Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02112010 ZPC Agenda Item 4 ZPC AGENDA ITEM 4 City of West University Place Harris County, Texas Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS REGARDING FENCES, VISIBILITY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS; AND CONTAINING FINDINGS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Zoning and Planning Commission ("Z&PC") of the City of West University Place, Texas ("City") have held a joint public hearing on a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City, as last re-formatted and re- adopted by Ordinance No. 1672, adopted March 12, 2001, and as subsequently amended ("Zoning Ordinance"); WHEREAS, the Z&PC has made a final report to the City Council with respect to such proposal, which report is attached as Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report of the Z&PC as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan, and City Council formally approves and adopts the report of the Z&PC; and WHEREAS, all notices, hearings and procedures relating to amending the Zoning Ordinance, as may a required by law, the City Charter or the Zoning Ordinance, have been duly given, held and followed, and the City Council has jurisdiction to amend the Zoning Ordinance as provided herein, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE: Section 1. The City Council officially finds, determines, declares and adopts all of the matters set out in the preamble of this ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as recommended by the Z&PC, according to the A&PC's final report in Exhibit A, which is attached and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. Section 2. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict only. Section 3. 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, neither the remainder of this ordinance, nor the application of such word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other part of this ordinance to any other persons or circumstances, shall be affected thereby. Section 4. The City Council officially finds, determines and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place an subject of each meeting at which this ordinance was discussed, considered or acted upon was given in the manner required by the Texas Open Meetings Act, as amended, and that each 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. The City Council officially finds, determines and declares that sufficient notices of the joint public hearing were given, and the City Council ratifies, approves and confirms such notices, including the contents and the method in which they were given. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective on the tenth day following its publication, as provided in the City Charter. CONSIDERED, PASSED, AND APPROVED on first reading on 20 CONSIDERED, PASSED, AND APPROVED on second reading, AND SIGNED, on 20 Attest: Signed: City Secretary Mayor Recommended: Prepared: City Manager Joshua W. Golden Approved as to legal form: City Attorney Exhibit A Zoning & Planning Commission City of West University Place, Texas 3800 University Boulevard West University Place, Texas 77005 February 11, 2010 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of West University Place 3808 University Boulevard Houston, Texas 77005 Subject: Final report on a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Code of Ordinances of the City of West University Place, Texas ("City") relating to FENCES, VISIBILITY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS To the Honorable Mayor & Members of City Council: The Zoning & Planning Commission of the City submits this, its final report, on the subject proposal, for the assistance of the Council as well as other interested persons. Scope of Proposal. The purpose of this proposal is to 1) improve emergency access associated with masonry fences and other solid walls, 2) manage certain obstructive hedges in front yards, and 3) rationalize the treatment of "visibility triangles" in the Code of Ordinances and the Zoning Ordinance. 1). This proposal amends Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances to require ANemergency portals" in fences, walls and other obstructions. The main purpose is to allow access to all sides of each building on single-family building sites within the City, so that firefighters and emergency personnel can enter the building, place ladders, fight fires, etc. Emergency portals could be: (i) gates or doors with key boxes allowed by the International Fire Code, or (ii) breachable gates or fence segments (usually wood or wrought iron). This proposal maintains some access to utility easements where they intersect streets by requiring one such portal in the easement area (this would most often apply at the rear of corner lot). 2). The main purpose of this proposal is to restrict hedges that function like fences in much the same manner as the code currently restricts fences. 