Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10092008 ZPC Agenda Item 4 OtyW of ' es t UM *er i Place .4 Veghborhood t'ity Recycled Paper ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM 3826 AMHERST STREET MEETING MINUTES February 12, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Brown, Dick Yehle, Patric Stafshede and'V1ac McManus. Selby Clark arrived at 6:45 MEMBERS ABSENT: Janet Duncan and Allan Elkowitz COUNCIL: Charles Guffy STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Scarcella, City Planner and James Dougherty, City Legal Counsel Call to Order - With quornml present at 6:30 p.m., Steve Brown called the meeting to order. 1. Minutes. January 10, 2008: The minutes were table until the March 13, 2008 meeting. 2. Miscellaneous Amendments/Updates. ZPC and staff had discussion for information purposes and reminders to the members that the joint public hearing requires a quorum of both City Council and the ZPC members. Staff reported on the status of the postings and notices. The members requested staff to e-mail reminders to the ZPC members. 3. Variances and special exceptions. Jim Dougherty presented a brief slide show illustrating the role of the different discretionary approvals inherent in zoning regulations. The two approvals focused on were variances and special exceptions. A recent opinion from the Texas Supreme Court (Vanesko vs. City of Dallas) seems to indicate that with variance requests, the "special conditions creating an unnecessary hardship" test cited in West U's zoning regulations should be expanded to include the language used in the Supreme Court's ruling. Special Exception criteria was also discussed, with Mr. Dougherty suggesting that the ZPC should consider creating a special exception category for those situations where a permit was granted in error. The current ordinance does not have a "relief valve mechanism" in place for this type of situation, so an applicant's only course of action is to comply or request a variance. There was a great deal of discussion involving this item. Staff was instructed to draft separate documents -one for variances and the other for a possible new (very narrowly defined) special exception category and present to the commission for further discussion. *4. ences. This item was discussed at length with the focus of the discussion centered on hedgerows and "virtual" fences (landscape features that actually block the front or side vard views) with some discussion on masonry, stone, and stucco fencing. There Zoning & Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2008 Meeting Pa<(ye 2 of 2 were varying opinions on the subject. The commission was instructed consider these and while driving through town, observe different lots with these situations to get a real feel for the discussion. This item will be placed on a future agenda for further discussion. 5. Commercial District. The commission members' discussion centered mainly on the JMH property located north of Rice Blvd. at the corner of Edloe and the parking area north of the building. A realtor (Katherine Wildman, of Wulfe and Co.) representing the property owner was in attendance. The property was initially granted a special exception to use the parcel north of the store as parking. The property is actually zoned single- family residential. This special exception was granted in 1950 through Ordinance No. 517. In 2000, the property owners went to the ZBA and requested an extension of prior non-conforming status. The request was approved for a period of twenty years. The ZPC is concerned with viability of another commercial enterprise at the location for many reasons, the primary two being the time limit on the PNC status request and the limitation of the types of businesses that could legally operate given the required parking space regulations. The ZPC instructed staff to explore the avenues open to either proactively change the zoning designation so that the entire property is zoned commercial and thus no time limit would exist, or remove the commercial zoning classification from the parcel, thereby making it all single-family residential. The commission was split on whether or not tax roll value wise, another commercial enterprise was the best for the city. Adjournment. Dick Yehle made a motion to adjourn. Mac McManus seconded. Ayes: Steve Brown, Selby Clark, Mac McManus, Dick Yehle and Patric Stafshede. Noes: none. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Attachments: Letter dated November 25, 2007 from Richard Yehle, 6401 Rutgers, re: Virtual fences. PASSED THIS DAY, OF D ~ - u 2008. Steve Brown, Presiding Officer ATTEST:' { i r.. Sallye A. Clark, Planning Assistant 6401 Rutgers Houston, TX 77005 November 25, 2007 Ms. Debbie Scarcella City Planner City of West University Place 3800 University Boulevard Houston, TX 77005 Dear Debbie, After the ZPC finishes dispatching with old business, I presume new issues can be taken up and I would like to offer an idea for new business. I suggest there are at least three situations pertaining to fences that should be considered. 1. Virtual fences created by hedges that exist in locations where constructed fences would not be allowed. 2. The placement of structural-appearing masonry fences that is permitted where buildings would not be allowed. 