HomeMy WebLinkAbout04032008 BSC Agenda Item 2
1 ' •
I ~ CC„/~If f
(se-1s City of West University Place
APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS ("CITY")
Address of site: -41 Q 5 7~!:VI YIX -SOn metre e$-
G
Legal description of the site: TES 18 4 I'l k, e>X- ~ I ~ ° I °n to l Te Y vac-e.
Applicant: `z i c-ha vd CU-1d LL.
Address: 4-1Q5 I eV1V1y sa►'1 -5+r6e
Contact: lz i c-viar d tears Gl~ct c i- I
Phone: -11 a - (n tc o - -114-8 Fax: -11 3 - (a Ca I - 4 34-°1
Email Address: rI C-Vla-v-cl. ►~C>1r~GhQL1'+(J ~jeGi r I V1 q p~1 G~'~'?
Decision or Action Requested (check one or more and provide requested data):
(Appeal. Hear and decide an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination made
by the building official (or other administrative official) of the City.
ores-1C1~'
YA1 D, Koe1r11 tllrbat'1
• Name and title of the administrative official: 6
• Is the official's action in writing?( )Yes;( )copy is attached. (VfNo, but the action appealed is as follows:
plspcsi-~- CVA n+ 4 Cv, epe tayr~ 1e , L1a~ 1 -Wee 5
• When was the action taken? 1/08 Note: Appeals must be filed within a reasonable time. Please explain any
delay below: /
~c1
• Exact code of ordinance section(s) involved:
• Grounds for appeal:
~e e a ~c-~►ed ►~-1 ~m ova nd ~ m
( ) Special Exception.
• Exact code of ordinance section that authorizes the special exception:
• Exact wording of special exception requested:
(V) Variance. l
• Exact code of ordinance section from which a variance is requested: J~GtIDYI y Cb/Ca:
• Exact wording of variance requested =~~S I' VUt.C iGUr'iCv i0 re►"Y►GvEr C t ✓e- 0 c~~ t +it
Other Data. Are there drawings or other data? ( )No (vr/(es (list items here and attach them)
Lo.~dSCape ~vG~~-~ec~uve ~l~
20 1T ho-6 0
-pht5
Io~ zc~8
5 I
Signature of applicant: Date:
For Staff Use only Date filed' Date heard: Docket#:
Form BSC-102 '
MEMORANDUM
TO: BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
FROM: RICHARD AND PATRICIA RORSCHACH
SUBJECT: APPEAL
DATE: 3/8/2008
This document is being submitted in conjunction with the "Application to the Building and
Standards Commission of The City of West University" by Richard and Patricia Rorschach
("the Applicant").
In August of 2007 the Applicant hired Thompson + Hanson, a highly regarded landscape
architecture firm in the Houston area, to draw a landscape architecture plan (see
attachment). The overall objective is and was to improve the aesthetics of the property and
enhance the urban forest of the city. As such, the landscape architecture plans proposed
removal of the four diseased, severely damaged and improperly maintained Crepe Myrtle
trees and replace them with two Drummond Red Maples (see attached photographs). In
September 2007, the Applicant applied to the City of West University Tree Trust for one
Drummond Red Maple and was approved. The $500 cost of the second tree would be
incurred by the Applicant.
The Applicant was then informed that in order to proceed with the planting of the
Drummond Red Maples a permit for disposition of the existing Crepe Myrtles would be
required. The City of West University's Urban Forester approved the disposition of one
Crepe Myrtle and denied the disposition of the other three Crepe Myrtles. In a conversation
with the Urban Forester, he indicated that planting the Drummond Red Maples would be an
improvement but that an appeal to the Building and Standards Commission would be
required.
At the recommendation of the Urban Forrester, the Applicant is submitting an appeal to the
order, requirement, decision or determination made by The City of West University's Urban
Forester and a variance to Chapter 82 of the Code Ordinances City of West University Place.
