HomeMy WebLinkAbout06122008 ZPC Agenda Item 3
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 SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS FOR WORK UNDER PERMIT; 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.
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.
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
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 voted
"aye;" no "noes;" absent.
Respectfully submitted:
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
By
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: 0) the non-conformance was clearly specifically shown in plans and
specifications duly submitted to obtain a City permit, (ii) 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
was otherwise reizularly 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 health or safety hazard and no significant impact upon another
person or property; and (vi) 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:
Brining 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 f st#1 special exception issued under this
section may contain conditions designed to: (i) reduce non-conformance (ii) 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
(e) Scope of exception. For good cause shown such a special exception may allow
completion, minor modification and occupancy of the structural item without losing PNC status
Exhibit B
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:
Special Exceptions For Work Under Permit. This proposal
would allow the zoning board of adjustment to issue a
special exception granting prior non-conforming status for
items built in violation of the zoning 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.
[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/City Secretary
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 VARIANCE
LIMITATIONS; 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.
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.
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
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 voted
"aye;" no "noes;" absent.
Respectfully submitted:
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
By
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 of proof: 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 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:
variance Limitations. This proposal would limit variances
by adding the following language: "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." The proposal would also clarify
that the applicant carries the burden of proof when seeking
a variance (or special exception).
[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/City Secretary
Sallye Clark
From: Debbie Scarcella
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:04 AM
To: Sallye Clark
Subject: FW: ZPC Meeting of June 13, 2008
Attachments: Underground structures.doc
Could you forward these to he members and then let's make hard copies for tornorrow night? Thank you.
From: Richard Yehle [mailto:reyehle@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:01 PM
To: Debbie Scarcella
Cc: Sallye Clark
Subject: ZPC Meeting of June 13, 2008
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 1/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 100/0) setback. The 3/7
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 I" per hour rainfall. Slabs on grade will provide a small amount of pervious
area underneath the foundation for water absoiption. 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 flood plain? (BSQ
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? (BSQ
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? (ZPQ
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
i 0
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 ?12 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 12 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