Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01142010 ZPC Agenda Item 4 ZPC AGENDA ITEM 4 Sallye Clark From: Debbie Scarcella Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:16 AM To: Sallye Clark Subject: FW: Fire Department Access to Townhomes From: Steve Ralls Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:04 AM To: Debbie Scarcella Cc: Alton Seward; John Brown Subject: Fire Department Access to Townhomes Debbie, The Fire Department (FD) has access to all of the common driveway gates to the townhome properties in the City. It is not necessary to have FD access emergency portals in the fences on these dwelling units. The emergency portals in the stone, masonry, and stucco fences on single family dwelling properties should be the focus of the proposal. Steve Rails Fire Chief Emergency Management Coordinator City of West University Place 3800 University Blvd. West University Place, TX 77005 713-662-5836 (Office) 713-662-5303 (Fax) Print Ree,ponsl ly 1 City Council Minutes, December 14, 2009 Approve City Council meeting minutes of December 7, 2009. B. Fee Schedule Matters related to the City of West University Place fee schedule for solid waste including consideration of an ordinance approving the fees on second and final reading. Councilmember Segal moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the amendments to the Minutes received prior to the meeting. Mayor Pro Tern Fry seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Boehme, Segal, Guffey Noes: None Absent: None 5. Joint Public Hearing with Zoning and Planning Commission Matters related to a joint public hearing of the City of West University Place City Council and the Zoning and Planning Commission to hear from parties in interest and citizens concerning a proposed i amendment to the Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to fences and fence-like hedges. Zoning and Planning Commission Chair Brown called the meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission to order at 6:42 p.m. Commissioners Yehle, DeStefano, Higley, Frankel, and Griffith were present. Commissioner Parikh was absent. Chair Brown opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m., and confirmed with City Secretary Lenz that the notice was properly given. Mayor Kelly opened the public hearing on behalf of the City Council at 6:45 p.m. City Planner Scarcella presented background on the proposed ordinance amendment and showed a slide presentation to explain and describe the purposes of the proposal. A copy of the slide presentation, which provides the outline of discussion, is attached as Attachment "A". After the presentation by Ms. Scarcella, Chair Brown opened the floor for public comments. Jeff Raizner, 4141 Tennyson, spoke to say his property is either the only one, or one of very few, that is targeted by this amendment. He said his hedge was in existence when he bought the lot and, therefore, he requests a full and complete grandfathering provision to the ordinance that would permit his structure to stay in place indefinitely. Mr. Raizner said having to remove the hedges would cost him tremendously from both family and financial standpoints. He said it would cost him approximately $50,000 to remove the hedges. Mr. Raizner said his concern is that this ordinance is simply being introduced because people don't like how the hedges look and not because of a health or safety purpose. He said he thinks, also, that the ordinance is inconsistent with other statues and ordinances that mandate and require the preservation of trees and shrubbery. He said, in its entirety this statute is a bad idea and again requested a full grandfathering provision. Nelson Harbison, 6700 Belmont, distributed a list of questions to Council and reviewed those questions, which are attached hereto as Attachment "B". He said he will be back at the January meeting and plans to find out how many people will be affected by this ordinance. Tom Murphy, 2921 Carnegie Street, spoke to ask for clarification whether the proposed ordinance addresses only visibility triangles. Chair Brown explained that there are three aspects to the proposal, City Council Minutes, December 14, 2009 one having to do with the firefighters and police being able to get through masonry fences if necessary; one having to do with recasting and better organizing existing ordinances regarding visibility triangles, and one having to do with fence-like hedges in the front of yards. There were no other public comments. There were no comments from the Zoning and Planning Commission members. Councilmember Boehme said he agrees with the improvement to emergency access and simplifying and harmonizing the ordinance as it relates to visibility triangles, but doesn't understand the need for the provision having to do with fence-like hedges. He said this issue has not been brought forth by citizen complaints or city staff and to him this is a solution that has not yet found a real problem. He said the idea that we would tell residents that have legally planted things in total compliance with the law that we will not grandfather them