3). This proposal also simplifies and harmonizes existing ordinances that restrict fences, trees, and other obstructions in so-called "visibility triangles" by amending Chapter 82 of the Code of Ordinances and Table 7-6, Projections Schedule of the Zoning Ordinance. There are two types of visibility triangles; the larger type (with 20 foot sides) is located where two streets intersect, and the smaller type (with five-foot sides) is located where a driveway and a sidewalk intersect. The restrictions for each type of visibility triangle are different, and they are currently found in different ordinances. There are conforming amendments in this proposal for the Zoning Ordinance, including amendments of definitions and cross- references to the new provisions in Chapters 18 and 82 of the Code of ordinances to make them more understandable and consistent. The exact wording of the proposal is attached, much of which is the reorganization of existing language rather than the introduction of new concepts. The Commission believes that this proposal will enhance public safety and help reinforce existing standards for visibility and streetscapes in the city's neighborhoods. Following the public hearing held on December 14, 2009, the Commission discussed focusing the emergency access requirements on single family building sites. In addition, in order to comply with recommendations by the City's Traffic Safety Engineer, the street visibility triangle height dimensions were restored. Recommendation. Based on the review given this proposal, the Commission: (i) finds that the proposal, if adopted, would be in the public interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, (ii) finds that the proposal reasonably addresses circumstances which have arisen since the last comprehensive revision of the zoning ordinance, (iii) makes its final recommendation favorable to the proposal, and (iv) recommends that the City Council adopt the proposal. The Vote. The vote on approval of this report was as follows: voted "aye;" "noes;" absent. Respectfully submitted: ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS 3y: For the Commission Proposal relating to fences, visibility and emergency access Revised 8-13-09 per Zoning and Planning Commission action and February 11, 2010 Amend Sections 18-208 and 18-210 of the Code of Ordinances, as follows: Sec. 18-208. Fenee Fence gate. Emergency portals. visibility areas Where a fence is constmeted, impfeved or- stfueturally altered along an easement area, a gate with . . )pening of 30 inches must be built for ingress and effess into the easement area. The gate is fbf the use and convenience of public utility ee apanies and the city servi erews., Where a fence is eenstrueted, iMPFOved OF StfldOtWally altered along an easement afea-,a gate with a minimum opening of 30 inches must be bailt fO Fingfess and egress into the easement area, The gate is f6f: the use and convenience of public utflay companies and the city eFewws. (a) Generally; location The primary purpose of this subsection is to provide access to all sides of each building located on a single-family residential site so that firefighters and emergency personnel can enter the building place ladders fight fires etc If such access is blocked by fences walls or other obstructions there must be at least two emergency portals each with a irlinimum width of 30 inches and they must be located to allow access to the sides and rear of the building, as follows- 11) Usually there must be one portal on each side of the building facing the front street line but on corner sites one may face the side street line. (2) If there is a fully or partially-enclosed utility easement that intersects a street area adjacent to the site there must be an emergency portal to allow emergency access to the easement area from the street area. (bj llmt,ecl types ofportals An emery ency_portal m be either (i) a gate or door with a key box complying with the International Fire Code (see 506 1) or (ii) a breathable fence segment or Tate A segment or gate is "breathable" if it is primaries made of wood or wood substitute (not thicker than one inch in either case) or wrought L iron. (c) Certain existinrg obstructions Until December 1 2014, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution for lack of emergency portals that: (i) existing fences walls or other obstructions blocked the required access on December 1 2009, and (ii) they were not replaced or structurally altered thereafter. d Visibilih' areas Fences walls and other thins are forbidden in certain visibility areas. See Chapter 82 of this Code. 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 L_, th a inmtta3-offnin Of 30 ehes itfS4 4-a nii+rit}tti»~ e}pen+t *i~4+idiet,-Fuutt-be built 1t)- in,re,s and ritc) a, J-)e-ea~ Emergency portals maybe required- see above. Proposal regulating fence-like hedges Revised 8-13-09 per Planning and Zoning Commission action Amend Section 82-7 of the Code of Ordinances (Urban Forest Preservation and Enhancement Ordinance) as follows: Wangles areas; trees, hedges, etc. it shall be tifilawfii! fE)F afly pef:son to plant, grow or- maintain any plant, except a tFee, withi iangle if the plant has (or pFobably will have) a fieight gfeat,~r than thfee feet above visibility tl-*.