HomeMy WebLinkAbout07122007 ZPC Agenda Item 4
ZPC FRAMED AREA
DOCUMENTS FROM JUNE
14, 2007 PACKETS
• •
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.
• •
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
• • Page 1 of 3
Sallye Clark
From: Steve Brown [sgbrown @ hal-pc.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:55 PM
To: Sallye Clark
Subject: Fwd: Building Envelope
Sallye,
Here are the two emails for the June 14 packet.
Steve
Begin forwarded message:
From: "James L. Dougherty, Jr." <jdough8 @ sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 29, 2007 11:24:09 AM CDT
To: "'Steve Brown"' <sgbrown@hal-pc.org>, "'Debbie Scarcella"' <dscarcella@westu.org>
Cc: "'Chris Peifer'" <cpeif_e_r@westu.org>
Subject: RE: Building Envelope
TO: Steve Brown
FROM: James L. Dougherty, Jr.
Attorney at Law
5177 Richmond, Suite 740
Houston, Texas 77056-6709
Phone 713-880-8808, Fax 281-220-8984
E-Mail:jdough8@sbcQlobal.net
Hello, Steve,
The mongraph is eloquent. Here are a couple of thoughts:
(1) An alterantive to hiring a second firm would be to hold a sort of
design competition. In this case, it would be more like a destruction
derby. We could publicize a new proposal generally within the design
community (including not only design professionals but also ciizens,
architecture students, builders, etc.) and ask anyone who is interested to
do some destructive testing, i.e., push the new rules to their limits to:
(i) see if they break, and (ii) determine the most extreme structures that
would be allowed. There could be prizes for the best (and the most
destructive) submissions.
(2) Running two sets of regs in parallel is an interesting approach. Quite
possibly, the design community will immediately gravitate to the one that is
more permissive, i.e., the one that allows the biggest box to be built.
6/11/2007
• • Page 2 of 3
This tendency might leave few examples of the less-permissive approach for
comparision. Example: If a new BE approach allows 4,300 SF (typical) to be
built on a 5,000-SF-lot, few designers would bother to look at the existing
framed-area regs, because they would be less permissive. To mitigate this
tendency, the new approach could be deliberately calibrated to approximate
the effect of the existing framed area rules. That would probably mean that
the new approach would make no significant change. Another idea would be to
apply both sets of regs in series, so that each new house would have to
comply with both (at least for a temporary period). That, too, has some
disadvantages, but it would generate data to make a comparison.
/s/ Jim
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: THIS COMMUNICATION, INCLUDING ANY
ATTACHMENTS, IS
INTENDED ONLY FOR THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S). IF YOU ARE NOT A
NAMED ADDRESSEE
(OR AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO A
NAMED
ADDRESSEE), YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISTRIBUTION OR
COPYING OF THIS
COMMUNICATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN
ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CALL THE SENDER AT 713-880-8808 AND
DESTROY THE
COMMUNICATION.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Rules imposed by IRS Circular 230 require the sender
to inform you that, unless expressly stated above or in an attachment
hereto, this communication including any attachments, is not intended or
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by you or any person or entity
for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may or could be imposed under
the United States Internal Revenue Code, nor for the promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter(s).
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Brown [maiIto: _sgbrown_@ ha -pc.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:36 PM
To: Debbie Scarcella
Cc: James L Dougherty Jr; Chris Peifer
Subject: Building Envelope
Debbie,
For our discussion on Tuesday morning, I have updated (and attached)
my memo suggesting serious work on a building-envelope alternative to
framed area for controlling building size and bulk in West U. The
new stuff is in the last three paragraphs but there are also a couple
minor changes earlier.
6/11/2007
• • Page 3 of 3
1 suspect that the only practical approach to moving this forward
soon is to gain Michael Ross's support for including it in his
discussions with the new city council regarding their (and ZPC's)
work and funding priorities.
I look forward to our discussion. I also welcome thoughts and
suggestions from Jim and Chris.