- ~a
G
1
'Ok
❑
F
t b
1 "
..P•.:
velar
w, v 4123TENNYSON
rwer~•a:+. r.. P- lei
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77005
o
i
65.
tF r J
JAq-
~h-
~~~1?'.
s.
~fq
- 41
LF ; ~ n
P~ y ~ X y
'4P sa
r E+~ _4 l x
r a r € - t
yy~,
rj
Above:
u ' II ~ t7
Front view of home with Crepe
A~ y 1' :.1~
r~ ` f a , A f Myrtles trees in question
Left:
j
Photographs of the low-value
trees which were improperly
R, pruned by a previous resident,
therefore causing an
unreasonable impediment to the
use and enjoyment of the
4.` - applicant's property.
x
r. ~ E
i
4t.
`r5
r.~ [ a
[ . a
A
n
. a
14,
u
k
a'
dy TY.~ h 4aS
,y tTI55 i" S+:1.-S~_~s'y6 h1 aT.&,J.R._a~
Ad'
} -
.ti..~~ ~ :.wil ~i.77`t" •pr. _ L~: ~A~~Y#~r_t~l l~I<,,.t'a
4• y
t
! y3~,~ a
YAF 7,;
x
!~>s IN These photographs are evidence
' of the diseased and severly
damaged condition of the Crepe
Myrtle trees in question.
yZ
' +;~r.
Ilk,
.
Nis'` ~ ~a~ y ~ - Nom, t s nom'
. 4t
~1 $ 3k
x> ,
Aai t '
1 5~
i
0 STAFF REPORT i
BUSINESS OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
AGENDA OF: April 3, 2008 Docket No. 08-01
DATE SUBMITTED: April 1, 2008 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Urban Forestry
PREPARED BY: D Scarcella, City Planner PRESENTER: Richard/Patricia Rorschach
C Koehl, Urban Forester
SUBJECT: Request an appeal to the decision of the Urban Forester and possible variance to
Section 82-4 (b) (2) of the City Code of Ordinances, titled "Tree Permits".
ATTACHMENTS: Application, letter from applicant, proposed landscape plan, photos of the crepe
myrtles.
STAFF SUMMARY
Richard and Patricia Rorschach are requesting an appeal to overturn the decision of the Urban Forester and a
possible variance to Section 82-4 (b) (2) of the City Code of Ordinances, titled "Tree Permits". The
Rorschachs applied for a permit to remove four crepe myrtles located in the right of way in front of their
building site located at 4123 Tennyson. The removal application listed the reason for removal as "damaged".
Upon evaluation of the crepe myrtles, the Urban Forester determined that although the crepe myrtles had been
improperly pruned in the past, only one of the trees was damaged bad enough to warrant removal. He
permitted the removal of one crepe myrtle and denied the removal of the remaining three.
Mr. and Mrs. Rorschach are requesting that the Building and Standards Commission overturn the decision of
the Urban Forester and allow the removal of the remaining three crepe myrtles. The Rorschach's have a plan
to replace the crepe myrtles with two Drummond Red Maples per the attached landscaping plan. If the
Building and Standards Commission upholds the Urban Forester's decision, the Rorschach's then request a
variance to Section 82-4 (b) (2) of the Code of Ordinances to allow the removal of the remaining crepe
myrtles.
Section 82-4 (b) (2) states that the criteria for issuance of permits shall only be met if criteria ( I ) and either
criteria (2) or (3) are present. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Application. Application for the permit is filed by the owner of the area where the tree is located.
(2) Tree in poor condition; hazards; low-value trees. The tree or trees are in poor condition (diseased,
severely damaged, or dead), are a hazard to human life or an existing building, or are a low-value
tree. No special conditions or replacement are required.
(3) Tree as impediment to proposed use of the subject site. The tree or trees in question causes an
unreasonable impediment to use and enjoyment of the property. Any permit issued shall be
reviewed by the urban forester and shall require that any replacement trees required by this chapter
be planted.