--Ie, the street gatter flow line. it shall be unlawffil fef any persen to plant, gr-E)W OF MaipAain a tFe whieh has branehes or- "iage within E)r- above a visibility triangle at a height lower than 15 feet above the street gtitter flow line. It is pf:esumed that a per-so i who owns of eentr-els f:eal-pfopefty within the city friaintains, all trees and pla ts an that pr-opefty. The eky-~~~t-Y tfiangle-and remove g by this -section, and thef:e shall be no liability to others for taking of! not taking sueh action. (a) Obstrtictiwuprohibite. Obstructions are prohibited jn visibility ~11ea5_"Is ndicated in the following table: Area Obstructions Prohibited Point for vertical measurement Drivewav visibilitv Any part of a fence, wall, djacent grade level trian_les plant or other thing above at the intersection of three feet. the driveway and sidewalk. Street visibility Tree branches or foliage Centerline _of the trian,es below 1 3'feet 6" and any part street- of any other plant above three feet. Qbl Conduct wdcni,firl. It shall bL,_urflawful foito LW I)L nt_,gro«~ , construct, install inaintain any obstruction prohibited by thus section or ii allmw any such obstruction on _prot)ertty the oer_son O\VYIS OF cOntrols (c) Certain trees It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for a tree in a driveway visibility area that the tree was planted before July 1 1992 and has no limbs or foliage below six feet. (d) Prior non conformin g status of certain fence-like hedges It is an affirmative defense ~cution related to a fence-like hed e that. (1) the hedge was in existence and not in compliance with Chapter 82 on December 1, 2009, (2) the hedge was not located in a visibility area, and (3) the hedge has never been altered or maintained to conform to this section. (e) Enforcement The city may enter a visibility area and remove any growth prohibited oy this section and the city shall have no liability for taking or not taking such action. (fl Termination Notwithstanding an hing to the contrary contained in subsection (d) till fence like hedges must be made compliant with the Code no later than December 1, 2014, at %,vhich time subsections (d) and (fl of this Section 82-7 shall be of no further force or effect and Ct ';Il ~vlfll; In Section 82-1 of the Code of Ordinances, delete the existing definition of "visibility triangle" and insert the following new definitions (to be inserted in alphabetical order with the others): k C'Si t1 IV,SIi l:1 fflLU/~;1C i111CdIiS IiIC 211 mac. lv lli~li ii ~I 1_f ~c ~~liiiii u~ c s1 illlt 'gall ? lily u e of a driveway and the inside edge of a sidewalk 6e the edge farthest from the roadways From the intersection point the first side of the triangle extends five feet inward f away from the roadway) along the edge of the driveway, the second side of the triangle extends ive feet along the edge of the sidewalk away from the driveway, and the third side is a straight ine connecting the extended ends of the first two sides If there is no sidewalk the building official shall designate the probable location of a future sidewalk which shall then be used as if it were an existing sidewalk A typical driveway will have two such triangles one on each side. The visibility triangle may include both public and private propertx The building official may )r_e_pare example diagrams showing driveway visibility triangles. lice -like hedge as used in this Chapter has the same meaning defined in Appendix A t-iu within a triangular area at the intersection point of the curbs of the two streets forming the corner (which will normally be a tan~ent~oint on a curved curb-lined Sides of the triangle extend 20 feet alon.R each curb line (away from the intersection point following any curves in the curb). The third side is a straight line connecting the extended ends of such 20-foot curb-line sides. If there is no curb on such a street the central flow line of the gutter or ditch is used instead The triangle may include both public and private property. The building official may prepare example diagrams triariule. -iangle beginning-at-the 7sihily precise intefseetion point of the eur-bs of eaeh of the two stfeets fiaffning the eor-nef: and extending 20 fiet-A along each eur-b line away -ffom the cuFb inter-section point, with the third side being deteFmined by drawing a stf:aight hn the ends of such 20 feet extensions. If there is- no eufb on sueh a stfeet, the 20 fbot line defined in zoning of:jinanee shall fbilew the eentfal public and pFivateproperty-., Amend Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance by deleting the definition of "driveway visibility triangle" and amending the definition of "visibility triangle," as follows; W-1 Ilegin. Drive -1 --ibility, triangle means the afea within a triangle b ifftef:seetion point of the edge of a dfiveway and the inside edge of a sidewalk (i.e., the-edge fafthest ffem the roadway). From the inter-section point, the &-r-st side of-the triangle extends fiv feet inwafdlaway 4-m-the f:oadway) along the edge of the dr-iveway, the seeendd side of the triangle extends five feet along the edge of the sidewalk away from the driveway and the third sidewalk, side is a str-aight line eenneeting the extended ends of the first two sides. if there is no the administrative official shall designate the probable loeation of a future sidewalk, which shall then be used as if it were an existing sidewalk. A typieal driveway will have two sueh tria . one on each side. Sueh