Steve
If this email is spam, report it here:
http //www.OnlyMyEmail.com/repQrtSpam?
Id-MjExMTU6MzIwNzEwNzYxOm kb3V__na_DbAc2J
jZ2xvYmFsLm5ldA%3D%3D
6/11/2007
Architectural services
to assist Z&PC
in evaluating
new, simplified regulations
of building size, bulk, etc.
April 20051 Revised April 2007
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
5. Open air tightening - 55%
6. Limit long high wall effect
7. Building Separation
8. Pervious area- no change, relate to BSC and trees
• i
Amendment relating to
buildings in rear yard
(Table 7-6)
4-10-07
Amend Note 3 of Table 7-6 as follows: 0,10
Note 3. Buildings In Rear Yard or SF Bufferyard. Aug may be
located in a rear yard or SF Bufferyard beets %~g crit 'a: (a)
No part of it the building may be close.' o the`_ y
r
to any SF District if in a SF Buff arc':% : .,.•,>;Y
n_imum hu
separations between the building; and all u s on the bull' other
than those located completely within the r. " r uff and are 7% of
the building site depth measured from main all 'tcand 5% of the
building sited th measured betwe losest 'ldin s exceiA
for transitional structures svecific "Y f << low. Exr' the d th is
.;;f:,v.;i:i,iY;✓.?ir "`!:,;F6:;;Y;di:! G,.
100 feet the minimum se arati r ve feet re ectivel . (b)- Uc1
Within ten feet of another bui ite (whether on the side, rear
or otherwise), it- the buildin ' ave, in # t5r other opening above
the ground floor (and fac' , g t open' e of building site), except
for epague translucen of trans , no ' able openings or skylights.
(c} Space in the b . y be used for single-family
(detached) use. b it rinci-pal building, unless h r
e th f h rin i it in t
is a transitional
part_in the_rear_ A tr iti n structu-rc may be an
{ it in Wace, but
s J - ~ II - (i) nQ Part of the structure may
g- g from that part t th neme
than h " d tanc
lb✓
it FA 0go ibf?@ f@
lff~r
y/~if•~{%J/ti
'g' e-+ tmless
"{r ° There is
und fleef in aft is at least e than 600 feet of building space, other than garage space, in the
build' ' e rear and or SF Buff and pre}eetmg wt- See garage
r 0%]3. )OP;.. 0.
0 0
Amendment relating to DRAY-7
garages in side yards
(Table 7-6)
Revised 6-9-07 (alternate version, transitional structure as separation)
Amend Note 5 of Table 7-6 as follows:
Note S. Garages In Side Yards. c
(a) I)e buIl i;lg niav i)e Moser than it an-Sit-Ne-at-' three feet the
side property line ;r s
(U) The projecting part may only contain-garage space and space above the garage (plus
stairway).
(c) Any projecting part must be at least seventy feet from the front street line.
(d) Within ten feet of another building site in an SF District (whether on the side, rear or
otherwise), may have no window, door or other opening above the ground floor
(and facing the property line of the other building site)
non-operable openings or skylights.
• 1 - ruc,c.., ,
e n die ,Fain Par o Te i)I mc. i _ Buffer
iiislt OfI Il _ ructure rnaV t e an arcade, i 3}I'13{c ~~_t, fC41 i)Y her buildin 5 )ace ut: 1
1, rh .;iR17t ke at fit'=~ ( G?'-'TI })~fs_csnt Of r a S~r1Il 1C~ 'ite depth, _ilaiTjo pt[t of the RtI'LiCtui_z:
Clean version (markings removed):
Note S. Garages In Side Yards- A building may project toward an interior side property line (not
a side street line) if it meets all the following criteria: (a) No part of the building may be closer
than three feet to the side property line. Exception: Eaves may be as close as inches. (b)
The projecting part may only contain garage space and space above the garage (plus stairway).