in is offensive to him. Councilmember Boehme said he thinks we need to look at the visibility triangle laws, specifically the approach at the corners. He said the property at the corner of Academy and University complies with the visibility laws, but in his view it is unsafe and is a legitimate public safety issue. Councilmember Boehme said he is pretty active in the community and, other than the Zoning and Planning Commission, he has not heard from one citizen that there is a problem with fence-like hedges. Councilmember Segal said he suggests that the Zoning and Planning Commission look at a permanent grandfather of existing violations that were legal to begin with. He also said that the effective date should be earlier, going back to the time when the public was given notice that this issue would be addressed. Councilmember Segal said he believes it is important to reorganize the ordinances, but what is being totally escaped is that the driveway visibility triangle is not enforced and he wants staff to know that Council wants enforcement of that safety issue. He said he would be happy to identify the violations and supply the list to staff. Councilmember Guffey said he finds the complaints about $50,000 a little hard to believe because all you have to do is trim the hedges back to 5 feet, which he doesn't think is unreasonable. He also said we would like to grandfather this, but seems like common sense should tell you that you shouldn't have a fence all the way to street blocking your neighbor's view. Mayor Kelly said he has also heard some complaints. He said he applauds the Zoning and Planning Commission for reviewing this. He said if it looks like a fence, smells like a fence, and acts like a fence, then it's a fence. He said he thinks the grandfather argument is valid and needs to be looked at and discussed with the City attorney. He said he is a strong proponent of zoning laws and strong proponent of what the Commission is doing and he doesn't want to discourage them. Councilmember Boehme said he wanted to make it clear that when we speak of the visibility triangle issues, he is for strict compliance. He said he finds it backwards that we are passing some new laws having to do with visibility when we are not enforcing the laws that we have in place, which are the ones that speak to public safety. He further said he doesn't have a problem with the language being proposed provided we grandfather the existing legal uses. At 7:29 p.m., Commissioner Yehl moved that all statements, exhibits, and documents be made a part of the official record of this hearing and that this public hearing be formally closed. Commissioner Frankel seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. City Council Minutes, December 14, 2009 Ayes: Brown, Yehle, DeStefano, Higley, Frankel, and Griffith Noes: None Absent: Sam Parikh At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Pro Tom Fry moved for the City Council to close the public hearing. Councilmember Segal seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Boehme, Segal, Guffey Noes: None Absent: None 6. Ordinance Calling Joint Public Hearing Consideration of and possible action on an ordinance of the City Council of the City of West University Place, Texas, calling for a joint public hearing to hear comments for or against rezoning of the property located at the southwest corner of Tangley Road and Kirby Drive from PDD TH-2 to commercial; prescribing procedures and notices; containing findings and other provisions relating to the subject; and declaring an emergency. City Planner Scarcella presented and stated that that the current property owner at the building site located at 5800 Kirby Drive, currently occupied by Shipley's Donuts, has filed a rezoning application to amend the zoning ordinance to change the property use from a PDD TH-2 to commercial. Ms. Scarcella said because of the current layout of the building, the owner would like to tear down the structure and build a new one, but in doing so he would lose his prior non-conformance status for use and would be required to be rebuild as a townhome, which the owner doesn't seem to think is economically viable at this time. Councilmember Boehme moved to approve the ordinance calling for the joint public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Fry seconded the motion. Councilmember Boehme asked, and Ms. Scarcella confirmed, that if this zoning change is granted, the proposed building would be fully compliant with all West U ordinances. Councilmember Segal confirmed with Ms. Scarcella that the public hearing and any action taken would only affect that property currently occupied by Shipley's and that the rest of the block would remain townhomes until other action is taken. Ms. Scarcella said one of the things staff looked at was that the Shipley's property is barely meeting the minimum and it's the bigger piece of property. She said the concern is that the other properties wouldn't be viable candidates for redevelopment. Councilmember Boehme pointed out that the other properties retain more development rights under the prior non-conformance status and so they may not want to be rezoned anyway. Chair Brown asked that the motion to approve the ordinance calling the public hearing include the date of the public hearing, which is January 25, 2010 with an alternate date of February 8, 2010. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Boehme, Segal, Guffey Noes: None Absent: None s i Proposal relating to fences, visibility and emergency access Revised 8-13-09 per Zoning and Planning Commission action Amend Sections 18-208 and 18-210 of the Code of Ordinances, as follows: See. 18-208. -Emergency portals; visibility areas. gate with a i i iting of 30 inehes must be buil! for- ingFess affd egfess iate d4e essem erews (a) Generally; locution. The 1riniary Purpose of this subsection is to provide access to all sides of each building, so that ftretighters and emergency personnel can enter the building31lace 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 minimum width of 30 inches, and they must he located to allow access to the sides and rear of the building, as follows: (1) 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 shat intersects a street area adjacent to the site, there must be an emergency portal to allow emergency access to the casement area from the street area. (b) Allowed tomes of portals, An emergency portal may be either: (i) a gate or door with a key box complying with the International Fire Code (see _51X.1), or (ii) a breachahle fence segment or cafe. A sec lent or gate is "breachable" if it is primarily made of wood or wood substitute (not thicker than one inch, in either case) or wrought iron. (c) Certain existing obstrnction.s. 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 sintcturally altered thereafter. (d) Visibility ureas. Fences, walls and other things are forbidden in certain visibility areas. See Chapter 82 of dlis 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} publie-easements EmergencyMrtals may be regt6red: wee 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: Sec. 82-7. Visibility hi4ngles trianYle areas, trees, hedges, etc. it shall be ualawfW fef J per-soft plant, b any pleat, e*eept + n"H a visibi4ity triangle, if the plant has (or- probably will have) a heio; gFeatef than th ~eef abe*e wi" d4e eity maintaies all trees md plants an that pr-opei4y. The eity may enter- a visibility triangle fifld Femove gr-eA~s pEehibited by this seefieft, and thefe shall be no liability te etheFs for- taking 9F net taking sueh aetion. (a) Qhsrruction,s prohibited Obstructions are prohibited in visibility areas as indicated in the following table. Area Obstructions prohibited Point for vertical measurement Driveway visibility Any part of a fence. wall, Adjacent grade level triangles plant or other thing above at the intersection of three feet. the drivewav and sidewalk. Street visibility Tree branches or foliage Standard base level. triangles below eipht feet and any part of any other plant above three feet. f) h Conduct nrdawfd. It shall be unlawful for any person to: O row, construct. install or maintain any obstruction prohibited by this section or (ii) allow anv arch obstruction on property the person owns or controls. (c Certain trees. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution fora tree in a driveway visibility area that the tree was planted before July 1. 1992 and has no limbs or foliap below six feet. (d) Prior non-c-onfcrrining shorts of cerutin Ience- like hedees. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution related to a fence-like hedge that: (1) the hedge was in existence and not in compliance with Chapter 82 on December 1 ?00-91 the hedge was not located in a visibility areg, an(I (3) the hedge has never been altered or maintained to conforin to this section (e) Enfin-c ement. The city, may enter a visibility area and remove any. groWth prohibited by this section, and the city shall have no liability for taking or not taking such action (f) Tema tution. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in subsection (d) all fence-like hedges must he made compliant with the Code rio later than December 1 2014, at which time subsections (d) and (f) of this Section 82-7 shall be of no further force or effect and the same may be removed from Oil Section without further action 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): Driveway visibilirv tricutgle means the area within a triangle beginning at the intersection of the edge of a driveway and the inside edge of a sidewalk (i.e., the edge farthest from the roadway). From the intersection point. the first side of the triangle extends five feet inward (away from the roadway) along the edge of the driveway, the second side of the triangle extends five feet aloe the-edge he edge of the sidewalk away from the driveway, and the third side is -a straight line 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 property. The building official may prepare example diagrams showing _driveway visibility triangles. Fence-like ledge as used in this Chapter has the Same meaning defined in Appendix A Section 2-102 of the Code (Zoning