3. Certain masonry and metal fences that may impede ingress by emergency crews. Virtual Fences Regulations governing fences fall short of achieving what may be a commonly-held ideal that fences are for backyards and that front yards should be relatively open except for decorative vegetation and perhaps a low picket fence around the perimeter. This is because the introduction of tall hedges circumvents the fencing ordinances by creating virtual fences in the front and side street yards where regular fences are not allowed. Examples of the possible problem can be found at 6315 and 6331 Brompton where hedges adjacent to the sidewalk virtually obscure the fronts of the houses and interrupt an otherwise open streetline. Another example can be found at 3731 Tangley where a hedge in front of a (vacant) lot again interrupts the streetline. An example of liberty being taken with side streetline is at 6355 Rutgers where a hedge is growing in the right of way. In all cases no fence or building would have been allowed where the "fences" are, suggesting they do not conform to the unspoken ideal. I suggest that if the concept of "open" yards is a shared value, there are three situations to consider with regard to virtual fences: 1. Fences that obstruct views of the fronts of houses. 2. Fences that obstruct views of the sides of (corner lot) houses. 3. Fences perpendicular to houses that obstruct or interrupt an otherwise open streetline. I suggest consideration should be given to modifying the definition of fences to include those created by hedges. It could be accomplished by creating some form of height and coverage formula for vegetation (not trees) growing more than 10 feet from the street side of any house. Such vegetation could be considered a fence and subject to the fence ordinance if it is more than three feet tall and obstructs more than 40% of the subject house. The idea is only to Re: Fences07 manage vegetation that forms a virtual fence and not to preclude most vegetation growing along side a house or in the street yard. Consideration should also be given to vegetation that projects in a perpendicular manner from the house toward the street line, also forming a virtual hedge. It may not obscure the front of a house but it does interrupt the general streetscape if it is tall and dense, thereby blocking the view. Masonry Fences There are numerous examples of corner lots that have fences along the setback line. Sometimes wooden fences are used but frequently they are wrought iron or masonry. Wrought iron fences, even those with integrated vegetation usually retain the feeling of openness. On the other hand most masonry fences take on the appearance of a structure which would not have been allowed in that location. The point is that the use of such fences in side yards, especially street side yards, interrupts the visual streetscape for all residents. A second issue with masonry fences in side yards is that they may present unreasonable obstacles to emergency crews seeking access. Wooden fences can quickly be dismantled in an emergency, wrought iron can also be quickly taken down with a little work but masonry fences can only be brought down with difficulty. Given the narrow side yards in the City this may be a hazard to both the owner of the fence and the adjacent neighbor. Consideration should be given to the placement and use of masonry fences, especially the safety elements of tall masonry fences erected within 5 feet of a structure. Regards, (By E-mail) Richard Yehle Commissioner Zoning and Planning Commission Re: Fences07 § 18-174 WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE MUNICIPAL CODE Secs. 18-174-18-199. Reserved. ARTICLE VII. FENCES Sec. 18-200. Maximum height limits. (a) Eight-foot limit. No fence higher than eight feet may be constructed, improved or structurally altered on any private property. (b) Six-foot limit. No fence higher than six feet may be constructed: (1) Closer than six feet from a wall of an existing principal building used as a single-family residence on any adjacent building site, if the proximity of the fence to the building would significantly and adversely affect the beneficial circulation of air around or through the building or the beneficial exposure of the building to direct or reflected sunlight. To make these determinations, the building official shall take into account the type and design of the fence and the following (if existing or proposed in the immediate vicinity of the fence): trees, other plants and other buildings and structures. (2) Between buildings on separate building sites where the eaves are less than two feet apart. (c) Height measurement. Fence height shall be measured along each fence line on the side with the lowest grade level. If the fence is within three feet of a property line, the adjacent grade level of the adjacent property is used to measure the height of the fence, if the adjacent grade level is lower than the grade level of the property where the fence is located. (d) Gate height. A gate may be no taller than may a fence at the same location, except that a gate which is not more than 40 percent opaque may extend to a height not greater than 12 inches above the