(c) Any projecting part must be at least seventy feet from the front street line. (d) Within ten feet
of another building site in an SF District (whether on the side, rear or otherwise), the building
may have no window, door or other opening above the ground floor (and facing the property line
of the other building site). Exception: There may be translucent (but not transparent), non-
operable openings or skylights. (e) The building may not be a principal building, unless there is
a transitional structure between the main part of the principal building and the part in the rear
yard (or SF Bufferyard). A transitional structure may be an arcade, a "bridge," a porch or other
building space, but: (i) its length must be at least seven percent of the building site depth, and (ii)
no part of the structure may have a height greater than the horizontal distance from that part to
the nearest property line
• i
Amendment relating to °
garages in side yards
(Table 7-6)
Revised 6-9-07 (base version, percentage separation)
Amend Note 5 of Table 7-6 as follows:
Note 5. Garages In Side Yards.
(a) `Ae building may be closer ,hen ft-r~r~s~ i three feet the
side property line
(b) It must be a detached accessory building containing only
only garage space and space above the garage (plus stairway) with a horizontal
separation from the principal building of
This does not prohibit "breezeway" structures not
wider than eight feet and not higher than 14 feet
(c) Any projecting part must be at least seventy feet from the front street line.
(d) Within ten feet of another building site in an SF District (whether on the side, rear or
otherwise), may have no window, door or other opening above the ground floor
(and facing the property line of the other building site)
non-operable openings or skylights.
Clean version (markings removed):
Note 5. Garages In Side Yards. A building may project toward an interior side property line (not a side
street line) if it meets all the following criteria: (a) No part of the building may be closer than three feet to
the side property line. Exception: Eaves may be as close as inches. (b) It must be a detached
accessory building containing only garage space and space above the garage (plus stairway) with a
horizontal separation from the principal building of at least seven percent of the building site depth
(measured from main wall to main wall). This does not prohibit "breezeway" structures not wider than
eight feet and not higher than 14 feet (if there is otherwise the same minimum separation from main wall
to main wall). (c) Any projecting part must be at least seventy feet from the front street line. (d) Within
ten feet of another building site in an SF District (whether on the side, rear or otherwise), the building
may have no window, door or other opening above the ground floor (and facing the property line of the
other building site). Exception: There may be translucent (but not transparent), non-operable openings or
skylights.
• •
Amendment relating to D ° ° FT
open area and
pervious area
6-9-07
Amend Tables 7-3 and 7-6 as follows:
General Rule: Every building site must have the minimum open and pervious
Table 7-3: areas shown, by District, in this table. ("N/A" means the rule does not apply.)
Open & Pervious Exceptions/Special Rules: (1) See PDD Schedules for planned development
Areas districts. (2) See special rules noted in table. (3) See the Projections Schedule for
details about calculating open and pervious areas.
Item Measureme SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 TH GR-1 GR-2 C
nt
Front yard,
minimum N/A 40% N/A
percentage.
Rear yard,
pen area minimum 0%. See Note 1. N/A N/A N/A
percentage.
See Note 6.
Entire building
ite, minimum 25% 25% 15%
percentage.
Front yard,
minimum 0% 50% See Note 2. 50% See Note 2. N/A
ercentage
Pervious area
Entire building
site, minimum 15% 15% 15%
ercentage.
Landscaping strips Required, except for SFD uses on building sites with 5,000 sq, ft. or more. See
Note 3.
For SFD uses on building sites with 5,000 sq. ft. or more, Chapter 82 of the Code
of Ordinance must be located within a contiguous and reasonably compact
Qualified trees pervious area containing at least 25 sq. ft. However, additional or better pervious
area may be required to comply with Chapter 82.
Pervious pavement In a QMDS only, pervious pavement is allowed to be used for all vehicular areas,
and part of it may count as pervious area. See Note 4.
Each parking area containing 21 or more parking spaces must contain interior
Parking areas, interior pervious areas in "island" or "peninsula" configurations aggregating in area at
least two square feet for each parking space.
