82-4b) in order to remove a crepe myrtle located on the property at 5918 Charlotte. Mr. Miles stated there is no reasonable or feasible method is available to comply with the replanting requirement, as the lot is already more then substantially filled with trees and there is no room for an additional tree. Mr. Lewis's lot, which is 4,550 square feet, is smaller than the typically lots in the City of West University Place. Mr. Lewis also stated the crepe myrtle in question poses a security risk by allowing potential intruders to climb and hid in or behind the tree in close proximity to the front door. Mr. Lewis also stated there is an over abundance of trees and canopy cover on the lot as it stands now, but does not know the exact canopy cover area. Craig Koehl stated it would be difficult to calculate the canopy cover area with just the aerial photographs. Mr. Koehl stated just from walking into the back yard looking up, you could see very little blue sky due to the canopy coverage. Mr. Lewis stated the tree in question is about three feet from the front of the house. Bryant Slimp stated that could be a potential financial hardship coming up. There was brief discussion regarding the quality and classes of the trees located in the back yard. Dave Miller asked if there was room to plant another tree in the front yard. Craig Koehl stated there would be room to plant it today, but looking forward, it would probably be severally suppressed by the two oak trees because it's such a small • yard. There was discussion regarding the impact of the root system to the foundation. Craig Koehl stated from a structural standpoint, there would be greater concern from future trunk and limb growth. The tree will eventually start rubbing against the eves and bricks. Craig Koehl stated the crepe myrtle tree is protected because it is located in the front yard and is larger than Page 2 of 4 Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes December 6, 2007 6" in diameter. If the tree were located in the back yard, it would not be protected under the current ordinance. Dave Miller asked if the tree were to be graded using the proposed grading system, what would the point value be. Craig stated that the tree would probably be a 32 tree. Brian Hoogendam made a motion that the commission finds that all the circumstances for granting the variance has been proved and the variance has been granted. Dr. Peter Benjamin seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. NOES: None. Variance granted. Bryant Slimp stated that under the current ordinance, it is required to be replaced. Craig Koehl stated the tree must be run through the formula. Craig Koehl stated if the tree rating is 19 points or higher then the tree has to be replaced. If the tree is below 19 points, it is considered a low value tree and no replacement is needed. The tree in question has not been run through the current rating plan. Mr. Dougherty stated the current tree ordinance and tree criteria manual currently allows no replacement planting inches if the lot in question meets one and a half times the minimum planting standards. Brian Hoogendam made a motion to reduce the replacement inches to 0" given there is no room to plant another tree. Dr. Peter Benjamin seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. NOES: None. Motion passed. 5. Urban Forest Code Amendments. BSC moved out of hearing mode. James L. Dougherty gave an overview of the proposed urban forest code amendments to Section 82.3: Tree protection and Section 82.4; Tree permits. Mr. Dougherty stated a major change is that under the proposed ordinance change, any four inch tree or larger (anywhere in the City) and two inch or larger trees (located in the street area) • would be protected. The proposed ordinance change would allow issuing officials to insert special conditions to carry out this chapter into any permit for development or pre-development activity. Sean Landis stated currently this requirement is done through the tree disposition plan. He asked what would be the trigger for the City to determine what the special conditions are that would be placed on the permit. James Dougherty stated those sections have not been written yet, but based upon the discussion and the outline that Dave Miller has worked up, the intention is to require the tree survey as part of the regular building site survey. Craig Koehl that each tree survey would still have to be verified to make sure it was correct and if any tree protection fencing is required. Sean Landis that any sidewalk or driveway issues could be required to be submitted as part of the building plan and have the issues resolved at that time. Les Albans asked what distinguishes a low impact from a tree disposition. James L. Dougherty stated it is a subjective judgment by the Urban Forester. Craig Koehl stated if there is damage to a tree, a tree disposition is required. If there is not any damage to a tree, then a low impact is required. There was general discussion regarding the placement and types of replacement trees. The existing ordinance says anybody who wants to remove a tree; only the owner of the tree can apply to have the tree removed. The proposed ordinance says any person can apply to have the tree removed, but they have to get the affective consent