Ordinance) Street risibility triangle means the area at a street coiner lying within a triangular area beginnin * at die intersection pint of the curbs of the two streets forming the comer which will normally be a tarneent point on a curved curb-line). Sides of the triangle extend 20 feet along each curb line (away from die intersection point following any ctnves in the curb) The third side is a straight line conn_ ectina 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 trian ]g e may include both public and private property. The building official may prepare example diagrams showing street visibility triangles. Visibility a.rea includes a street visibility triangle and a driveway visibility triangle Visibility trionele fneens the ama at a street eemef lying within a triemgle begifMing at tile 20 feet along eeeh eut4a line away ffofff the eteb i )iat, with the tlArd side beift# fie ew43 on sueh a stfM, the 20 feet liHe defined in zoning or-diflanee shall fellew the eefik-Wel includes a street visibility triangle and a driveway visibility triangle Amend Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance by deleting the definition of "driveway visibility triangle" and amending the definition of "visibility triangle," as follows: inter-seL4kffi point of the edge of a dFivewsy wtd the inside edge of a iidewelk (i.e., the edlg-e faMest from the roadway). &em the ipAer-see4ien point, the fifst iide of the tr-iefigie e*toflds five feet inwaf;d (away ffem the r-eadway) along dhe edge ef the dr-iveway, the seeend side of 64e tr-imgle extends five feet along the edge of d4e sidewalk away ffem the dFiveway, md the ~h side is a straight line eemeeting the evitended ends of the fifst two sides. If thffe is He sidew4k.; 64eft be used as if it were an e*mist* sidewalk. A typieal dr-iveway will have two stiek , efte on eseh side. Sueh tfiangles may iffelude ffeas within, and fiat widtia, a building site.Aft Pan gel. Visibility triangle. This term includes both "driveway visibility triangle" as defined in this Ordinance and "street visibility triangle" as defined in Chapter 82 of the Code of Ordinances. Amend both pages of Fable 7-5a of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Visibility triangles Forbidden , See structures, atheF"gs taller- than 2.0 ft. of shooer. !ban . 8.94- defipAtie plants and ale other things ee Chapter 82 of the -2 Code of Ordinances. Amend Table 7-6, Protection 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 i Front Rear Side Yard SF Yard Yard Bufferyard The area No may count Basketball No limit limit generally, as both goals 120' but see Note No limit open area 7 and pervious area. The area may count Playground No limit as both equipment 0 0 No limit open area and pervious area. The area may count as both Certain Flagpoles 120" 0 0 0 open area Accessory and Structures pervious Certain area. Accessory The area Structures, 0, but see No limit, but does not continued Fences and Notes 8-, No limit see Notes 8 count as fence-like 8 1 &4 ? 8.1. 8.2 and No limit either open hedges. 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 Tennis counts as courts (with 0 0 0 No limit open area associated but not screens) pervious area (unless the area is made of grass). The area No limit No limit No limit may count Lights and generally, generally, No limit generally, as both but see but see generally, but open area lampposts Note 10. Note 10. see Note 10. but see and Note 10. pervious area. The area may count Gate No limit as both closers 24" No limit No limit open area and pervious area. The area Signs (see does not Code of No limit 0 0 0 count as Ordinances) either open or pervious area. Amend and renumber Note 8 of Table 7-6 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows; Note 8.1 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). Also in the Code of Ordinances, there are: (i) requirements for entergenctiportals in fences (Chapter 181 and 60 restrictions on fences "fence-like hedges" and other things in visibility areas (Chapter 82). In a QMDS 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: Note 8.2. Fence-like heclces. Fence-like hedges within ten feet of a front yard line of a site containing a principal building which faces a front street 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 Ordinance`. Add new definition to Section 2-102 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows. f Fence-like heJ--e means a contiguous arrangement of vegeialion or foliage whether Occurring in a strain*ht or cut-ved line W having, the characteri%tics of a fence- (ii) forming a physical hairier «reater than 50% of the width of the lot: and (iii) izrowin~ higher than five feet above Standard base level. Sallye Clark From: mggreenwood@sbcglobal.net Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:37 PM To: Virginia Lew; Sondra Rosenthal; Pam McKinley; 'Marie Wagner'; Jorge Perales; John Victery; Jerry & Becky Alexander; Jeannine Bergt; Jeanne Marosis; David Bergt; Antonio Zuniga; Alys Dore; Kelley Powell Cc: Sallye Clark Subject: Fw: Proposed ordinanace regarding "fences, visibility and emergency