tFiangles fnay inelude areas within, aid not within, a b part } , f`af4hest from the roadway). Fr-ofn the inter-seetion point, the first side of the triangle extends-f-ve Ceet inwafd (away fforn the foadway) along the edge of the dr-iveway, the seeond side of th triangle extends five feet along the edge of the sidewalk away ffo i the dfiveWay, and the thiF-d sid1f. is a straight line eonneeting the extended ends of the first two sides. if thef:e is-f10--sidewalk, the _L_Fainis4r-ative offieial shall designate the pfobabble location of a fittur-e sidewalk, Whieh shall then be used as if it wefe an existing sidewalk. A typieal driveway will have two sueh-tfiangle-s,- one on eaeh side. Sueh triangles may include are s within, and not within, a building site. Ail ~rS te~w`tFN isi tFiaH~les is this Ordinance and made-a p~ hereoMsibility triangle. This term includes both "driveway visibility triangle" thi_S-0gAinatic-e-and street visibility triangle" as defined in Cliaptr8? of the Code of Ordinances. Amend both pages of Table 7-5a of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Visibility ing triangles Forbidden -See othef things taller than 2.0 ft. er- shoFter than 9.0 ft. deli iTt-i-eta-s structures, plants and This does not F existenee on o„+ in-Aftic e ~ other things T t 1, 1 1992, • f kept pFune See thilowing afe forbidden on pa definitions within a visi in Ar-tiel things tallef than 2.0 fi. or- shorter- than 8.0 ft. This e does not r-eqaiF-e removal of trees in existence-en-July 4-,1992, if kept pfu*ed7 Amend Table 7-6, Projection Schedule as follows: Table 7-6. Projections Schedule, cont. Amend the "Fences" subcategory within "Certain Accessory Structures" as follows: TABLE INSET: Special Rules For Type Of Structure Maximum Allowed Projection (In Inches), Measured Calculating From The Inside Edge Of The Yard. Open & Pervious Areas SF Front Rear Side Yard Bufferyard Yard Yard The area may count No as both Basketball 120„ No limit limit generally, No limit open area goals but see Note and pervious area. Certain The area Accessory may count Structures as both Certain Playground 0 No limit 0 No limit open area Accessory equipment and Structures, pervious continued area. The area may count as both Flagpoles 120" 0 0 0 open area and pervious area. The area Fences 0, but see No limit, but does not Notes 8-, No limit see Notes 8 count as and No limit either open - and 12. 11. or pervious area. The area counts as 0 but open area. Swimming 0 see Note 0, but see Note No limit Only the pools 9 9. water area counts as pervious area. The area counts as open area Tennis but not courts (with 0 0 0 No limit pervious associated area screens) (unless the area is made of grass). The area No limit No limit may count generally, generally, No limit generally, limit as both Lights and but see but see generally, but generally, open area lampposts Note 10. Note 10. see Note 10. but see and Note 10. pervious area. The area may count as both Gate 24„ No limit No limit No limit open area closers and pervious area. Signs (see The area Code of No limit 0 0 0 does not Ordinances) count as either open or pervious area. Amend and renumber Note 8 of Table 7-6 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Note 8. Fences. Fences may project into front and side yards to the extent expressly required or authorized by City ordinance (e.g., provisions in Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances requiring front fences for temporary construction purposes and to screen nonresidential uses; provisions in PDD schedules for front fences). _ \L: o M tiie t s<<~ _a! f.i P_r_ec~uir~°~ ~i~ts f~~r f i~r,?r 18 and ( Jet: i ~ Pt'.fl.~-rl. ~~tl;l'S iY~CI - T c In a QIVIDS low fences (3.5 feet or lower) may be located anywhere, if made of ornamental metal or white pickets. Add new Note 8.2 to Table 7-6 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: a Of a front a_di d Title of a site ._kntaining; a princiLml bu~ldin~~ ~~rsich races a -,eruct line and fence-like hedges perpendicular to the street are not prohibited Visibility triangles and visibility areas, as defined by this ordinance are subject to further restrictions as contained in Chapter 82 of the Code of Add new definition to Section 2-102 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: „ . :cumin in A straight or curved line 0) having; the characteristics of a fence 0i) forming, a physical barrier Treater than 50% of the width of the lot and (iii) growing higher than five feet above Standard -:3se level. Sallye Clark From: Richard Yehle [reyehle@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:20 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Cc: Sallye Clark Subject: Fence-like Hedges Debbie, Since I can't be at the next ZPC meeting, I would like to share my thoughts on the matter of "fence-like" hedges. The discussion of the last meeting suggests that with the best of intentions and in order to satisfy all sides ZPC may have created something that addresses the biggest parts of the issue but in a way that does not materially address the real problem of West U yards failing to comply with the vision of openness captured in the Comprehensive Plan. Despite what the Plan says, it seems that will of the people is