[Similar changes apply to the second page of Table 7-3, for PDD-SF1 and PDD-SF2]
DRdtf U
General Rule: This schedule describes certain structures which
Table 7-6• are allowed to "project" into yards (or setbacks). It also provides
special rules for calculating open and pervious areas affected by
Projections Schedule such structures. See the "Yards (or 'setbacks')" and the "Open &
Pervious Areas" tables.
Ma>amum Allowed Projection (In
Inches), Measured From The Inside Special Rules For
Type of Structure Edge Of The Yard Calculating Open
Front Rear SF & Pervious Areas
Yard Yard Side Yard Bufferyard
24" except The area
15"
Items above ground level: Haves, 15" that no
cornices, roof extensions, item
' below the as
"greenhouse" and bay windows 15" open area
(no floor space), window sills, cave may
be closer
cantilevered building space, See Notes ail " r L - '
window boxes, belt courses, See see than 36" 1.1 and 13.
window air conditioners and Note Notes to the
3_ inches, t;
similar parts of buildings. 1. L 1.1 and SPL. See
13 Notes 1.1
and 13.
12" except
that no
item
Items at and above ground level: 15" below the 15
Chimneys/fireplaees (with cross- See cave may The area does not
Buildings sectional areas of 8 square feet or 15" Notes be 15' count as either open And less) and similar parts of 1.1 and cthanloser 36" 1.1 See Notandes 13.
or pervious area.
Attached buildings. 13. to the
Structures SPL. See
Notes 1.1
and 13.
The area does not
0, but 0 0 count as either open
Porches/platfoims/deeks higher see 0 or pervious area. The
than 14 inches, and similar `Vote See See Notes area beneath a deck
structures attached to a building. 1.2. See Notes 1.1 and See Notes may count as
Note 1.1 and 1.1 and 13. pervious area if rain
1.1. 13 13. is allowed to pass
through the deck.
0 0
120" 0
The area does not
Steps not higher than the first See See
flour level. Note See Notes wont as either open
Notes 1.1 and See Notes or pervious area.
1.1. 1.1 and 13 1.1 and 13.
13.
(remainder of Table 7-6 remains unchanged]
Attachme to 1-11-2007 ZPC
~~r ('lam
I I
S,cle proper
I I
~xl~ d r Setbxc, I
h n E LJ I
F,~u~-,e- ~ I I I
I , 1
I I I
I 1
r- -
1'e p~ ~ rat I
I
I
I
1
I •
r-----~
I
I I
I I
1 I
I 1
1 I
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
S• ids v . h~u~;~
I
gal I Uri i ~
~f
r-----~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
~ VII ~L<✓.C
I
I
I
r------~ -
I I
I
1 ~ I
I I I
I I I
I 1
I I
I
I I
I
I I
Amendment to add ! •
"sloped setback" height limits
with "penetrating volume"
3-5-07
Amend Table 7-4b (both pages) as follows:
I
Table 7-4b: Buildings General Rule: Every structure must conform to the applicable regulations shown, by District, in this
table.("N/A" means the rule does not apply.) Exceptions 5'pecial Rules: (1) See special rules noted
in table. (2) See Article 9 regarding Planned Development Districts
Item Regulation SF -1 SF-2 SF-3 TA GR-I GR-2 C
Dwelling units Maximum number per One, plus one accessory quarters (AQ) 17.5 per Two 24 per acre. See Uses
building site acre. See table and
Note 8 Arr. 9
Framed area, all buildings Maximum area as a 80% 100% See Note 4. N/A
on a building site percentage ofbuilding
site area
Length or width, any Maximum horizontal N/A 130 feet See Note 3. N/A
building dimension
Exterior materials, any 'Type N/A Must be of equal grade and quality, all sides. See
building. Section 8-104.
Separation of DU's Fire-rated wall N/A A four-bour tire wall, or its equivalent, must separate
adjoining dwelling units See Notes 3 and 5.