access" Attachments: 12.14.09 CC Minutes.pdf; zpc001.pdf; NOTICE OF PUBLIC H West U Fence-emergency access hearing.doc Sallye Clark who is the West U staff contact for the Zoning and Planning Commission was kind enough to e-mail me the attached documents. Most of the proposed ordinance deals with visibility triangles (at intersections). If you will look at the City Council minutes from 12/14/09 - scroll down to page 11 (of 16) - you will see a description of the proposed emergency access amendment. I think we will not have a problem. Here is an excerpt of what it says about Emergency access amendment: Requires two "emergency portals" through fences, walls, obstructions - one on each side of a building Emergency portals can be gates or doors with key boxes OR BREACHABLE GATES OR FENCE SEGMENTS (WOOD OR WROUGHT IRON). I think we have access to the back of each townhome through breachable fence segments between each townhome and access from the driveway through the two townhomes on each end. I also attached the notice of public hearings that was sent - I recall receiving one regarding visibility triangles, but did not pick up on the "emergency access" part of it. I have since found the notice, so I did receive it, just didn't read it carefully enough to be alarmed. If anyone is going to the meeting tonight, they could try to confirm my interpretation. If you want to follow up on this, you can go to westu.org and sign up to receive e-mails with agendas and all sorts of other good stuff for the city council and the Zoning and Planning Commission. Mary Grace Greenwood 713 669 8817 Original Message From: Sallye Clark To: maareenwood (~sbcglobal.net Cc: Debbie Scarcella Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:27 PM Subject: RE: Proposed ordinanace regarding "fences, visibility and emergency access" Mrs. Greenwood, Attached are the City Council 12/14/09 minutes, Draft ZPC 12/10/09 minutes, ZPC agenda. The public hearing notice and tonif;ht`s agenda and item 4 backup followed in separate emails. Sincerely, z C;t 4. (Cczrf Planning Assistant City of West University Place 1 Debbie Scarcella Subject: FW: 4 sided acceess to property (matter before ZPC) It has come to my attention that there is a concern at the City over emergency access to all 4 sides of a property. I live at 6700 Belmont in a town home as a part of the Belmont Oaks project; we back up to Bellaire Blvd. Our home, like so many along the perimeter streets of WUP has to deal with heavy traffic along the thoroughfare. Our homeowner concerns are a bit different than homes on the interior of the City and should be recognized. You need to be aware that in our project's case, the proposed ordinance would place an unreasonable burden on the property and the results would in balance be quite negative. Our continuous 7' brick wall provides both privacy and security. The noise from traffic is baffled; the predators are daunted by a solid fence. These 2 variables are real and concern the homeowners daily. Our primary access is via an interior drive and parking area, so there is no need to access the rear which does adhere to the 10' setback; would anyone pretend to park on Bellaire to visit? Also, W.U.P. Police do not currently police Bellaire Blvd. because it is not within their jurisdiction, and the solid brick wall eases our mind as regards safety from vandals and burglars. The solid wall also provides further protection from the errant driver who veers astray - it has happened several times. I suspect there are more than 30 homes with solid walls along Bellaire or other streets that would be adversely affected on a daily basis by this proposal. It is my request the ordinance allow for a permanent waiver for our existing structures and walls. Thank you for your attention my concern and please table this Proposal or act on it as discussed in this letter. Very truly yours, Christopher S. Smith Treasurer Belmont Oaks Town homes Association 6700 Belmont #3 1 Sallye Clark From: Tony LaMatta [tonyl @ rallyinc.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:05 AM To: Debbie Scarcella; Sallye Clark; Thelma A. Lenz Cc: Iarissa@eximiuscoffee.com; Iarissa@cadeco.cc; 'Paola L. Gonzalez'; 'Michael Gonzalez' Subject: FW: Zoning Ordinance Regarding Fences Agenda April 09 2009 Meeting and Now December 14, 2009 and January 22, 2010 Good Morning, I have received in the mail once again an attempt from the city of West University to restrict the tax paying citizens of West University. I was at the last public hearing along with other concerned West university residents and cannot believe that I am here reading this proposal again. I think this is an attempt for the city to restrict the residents of West University once again. There are many ways to improve emergency access but allowing access to all sides of each building within the city and leaving breachable gates or fence segments is not the solution. Given the fact that there have been many break ins in west university in the last several months I feel more secure with hedges, gates and fences that will not allow burglars access to my house . I will