The current ordinance only permits the issuance of a removal permit if these criteria are met. The Urban
Forester, based on historical interpretation of this section, did not find that either criteria (2) or (3) had been
met. Staff generally tries to interpret the ordinances in a conservative manner. The interpretation of this
section historically has been #t criteria three only applied to "proposeouse of the site as indicated by the
wording of the caption. If staff interprets the wording of this subsection, the applicability is broadened to any
use of the site, proposed or existing. An advisory opinion of the BSC regarding the intent of these criteria
would be one approach to resolution of this request.
Chapter 82 of the City Code of Ordinances authorizes the Building and Standards Commission to review
decisions of the Urban Forester. The Building and Standards Commission may reverse, affirm or remand the
decision of the Urban Forester. The applicant is requesting that the urban forester's decision to deny a removal
permit for the three crepe myrtles be reversed based upon the applicants belief that the condition of all four of
the existing crepe myrtles is poor. Reversing the urban forester's decision is a second way to resolution of this
request.
Should the commission affirm or remand the decision of the Urban Forester, the applicant requests that a
variance to remove the three remaining crepe myrtles is granted. Not withstanding any other provision to the
contrary, the commission, when considering an application for a variance to remove a tree:
(l ) Shall take into account efforts to avoid or mitigate removal of and damage to trees, particularly
trees highly-evaluated under the criteria manual; and
(2) May take into account the financial cost of compliance with this chapter, particularly as it
compares to the cost of other work the applicant may be proposing.
Additionally, Section 18-20 of the City Code of Ordinances requires that the BSC consider the
following in considering a variance request:
Mandatory.factors. In considering a variance, the BSC shall take the following into account:
(1) Whether the applicant has made an earnest, good faith effort to comply with the requirement.
(2) Whether the applicant brought the matter to the attention of the city on his own motion, without
intervention or enforcement action by any city official.
(3) Whether alternative methods or procedures will achieve the same, or substantially the same, result
as literal compliance with the requirement.
Required findings. The BSC may not issue a variance unless it affirmatively finds all of the following:
(I) The imposition of the requirement imposes an exceptional hardship upon the applicant. It is the
general intent of this section that financial cost, alone, would not ordinarily constitute an exceptional
hardship.
(2) No reasonable and feasible method or procedure is currently available to comply with the
requirement.
(3) The imposition of the requirement is unjustified because of good and sufficient cause demonstrated
to the BSC.
(4) The variance will not introduce or increase any threat to public health or safety.
(5) The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance in question.
(6) The variance will not cause a nuisance and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of nearby
property.
(7) The variance will not cause a fraud to be worked upon the public or any individual.
(8) The variance will not cause an increase in public expenditures or budgets.
(9) The variance will not create an irreconcilable conflict with any other ordinance, law, rule or
regulation.
City of West Um*versity ® Place
A Neighborhood City
Recycled Paper
March 18, 2008
Ms. Debbie Scarcella
City Planner/Chief Building Official
City of West University Place
West University Place, Texas 77005
Dear Ms. Scarcella:
Mr. Richard Rorschach submitted a "Permit Application For Tree Removal" to remove
four Crepe Myrtles in the right of way adjacent to the property at 4123 Teiu-iyson. I
reviewed the four Crepe Myrtles on October 2, 2007 and found one 12" diameter Crepe
Myrtle to have a large area of decay that Chapter 82 allowed us to grant a permit for
removal. The remaining three Crepe Myrtles were severely topped in the past and not in
the best of condition; however, the trees are not at this time dead, dying, or "Low Value
Trees" and we were not able to grant a permit for removal under Chapter 82.
It is my understanding that Mr. Rorschach would like to remove the three Crepe Myrtles
and replace them with Class 1 trees. The existing Crepe Myrtles are not in the best
condition, and new Class 1 trees would provide significantly greater benefit to the City's
urban forest in the future.