SF pri vacy protection See .'Vote 7 N/A Applies. N/A
Accessory buildings Maximum number per Three N/A
building site
See Article 10 regarding
garage space. Height, maximum 25 ft Other than chimneys, no part of an accessory building may be higher than 35 tt See
thcrAl the 1~~f1o,~ mk i i ttni I~et hlut to lwnz,•nt.il disutnce Irnni that part to dic Note 2.
runt ~tre.t tine, rf n) 20 teetplus the horizontal distance from that part to,uiv other
AM Of ptt>perty line. (not to exceed 25 feet total). See Figure HRD. This is a
"sloped" height limit See also Notes 1 and 10.
Principal buildings Stories, maximum Two and one-half Three. See Note 6 N/A
See Article 10 regarding
garage space.
Height, maximum No part of a principal building maybe 35 tt or
higher than either i t •hc {i~1ln.a~n : ,_t! ,,n cet ph he I onzonrtl_ji,t i e 5->m that less. See
!,all to ,}Ie it ont tree t line. ~-r (ii 20 feet plus the horizontal distance from that part to Note 2.
any otber ihe-neovem property line (not to exceed 35 feet total Z
See Figure HRD. This is a "sloped" height limit See also Notes 1 and 10.
Minimum gross floor 1,400 square feet, if used for residential 1,200 sq. 750 sq. tt, each DU 1,400 sq,
area purposes ft, each ft
DI J.
Width, minimum N/A 16 ft, each N/A But see QMDS N/A
DU. Schedule.
:Vote 1. Antennas and Chimneys. Root-mounted radio or television antennas on a principal building in a residential district may project up to four
feet above the roof. The maximum height of chimneys attached to a principal building is the greater of 35 test or tour feet above the root:
Vote 10, Eaves. I?orrners and Gables. Eaves may emceed rr n ate tltz sle ui h t limit, not to 4' c es (nt _ st rimed l rzorltallY).
Ordinary dormers and gables in a residential district may exceed (or "penetrate")the sloped height limit if (i) no part exceeds the maximum height
(35 feet, or 25 feet in Year yard); and (ii) the total cubic feet ofpenetrating volume on the building site does not exceed multiplied by the depth
ofthe lot (measured in feet). In his note, "penetrating volume" means the volume ofthose parts of that exceed (or
"penetrate") a sloped heigjrt limit.
9 Figure HRD •
Sloped Height Limit in Residential Districts
I I I
Height limit (non-yard areas); see Table 74b
I
z- - - - - -------------------I 35 feet (height)`
I
~ I
I
I
e
- 20 feet (height)
~ I I
Side property line Side property line
I I
i i
i i
i i
FStandard base i
I
Conceptual view from front street line. Lower height limit applies in rear yard-
Notto scale.
Note: Many other regulations apply, in addition to those shown in this figure. Nothing in this figure allows structures to
be located in yards or "setbacks." See Tables 7-2 and 7-6.
Amendment regarding
a formula for framed area
11-5-06
Amend Table 7-4b (both pages) as follows:
Table 7-4b• Buildings General Rule: Every structure must conform to the applicable regulations shown, by District, in
this table.(`N/A" means the rule does not apply.) Exceptions/Special Rules: (l ) See special rules
noted in table. (2) See Article 9 reeardin Planned Develo ment Districts.
Item Regulation SF-I SF-2 SF-3 TH GR-I GR-2 C
Dwelling units Maximum number per One, plus one accessory quarters (AQ) 17.5 per Two 24 per acre. See Uses
building site acre. See table and
Note 8 Art. 9
Framed area, all buildings Maximum area as a 80% 4,000 sq ft. plus 50% of the area 100% See Note 4. N/A
on a building site percentage of building of the building site in excess of 5,000
site area s . ft.
Length or width, any Maximum horizontal N/A 130 feet. See Note 3. N/A
building dimension
Exterior materials, any Type N/A Must be of equal grade and quality, all sides. See
building. tion 8-104.
Separation of DU's Fire-rated wall N/A hA_10-_UJrW fire wall, or its equivalent, must separate
ad ell ing units. See Notes 3 and 5.
vlqlk
SF privacy protection See Note 7. N/A lies. N/A
Accessory buildings Maximum number per Three N/A
building site
See Article 10 regarding
garage space. Height, maximum 25 ft. 35 ft. See
Note 2.