maximum height of a fence at the same location. (Code 2003, § 6.581) Sec. 18-201. Property lines. It shall be the responsibility of any person who constructs a fence, or causes it to be constructed, to locate the fence within the property lines. (Code 2003, § 6.582) Sec. 18-202. Prohibition in front or side. (a) Prohibition. No fence may be constructed, improved or structurally altered on the front portion of any building site. Exceptions: this restriction does not apply to low retaining walls, institutional security fences, fences owned by any governmental entity or fences or walls specifically required or allowed to be located in the front portion of a building site by this Code or the zoning ordinance. In this article: (1) Front portion means the area of a building site extending from the front street line to a depth equal to the depth of the front main wall of the principal CD18:44 r • • BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT § 18-202 building. The front street line is the common boundary between the front line of a building site and the street right-of-way. The front main wall is the front of the building exclusive of any porch or entranceway. (2) Low retaining wall means a wall designed and used to hold earth or similar material in place, no part of which extends higher than the highest naturally occurring part of the ground in the front portion of the building site and no part of which is located outside of the building site. (3) Institutional security fence means a fence which meets all of the following criteria: a. The fence is located on a building site where there is a building or group of buildings specially constructed and used as an actual place of religious worship (including schools, parking lots, parsonages and other accessory buildings); b. The fence is located along or generally parallel to a major thoroughfare, and only along side streets to the extent necessary to connect the main portion of the fence to side fences, rear fences or buildings; and c. The fence is no more than 50 percent opaque. (4) Major thoroughfare means Kirby Drive, Bissonnet Street or Bellaire (West Holcombe) Boulevard. (b) Rotated corner lots. This subsection only applies to a corner lot carved out of a larger corner site originally established by the first plat or map of the subdivision in question, where the front street line of the corner lot is on a different street from the street where the larger corner site had its front street line. On such a corner lot, no fence may be constructed, improved or structurally altered along the side street line of the corner lot (this would have been the front street line of the original larger corner site) unless the fence is set back from the side street by at least one of the following two distances: (1) A distance equal to the depth of the front setback area of any adjacent building site which has a front setback area abutting the side street; or (2) A distance equal to the depth of the side setback area of the corner lot, measured from the side street. If the BSC is requested to issue a variance to permit a fence on the corner lot closer to the side street than prescribed above, and if a petition signed by 20 percent or more of the persons owning property along the side street within 200 feet of the rear lot line of the corner lot (and on the same side of the side street) is presented to the BSC before it acts on the request, the requested variances shall not take effect unless approved by all members of the BSC qualified and serving. Under no circumstances, with or without a variance, is a fence allowed within five feet of the side street line. (Cede 0-003, § 6.583) CD 18:45 § 18-203 WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE MUNICIPAL CODE Sec. 18-203. Distance from property line; common fences. A boundary fence shall be constructed immediately along the property line or as close as practicable to the property line. Common fences may be constructed along the property line, if the written consent of the owners of both properties is submitted. (Code 2003, § 6.584) Sec. 18-204. Easements. No brick, masonry or similar type of fence may be constructed, improved or structurally altered if it would interfere with the installation and maintenance of utility lines in any easement reserved therefor. (Code 2003, § 6.585) Sec. 18-205. Removal of debris. It shall be the responsibility of each person who constructs or reconstructs a fence, or causes it to be done, to clean up and remove from the premises all debris, dirt, scrap and broken pieces of concrete caused by the construction of the fence. (Code 2003, § 6.586) Sec. 18-206. Nonconforming fences. In cases where an existing fence erected contrary to the provisions of this Code is to be removed, improved or structurally altered, each new fence must conform to this Code. (Code 2003, § 6.587) Sec. 18-207. Facing of fences. All fences abutting on a street area shall be constructed so that all supporting members, including posts and horizontal runners, shall not face the street. This provision shall apply to such portions of a fence that face the street on which the lot faces as well as a side street. (Code 2003, § 6.588) Sec. 18-208. Fence gate. Where a fence is constructed, improved