Sincerely,
Cram. Kochi
Urban Forester
3800 University Boulevard ® West University Place, 'texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.vvestu.org
§ 82-3 WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE MUNICIPAL CODE
See. 82-3. Tree disposition; surveys.
(a) General requirement. Every permit for development or predevelopment activity
must contain tree disposition conditions meeting the requirements of this section.
(b) Essential and mandatory conditions. Tree disposition conditions are the most
important means of protecting the urban forest of the city from unreasonable harm
during development and predevelopment activity. Tree disposition conditions shall:
(1) Prohibit removal of or damage to any large tree, except:
a. Removal of a tree which is diseased, severely damaged or dead may be
authorized;
b. Damage to or removal of a tree which causes an unreasonable impediment
to the use and enjoyment of the applicant's property may be authorized;
and
c. Damage to or removal of a low-value tree may be authorized.
(2) Require replacement trees, to the extent provided in the criteria manual, for
any large trees authorized to be damaged or removed. Exception: No replace-
ment is required for low-value trees.
(3) Require protection for large trees (and critical root zones). The conditions may
specify the methods of protection to be used.
(4) Require that any authorized damage to trees be minimized and mitigated. The
conditions may specify methods of mitigation to be used.
(5) Require, if there is major development, that the affected subject site attain a
minimum planting standard of tree density as set forth in the criteria manual.
(c) Procedure. The building official shall not issue any permit for any development
or predevelopment activity unless all of the following have first occurred:
(1) Ree survey. The applicant must have filed a tree survey, and the urban forester
must have approved it for compliance with this chapter.
(2) Ree disposition conditions. Tree disposition conditions approved by the urban
forester must have been inserted into the permit. The urban forester may
require all persons owning land where a tree is located to agree to any removal
of or damage to the tree authorized by the conditions.
(d) "Low-impact" exception. Except for the requirement to insert the mandatory
conditions, this section does not apply to a subject site, project or other activity that
will not have any significant, adverse effect upon any large tree, as determined by the
urban forester.
(Code 2003, § 22.003)
See. 82-4. Tree permits.
(a) Permit required. A tree permit is required for removal of or damage to any
protected tree, unless the damage is separately authorized by tree disposition
conditions as described above. See section 18-5 for a more particular description of the
requirement for a tree permit.
CD82:6
Oct 01 07 11:40a Rorschach • *136614349 p,1
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE
BUILDING DIVISION
OLM) 3826 ANIIIERST
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77005
PHONE: 713-662-5833 FAX: 713-662-5304
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR TREE REMOVAL
Project Address: ~1 Z 3 -T-~tnnYSOn ` V
Owner Name: ~ 1 C l'lQrd ~Ur~L1 Q C.i~
i
Address: 4l 3 T~nn]r5C3"l'1 'S~Ye~
City, State & Zip: ASaYI ~e~cQ S -t co C:-)
Phone: 1 I CD (o D- -1 l 8
i
CONTRACTOR: 0L
Name: ~q Ci G~ O L LOa'l G~ ~C C~ ~D i t'~jt fl
Address 8 ZGO V\;,a ~ , 4 L-LU-1 e-t L9
City, State & Zip: ~C' l~lS sY3 , C>C Ct lb -7 70.7 E i
Phone: `I l 3 - +0,9 - 9-I 'S'::1
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Is the tree(s) dead, dying or diseased? yes - trle IYe~S are rO}l nQ
If no, then state reason for having tree removed:
Type of Tree(s)? G r~ c~yr eS
Location of tree(s) Check one:
d Front Yard ❑ Rear Yard ❑ Side Yard ❑ Other:
If in rear yard, is there access: ❑ Yes ❑ No
Prior to inspection is notification required: ❑ Yes -;Ao
Lot Size:
- . W 1," , 0 Signata of Homeowner Date
I
3826 Amherst • Houston, Texas 77005 • 713-662-5833