Principal buildings Stories, maximum Two and one-ha Three. See Note 6. N/A
See Article 10 regarding
garage space. Height, maximum 35 feet; 25 feet in rear yard. See Note 1 35 ft. or
less. See
Note 2.
Minimum gross floor 1,400 square feet, if used for residential 1,200 sq. 750 sq. ft, each DU 1,400 sq.
area purposes ft., each ft.
DU.
Width, minimum N/A 16 ft., each N/A But see QMDS N/A
DU. .Schedule.
Note 1. Antennas and Chimneys. Roof-mounted radio or television antennas on a principal building in a residential district may project up to four feet
above the roof. The maximum height of chimneys attached to a principal building is the greater of 35 feet or four feet above the roof.
Lot Area vs. Framed Area
18000
16000
80%
4000+.5(lot area-5000)
14000 70%
3811 Riley •
2729 Albans
12000
3710 Sunset
- - 2731 Barbara
R
10000 3717 Sunset
0 3303 Sunset
d
E
ti 8000 3019 Sunset
-
LL 2621 Cason
3777 Sunset
6000►~ 3424 Robinhood
+ 6402 Vanderbilt
4000 2607 Pemberton
3220 Plumb •
6411 Vanderbilt
2000
0
h00o ~~~0 0000 0"~~0 ~~o X000 ~~00 10,~~ 0000 0000 ^0000 ~~000 ^00000000 0 oo X0000
N
Lot Area
Lo7000 0% 4000+.5(lot area-5000) 70%'3811 Rile 2729 Albans 3710 Sunset 2731 Barbara 3717 Sunset 3303 Sunset 3019 Sunset
00 4000 3500 - - - - 76 4360 4004 4523 00 --4500 4200 76_
4860 4704
5307
--7440 5952 5220 5208
4144 5920
7500 6000 - -
5250 5250 - -
5843 _
7700 6160 _ 5350 5390 5033
--7875 6300 -
5438 - - - 5513 - - - -
- - 6291
-
9000 7200 _ 6000 6300 - - - - - -
- -
9066 7253 6033 6346 - - - -
-
- - •
10000 8000 - - -
6500 7000 - - - -
12500 10000 -
7750_ 8750 - - - -
13500 1_0800 - - -
8250 9450 - - -
-
15000 12000
9000 10500 - - 16200 12960 - - 9600_ - 11340 - -
17500 14000
10250 12250
20000 16000 11500 14000 - - - -
2621 Cason 3777 Sunset- 3424 Robinhood 6402 Vanderbilt 2607 Pemberton 3220 Plumb 16411 Vanderbilt
- - 7137
- - 7191 - - - - •
- - - - 8736 - - -
- 7889 ---9517 -
- - - - 9011
10125
•
0 •
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Amend Schedule FA as follows.
SCHEDULE FA
(FRAMED AREA)
A. General rule: Framed area reflects the size of a building, in square footage. Framed area includes all floor
and ground areas under a solid, fixed roof, except the uncounted areas listed in this Schedule. Floor and ground
areas are measured, on each level, according to the measurement method set out below. For each building, the
measured areas for each level are totaled to produce the framed area of the building.
B. Measurement method: For each level of a building, the framed area is the area of an imaginary, horizontal,
unbroken plane immediately atop the structure supporting the floor (or immediately atop the ground, where
there is no floor). Each plane extends horizontally to the outer main wall surfaces of the building, or to the outer
perimeter of the structure above (whichever is outermost). For this purpose:
1. steps, landings, sunken areas, floor openings and similar features are not considered separate levels, so
there is no plane on those levels;
2. each plane extends to the outer wall surfaces of bay windows, cantilevered space and similar space on
the same floor, regardless of the height of the floor;
3. if there is a "split level" or similar irregular floor level, the building official may designate either one
level to define the imaginary plane for that floor, or separate planes for the separate levels; and
4. if area (all or part) within a one-story building has an interior height exceeding 19 feet, the area is
doubled to calculate framed area (and if it has a interior height exceeding 31 feet, the area is tripled).