or structurally altered along an easement area, a gate with a minimum opening of 30 inches must be built for ingress and egress into the easement area. The gate is for the use and convenience of public utility companies and the city service crews. (Code 2003, § 6.589) Sec. 18-209. Electricity, barbed wire prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person owning or controlling any property in the city to construct, maintain or permit to remain on such property any fence: (1) Charged with electricity; or CD18:46 BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT § 18-232 (2) Containing any barbed wire, concertina wire or other sharpened or barbed projections. Where chainlink fence is used, no twisting or barbing of wire is permitted at the top salvage. All wire on the top salvage shall be knuckled. (Code 2003, § 6.590) Sec. 18-210. Masonry construction. Masonry fences must be made of brick, vitrified clay tile, concrete tile, or monolithic reinforced concrete, and must be built according to the following specifications: (1) At least eight inches thick for double-wall construction, which shall be either brick, vitrified clay tile, or concrete tile; at least six inches thick for single-wall construction, which shall be only of brick or monolithic reinforced concrete construction. (2) Pilasters shall be placed on not more than 12-foot centers, or adequate steel reinforcing shall be placed in the whole fence. (3) Expansion joints shall be placed on not more than 24-foot centers. (4) The fence shall have a foundation which shall rest on drilled footings sunk to approved bearing soil. Such footings shall be not less than 12 inches in diameter, and each footing shall have not less than four one-half-inch ties on three-foot centers. Foundation beams shall be not less than 12 inches wide and not less than 18 inches deep with not less than four five-eighths-inch reinforcing rods and three-eighths-inch ties, on not less than 30-inch centers. (5) A gate with a minimum opening of 30 inches must be built for ingress and egress into any public easement. (Code 2003, § 6.591) Sec. 18-211. Fences on vacant lots. Any fence construction or reconstruction on a site on which no building is located shall be constructed to comply with all of the setback requirements which apply to the location of a residence on such site. No building permit shall be issued for construction of improvements on a vacant lot, if there is a fence which does not meet all requirements of this Code. (Code 2003, § 6.592) Sec. 18-212. Maintenance. Any person owning or controlling a fence shall maintain it in good repair so as not to endanger any person or property. (Code 2003, § 6.593) Secs. 18-213-18-232. Reserved. Supp. No. 4 CD18:47 § 18-233 WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE MUNICIPAL CODE ARTICLE VIII. FIRE ZONES Sec. 18-233. Established. The fire zones of the city shall be established as set forth on that certain map entitled "Fire District Map" and bearing the date January 1, 1989, on file in the office of the building official, which map is hereby adopted by reference as if set forth at length in this section. Such fire zones shall be the fire districts contemplated by the building code adopted by this chapter. (Code 2003, § 6.601) Sec. 18-234. Fire lanes in Zone 3. No structure or group of structures may be built within fire zone 3 if it, when considered in conjunction with all existing structures, would cause there to be a frontage 144 feet long, or longer, unbroken by a fire lane at least six feet wide. It is the purpose of this provision to create fire lanes (each at least six feet wide) at intervals of not greater than 144 feet along all streets in fire zone 3. Each fire lane must be open and unobstructed from the south boundary line of the street to the south line of fire zone 3, except that, in the case of any proposed structure, if there is a usable and dedicated alleyway to the rear of such structure which connects with a public street and gives access to the rear of such structure for fire suppression, then a fire lane shall not be required in connection with the construction of such structure. (Code 2003, § 6.602) Sec. 18-235. Buildings to comply. No building or structure shall be constructed in any of the fire zones except in compliance with all applicable regulations. It shall be an affirmative defense in any proceeding to enforce this article that the alleged violation involves a single-family residence in existence as of July 28, 1975 which is still used for single-family residence purposes. (Code 2003, § 6.603) Secs. 18-236-18-270. Reserved. ARTICLE IX. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION Sec. 18-271. Statutory authorization, findings of fact, purpose and methods. (a) Statutory authorization. The Legislature of the State of Texas has in ch. 16, subch. I, Texas Water Code, delegated the responsibility of local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the city council of the City of West University Place, Texas ("West University Place"), does ordain as follows: (b) Findings of fact. (1) The flood hazard areas of West University Place are subject to periodic inundation, which results in loss of life and property, health and safety Supp. No. 4 CD18:48