for a different vision. However, the issue of fence-like hedges still exists, and like the Mayor says if it "looks like a fence, acts like a fence, it's a fence". Inspired by Lauren's observation that a 5' hedge is highly undesirable, I have laid out issues as I see them and arrived at a possible alternative that a) addresses the most egregious practice of stockading a backyard that would otherwise be a front yard, b) accepting that unless "vertical" hedges in front yards were banned (and that is unrealistic and probably against the public will), no real progress can be made. Regards, R. E. Yehle January 19, 2010 Fence-like Hedges Some miscellaneous thoughts on fence-like hedges" 1. The proposed ordinance allowing horizontal hedges up to 5 feet is an uncomfortable compromise that fails to address vertical hedges and results in an allowable hedge that is higher than desirable. 2. The proposed ordinance avoids most unintended consequences of forcing compliance on random, but overgrown plantings. 3. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an open vista in front yards and is therefore supportive of, or supported by, the proposed ordinance. 4. An ideal height for front yard hedges is probably 3 to 3'/z feet and is consistent with the allowable picket fence height. However there is a natural tension between what constitutes a hedge from what are miscellaneous plantings that might be higher. 5. Allowing 5 foot hedges could promote the proliferation of more horizontal hedges by those seeking privacy. 6. There is a significant incidence of vertical hedges in the City. 7. Enforcement of vegetation rules is tough because permits are not required for most plantings and once planted, vegetation can easily grow into a non-compliant situation. 8. The lack of comment from those with stockaded front yards is troubling and suggestive that they don't see the "train" coming and will therefore not become vocal until compliance is forced on them. 9. A sunset provision is an imperfect solution because it forces the City to monitor compliance at some time in the future, which has proven imperfect at best for other legislation such as lighting and temporary structures. 10. The Public probably endorses the open front yard element of the Comprehensive Plan in concept but would reject it when it applies to them or when it results in the City mandating significant pruning or removal of existing vegetation. 11. Unless a safety issue is in play, few people get enthusiastic about changing any rules. 12. Citizens are quick to complain about the City or City legislators but loath to complain about their neighbors, making enforcement by complaint spotty. Conclusions: 1 1. The proposed ordinance is neither fish nor fowl, but it addresses the most egregious "violations" of stockaded backyards, and for consistency addresses stockaded front yards. 2. There is probably no public will to take the actions necessary to significantly change landscaping rules. 3. Stockaded backyards must be addressed because they most overtly put a "fence" where fences are not allowed and since there are only a few in the City, conventional PNC status might be tolerated as a tool to assure passage by City Council. Given the high value of the properties, PNC status could eventually be lost for any of those sites through natural evolution as families mature and the stockaded yards are converted to building sites. 4. Stockaded front yards should be addressed for the sake of consistency and adherence to the Comprehensive Plan, but given the ease of complying with the 50% part of the ordinance and the weak public will for proactive enforcement, it is probably futile to address them. 5. Lowering the allowed height of horizontal hedges (or fence-like hedges in general) to less than 5 feet will collect many more properties and create a standard that is outside the will of the public. 6. As much as ZPC wants to do the right thing and gain consistency with all regulations, the will of the general public (which is fickle and not prone to comprehensive thinking) should be heavily considered. Proposal A manageable ordinance would only focus on stockaded backyards, i.e. yards without a principle structure. It would not address stockaded front yards or attempt to set any standard for future planting in front yards. The ordinance would definitively preclude horizontal and vertical hedges taller than 3 feet for backyards. For the sake of promoting passage by City Council, it would either offer PNC status to existing stockaded backyards or a 10 year sunset period for such yards. My preference is for a firm sunset date because the concept of prohibiting virtual fences where real fences are banned is good, and because the cost of gaining compliance is small. Definitions for this memo: Horizontal hedge = Hedge parallel to the street between the curb and front set back line. Vertical hedge = Hedge perpendicular to the street between the curb and front setback line. Front yard = Yard between the street and the front set back line of a lot with a principle structure. Backyard = A lot without a principle structure that is the functional rear yard (or side yard) of an adjacent property. (It would be a front yard if it had a primary structure.) i 2