leave my house exposed to theft especially when I have 3 young children in the house. My neighbor's house was robbed recently as well as several other residents of West University. Residents should be aware of break ins and it is the city's responsibility to inform its residents of such activities. Who will be held accountable if something happens? Again my family and I want to feel safe in west university and do not want my property exposed for the sake of your proposed emergency access. Improve emergency access without burdening and restricting the residents just like River Oaks and Memorial have done. We need better solutions to improve our lives not more restrictions. I will rally support against this proposal until the city finds a better solution. Thank you, Tony La Matta 3423 Carnegie Houston, Tx 77005 713-875-7943 r To Belmont Oaks Association Residents In the most recent West University Place water bill, a Notice of Public Hearings announced upcoming consideration by Council of a proposed Zoning Ordinance pertaining to "Fences, Visibility and Emergency Assess" (see attachment). I have several continents and questions. As I understand the proposed ordinance, I am opposed. I do not think the ordinance well thought out and ask folks to become informed and express their views at the hearing or at the ballot box. I plan to contact council members to better understand the need for such an ordinance, their responses to the questions and issues I have, any additional information they have on implementation details and their individual positions. An "early" list of comments and questions include. - who is the sponsor of the ordinance (the fence/ emergency part)? Residents need data to understand why the ordinance is before council? - are there specific situations (buildings) that are of concern? Has any effort been made to deal with these specific situations? What are the results of these efforts? - is there any data which says how many buildings (residences) in West University are affected? Is there any estimate of cost to these owners for compliance? - is there any data on what "lack of wall access" has prevented proper emergency response (numbers? specific situations?). - is there are the precedent for the ordinance? What other similar sized cities have such? Is there any data that says such ordinance is necessary.. effective? - will the ordinance have a "grandfather" clause? - are there any provision for "variances"? If any, what is the criteria for such? - the proposed ordinance language says "to allow access to all sides of each building in the city". The "all sides" is not clear (front and back only or 4 walls or "all sides"?). - the proposed ordinance language says "key boxes allowed by the International Fire Code". Most residents are not aware of the specifics of the code. Does the Code specify sufficient implementation details to assure compliance? - is the proposed ordinance language in the Notice of Public Hearings, the full language to be voted on? If not, is there an extended version of the ordinance language? - has security been considered in allowing access to "all sides" of each building? Is there any data to weigh possible increase in crime vs. the need for greater emergency access? - does the ordinance specify the time period for compliance? What are the penalties for non-compliance? Details are needed to understand implications of the proposed ordinance. - does Council have a recommendation ? and what are individual Council member positions.. if decided? Nelson Harbison NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS The Zoning & Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of West University Place,,..Texas (-City") will hold a joint public hearing in the,-Council Chamber of the -Municipal -Building, 3800 University ulevard, Houston, Texas 77005 during the City council meeting s t to begin at 6:30 PM on December 14, 2009. The hearing may be recess d and continued to the City Council meeting se to begin at 6:30 p.m. bn__January 11, 2010, at the same place: a purpose for the hearing is to proVide an opportunity for parties in interest and citizens to be heard in relation to proposals to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance (and code of Ordinances), as follows: Fences, visibility and am rgency Access. 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;- - arid 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 "emergency portals" in fences, walls and other obstructions- The main purpose is to allow access to all sides of each building within the City, so that firefighters and emergency personnel can enter the building, place ladders, fight fires, etc_ Emergency portal.s_.could be: M gates or doors with key boxes allowed by r-he International Fire Code~or (ii) breathable gates or fence segments (usuafly wood or wrougfit 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. Additional details on the proposals as well as the Zoning Ordinance and Code of Ordinances are all available for public inspection in the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005. The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Code