C. Uncounted areas: The following areas are not counted as framed area:
1. attic area that cannot be reached through a fixed accessway;
2. third floor area ' h tr k + e +N '..1C 1't
+.+t- ,trt e. a : lane a cone ,t; rn(-ve k_-, t z (_;_r rT v e-, 1(i i
iL S is +,a4 a_pitch C it her than "4-in-12" nor eater than s12-in-12. 45 de ees
it+s A a lower edge r. a at a hei t below 25 feet e
11 y-
7 _7
and
either + _r )-.;s-to a peak point or rf, ,a to meet a they such roof surface at a
ridgeline (or peak point); see Figure
than seven f~et;
3. those non-attic parts of an imaginary plane on a second or third-floor level, above which there is less
than seven feet of interior height;
4. area beneath eaves, cornices, roof extensions, "greenhouse" or bay windows, cantilevered space and
similar parts of buildings that project outward from the main wall of a building no more than 24 inches,
if the area is on a lower floor level (or at ground level) and is otherwise completely open to the
outdoors;
5. unenclosed porch area of a principal building, if the longest side of the porch directly faces the front
street line or side street line of the building site, and the area is neither designed nor usable for motor
vehicles;
6. the area of "crawl space" at ground level;
7. unenclosed walkway or "breezeway" area if: (A) the area directly connects a principal building to an
accessory building containing garage space located behind the principal building; (B) the total covered
width of the area does not exceed eight feet; and (C) no part of the roof is higher than 14 feet;
8. area of recessed entries (garage or home) or windows that is completely open to the outdoors on at least
one side, if. (A) each area faces the front street line or side street line of the building site, (B) each area
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
is not larger than 100 square feet, and (C) the total of all such uncounted recessed area is less than 200
square feet; and
9. basement area if (A) the floor is at least five feet lower than the standard base level of the site, and (B)
the interior height does not exceed eight feet.
(The rules for uncounted areas shall be strictly construed and applied to the defined areas only.)
[Drawings may be added.]
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, 1B, and 2, interest payments and property taxes )
HOUSE SIZE 4300 ft2 4000 ft2 3500 ft2 3000 ft2
c~ f
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
~y
Additional profit or
loss to the builder +$5,000 -$40,000 -$110,000 -$180,000 Framed area 80% 75% 66.5% 58.5%
I
FRAMING ARFA LIMITATIONS
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 framed 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 framing. 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
i
~•~Y
3 t
x ~ <yy'~Yrr;; A'S
AW,
a`
lmd,
r~~ le
Emma
~•I, r
0 4 ` dry
3;1
L f
a act e `
r N zfi
ri..
-
a ,
'
4 _
11t1t1i - ~ ~
i-:
! F #i
4 . - Oki
y ,
4
~n
arc } , :stir
~'3: i.-rcpt tw^G't' ~t:t. d - _ ~,.....~..-..•.-.~,w.3..
,i
77
f
NOW
"POW,
M
2. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR A 4300 ft-') HOUSE ON 4 6000 ft'-' LOT
Lets compare a two storey house with approximately 2150 ft2 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 ft2. 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. BUILK 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.
R r SrG * /S PERm ~ rrEv
T 35` irS Q~F is ytoMErRtcAl-
f~ND
7 yPlc. A 6 /V le Woor)
'rb t Xnrr a 0 1477-
SYmin r4 #CAZ ~llT No r-
T IQ NO NC- GAL 4 ,T' f,E>
30
7- Sri No T`
L ~ ~ E , a tN S 7-over euz & y ..moo,k" z 7,,c- NSW AlomE
C a s s . S h i v e l y
~rA 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
S~-is 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 . Bella ire,Texas 77401. 713661-7676. Fax 713 661-7669
i