of anybody who owns the tree. There was general discussion when a tree permit is required to required to remove a tree that is four inches or larger and what documents were required before a tree can be removed. There was also discussion regarding who would have the authority to grant permission to remove trees that are not hazardous, diseased, damaged, dead or suppressed and when a variance or special exception would be needed to remove a tree. There was discussion regarding what category swimming pools and replacement of existing driveways should fall under. The last item discussed was the possibility of upgrading trees that are Class III or IV trees. [Adjournment] Muddy McDaniel made a motion to adjourn. Frank Griffin seconded the motion. AYES: Bryant Slimp, Brian Hoogendam, Dr. Peter Benjamin, Frank Griffin and Dave Miller. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Page 3 of 4 Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes December 6, 2007 ~~~11 PASSED THIS(_' AY OF m , 2008 - L Bryant Shmp, Chairman \r~ ATTEST: J'Qs1~ 1 Y \ . 0K~~ Ms. Josie M. Orosco, Permit Technician Attachments: James L. Dougherty's proposed tree amendment to Sec 82.3; Tree Protection and Sec 82.4 Tree Permits • Page 4 of 4 Urban Forest Ordinance Update: Sec. 82.3: Tree protection (generally) Draft 12-3-07 Current Proposed Section 82.3. Tree protection. (a) General duties. To protect four-inch-or-larger trees (anywhere in the City) and two-inch-or-larger trees (located in an street area), all persons have these duties: Table 82-3. Tree protection, general duties Get permits. Obtain tree permits as required by this chapter and comply with them. Get owner consents. Obtain the effective consent of all persons it having a property interest in a tree before starting work that could damage the tree. Avoid damage. Avoid damaging trees (including critical root zones) by following the forestry manual and any permit t ttt~ conditions. t" i Reduce damage. Minimize and mitigate tree damage, in r'e~ e \t°£' T accordance with the forestry manual and any permit R conditions. (b) Development, pre- development, etc. For development or pre-development activity, this chapter and the forestry manual generally require a tree survey before issuance of a permit, and they impose protective measures z (e.g., tree fencing). All issuing officials may insert special be awf'It conditions to carry out this chapter into any permit for t i to development or pre-development activity. 'i Ui Urban Forest Ordinance Update: Sec. 82.4. Tree permits Draft 12-3--07 Current Proposed Sec. 82.4. Tree permits. (a) When required. A tree permit is required to damage or remove any four-inch-or-larger tree (anywhere in the City) or any two-inch-or-larger tree (located in any street area). I 1, (b) Application. Any person may apply to the re e building official for a tree permit. The application must include: (i) the standard application form, fully- completed and signed; (ii) the standard application fee, if any; (iii) a tree survey, if required by the forestry manual; and (iv) a replacement tree planting ? } • `10 plan, if required by the forestry manual. =d~ (c) Eligibility. A tree permit may be issued when the application shows: (i) compliance with this chapter, the forestry manual and other applicable regulations, and (ii) that each tree fits at least one of )4:W these categories: Table 82-4. Trees allowed to be removed or damaged Hazardous. Trees causing unavoidable, serious safety hazards (disregarding any proposed structures); e.g., they are structurally unsound or block views of traffic. Diseased, damaged, dead, suppressed. Trees that are dead, terminally diseased, severely damaged or severely suppressed by other tree(s). Interfering with building. Trees interfering with a lawful L building, existing or proposed, but only if, based upon a detailed presentation of alternatives, the urban forester determines that there is no reasonable alternative that would avoid removing or damaging the tree. Interfering with other structure. Trees interfering with a lawful non-building structure, existing or proposed, but only if the BSC issues a special exception after finding that: (i) the circumstances are unique or exceptional; (ii) the interference is serious, unavoidable and likely to persist longer than one year, and (iii) there is no reasonable and feasible alternative that would preserve the tree. } t;11 L Upgrading. Class III or IV trees, but only if the urban forester g c considers all trees in or near the affected area and 0L determines that removal will upgrade the urban forest, because, e.g.: (i) removal would end suppression of a higher-valued tree, or (ii) the permit requires one or more higher-value replacement trees in the affected area. (d) Advice, conditions. The urban forester shall advise the building official and BSC about applications and permits. They may insert permit conditions to carry out this chapter. (e) Issuance; BSC. The building official is the "issuing official" (see Chapter 18). However, BSC approval is required for: (i) an application to remove or damage a heritage tree, and (ii) an application referred by the building official because it involves an especially high impact on the urban forest, or because it does not clearly show eligibility for the permit.