of Ordinances would apply generally within the City, and any person interested in such matters should attend the hearings. The proposals may be adopted only after notice and hearing and would control over anything inconsistent in the current Zoning Ordinance or Code of Ordinances. Date: November 25, 2009 /s/Thelma Lenz, City Secretary Jeffrey L. Raimer Houston Board Certified, Personal Injury Trial Law Galveston Texas Board of Legal Specialization f1h One Houston Center Direct Phone 713 554 9077 1221 McKinney Suite 4100 jraizner@DoyleRaizner.com Houston TX 77010 DOYLE RAIZNER LLP Phone 713 5711146 Toll Free 888 5711001 Fax 713 571 1148 UK/Europe 08712181001 Galveston 409 7651750 www.DoyleRaizner.com October 15, 2009 Debbie Scarcella City Planner, West University Place 3800 University Blvd. West University Place, Texas 77005 By email: dscarcella@westu.org Re: 4141 Tennyson14144 Rice Ms. Scarcella: I write to you as City Planner, and request that you forward this to the members of the ZPC and city council. I appreciate you forwarding to me the current draft of Section 82-7 and I note that it contains a prior non-conformance provision that "sunsets" on October 1, 2014. 1 request that any provision contain a complete prior non-conformance provision without a sunset. I attended one of the early public hearings on this proposed ordinance and expressed to the ZPC my concern about an incomplete prior non-conformance provision. I advised the commissioners that I purchased our home in late 2004 with the landscaping in its current condition on 4144 Rice, and that I had understood the landscaping had been in its current condition since the house was built. In fact, the city had approved of drainage and sprinkler plans that were built around the current landscaping, and so the city not only has known about the landscaping since its construction but in effect approved it when it approved the drainage and sprinklers, as those systems were built around the landscaping. To demonstrate to the city the costs that would be associated with altering the landscaping, as would be required by the amended ordinance, I obtained and advised the ZPC of an estimate from the original landscaper. The cost to bring the landscaping into compliance with the proposed ordinance would be $52,000. Without a complete prior non-conformance provision, the ordinance would harm the market value of my home and its ability to be sold. The ordinance would also represent a direct taking, since the landscaping would need to be removed and rebuilt in a different location. In addition to changing the landscaping itself, I would need to change the sprinkler system and potentially drainage to accommodate the change in the landscaping. The provision is also unreasonable in that it singles out my property. The ordinance was shaped over time essentially to address my property. I am not aware of any other property in the city would be affected by the ordinance other than mine. Moreover, S October 15, 2009 page 2 comments by individual council members make clear that this would be an illegal special law which is being pushed for personal benefit and private interests. The proposed ordinance appears to have arisen solely to address aesthetic opinions rather than any legitimate purpose. I attended one public hearing of the ZPC, and several of the commissions referred to the landscaping as "abrasive," with one of the commissioners even likening the landscaping to "sticking your rear end into someone's front yard." One of the commissioners told a personal anecdote about not liking his neighbor's landscaping. I happen to find this type of landscaping to be aesthetically pleasing, and at least one of my neighbors has expressed this to me as well, but regardless, legislating aesthetics or taste is not a legitimate purpose of the ZPC or the city. Nor is the unnecessary destruction of trees and landscaping appropriate or even consistent with other city ordinances. The hearings were taped, so it should be a simple matter to determine the commissioners' thought processes from the commentary, but it was evident that the rationale for the proposed ordinance was that certain commissioners simply didn't like this type of landscaping. I request that the City retain all of the tape recordings of the meetings at which this particular ordinance was discussed. Please express my concerns to the ZPC and Council. The landscaping is an important part of my family's use and enjoyment of our home. The proposed ordinance would substantially impair my family's use of our property. I respectfully request that the sunset provision be removed. Absent its removal, I intend to file suit against the city to challenge the ordinance, as well as exploring the private interests behind it, and for damages associated with the contemplated taking. In the meantime, since the proposed ordinance was apparently crafted specifically to address my home, I request specific notice of any further meetings or votes on this proposed ordinance, as well as any drafts of amendments to the proposed ordinance. feL. LLPr