HomeMy WebLinkAbout012411R CC Min0 The City
A Neighborhood City
CITY COUNCIL
Bob Kelly, Mayor
Bob Fry, Councilmember
George Boehme, Councilmember
Steven Segal, Councilmember
Chuck Gulley, Councilmember
STAFF
Michael Ross, City Manager
Alan Petrov, City Attorney
Thelma Lenz, City Secretary
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
The City Council of the City of West University Place, Texas, met in special and regular session on
Monday, January 24, 2011, in the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, West University
Place, Texas beginning at 5:00 p.m.
SPECIAL WORKSHOP (held at 5:00 p.m. in the Conference Room)
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kelly called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Council and staff in attendance were:
Councilmembers Boehme, Segal, and Guffey (arrived at 5:10 p.m.), City Manager Ross, City Secretary
Lenz, City Attorney Petrov, ACM/Public Works Director Peifer, Parks and Recreation Director Tim
O'Connor and Police Chief Ken Walker. Mayor Pro Tern Fry was absent.
Jeff Gerber with PGAL and Bruce Frankel, Chair of the Town Center Ad Hoc Development Committee,
were also present.
Agenda items were discussed as follows:
1. West U Recreation Center
Matters related to noise from the mechanical equipment at the West U Recreation Center, including
discussion regarding any improvements and associated costs.
City Manager Ross presented this item and said that as Council requested, staff had consultants
perform additional acoustical work at the West U Recreation Center and at the homes behind the
Recreation Center. He said the two primary components of the project are: (1) the pool exhaust
vent and the chiller.
Mr. Ross said of the 3 options being proposed for the exhaust vent, staff is recommending Option 2,
which will drop the decibel level an estimated ten decibels.
Mr. Ross explained that Option 3 involves a lot of work and more money and the predictions are it
would not do as much good as Option 2.
City Manager Ross said the cost to get all the work done for Option 2 is $16,678.
Councilmember Segal said he has reviewed all the options and he believes Option 2, economically,
does as good a job with the simplest approach and he thinks it is the most logical option for the vent.
of West University Place
City Council Minutes, January 24, 2011
City Manager Ross said the recommendation for the chiller is to place noise barrier sound absorber
composite blankets on the inside of the fence, which would not be visible outside of the fence. He
said the cost for this is $12,278.00.
Councilmember Guffey arrived to the meeting at this time.
City Manager Ross said with $16,670 for the vent and $12,278.00 for the chiller, which is roughly
$29,000, he proposes that Council add an additional $3,000 for contingency and approve a not-to-
exceed amount of $33,000.
Councilmember Guffey said that's a lot of money and asked if there were any other solutions, like
putting a time switch on the blower so that it only goes off from 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.
Consultant Jeff Gerber with PGAL said the reason for the vent is to help remove the chemicals from
the building and if you stop doing that the intensity of the chemicals will build up and cause corrosion
to the metals.
Councilmember Boehme said the residents having to deal with that noise in their backyards
degrades their ability to use their property. He said he has been out there and knows the noise level
is high and this is something we have to fix.
Mayor Kelly said he feels that we should offer some relief to Ruskin residents, but he wonders if this
will satisfy them and what we will do if it doesn't.
Councilmember Boehme said he doesn't think
people on Ruskin, but rather to do the right thing
we need to do what we think is appropriate to
decibel level by 10 points does that.
it's the role of Council to necessarily please the
He said we have a situation that is not right and
remedy the situation and he thinks lowering the
Mayor Kelly said if he lived there the remedy he would want would be to move the vent to the front;
but, if staff is telling him we're going to spend $33,000 and that's all we're going to spend, then he's
all for it. He said, however, he doesn't want to spend $33,000 and then have to go back to the
drawing board.
Councilmember Segal said if this fix occurs the way it's suggested, that's probably all we're going to
do, but what troubles him is that it was stated earlier that the noise level satisfies our noise
ordinance. He said our noise ordinance is more generous than Houston or Bellaire so if do this and
will now comply with a new noise ordinance, we may want to change our noise ordinance, generally,
to be that low.
Mayor Kelly said if the vote is to do this, Council will have to be firm with its decision.
At the end of the discussion, City Manager Ross confirmed that this item is also on the regular
agenda for Council's desired action.
2. Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Presentation
Matters related to a presentation by the Town Center Ad Hoc Committee.
Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Chair Bruce Frankel presented the presentation. He first
introduced committee members John Tsertos, Josh Marcell, Joe Priske, Connie Clark, Mike
McEnany, Albert Kelso, Lynn Nesbit, and Larkin Matthews.
2of8
City Council Minutes, January 24, 2011
Chair Bruce Frankel presented and outlined the following three scenarios deemed feasible for the
Town Center:
1. Redevelopment or reconstruction of individual tracts under the current commercial provisions
of the zoning regulations;
2. Redevelopment or reconstruction of individual tracts under the Committee's proposed
commercial provisions of the zoning regulations; and
3. Redevelopment of all individual tracts under a common development plan under the
Committee's proposed regulations.
Mr. Frankel said the Committee is in agreement that all three scenarios would be plausible for
commercial property owners.
After presenting the report (attached), he informed Council of the Committee's recommendations,
which are included in the report.
Mr. Frankel said the Committee anticipates that adopting some of these recommendations would
take many months and believes the time to act is now and strongly encourages the City Council and
the Zoning and Planning Commission to move forward ensuring that the City of West U meets and
exceeds the objectives stated in the report.
Discussion regarding parking ensued and Councilmember Guffey asked if there was any
consideration given to parking at Poor Farm Ditch and, after discussion, City Manager Ross said that
Council can request the Zoning and Planning Commission to review that option and any other
options that Council may want the Commission to consider in their deliberations.
Councilmember Segal moved to recess Agenda Item #2 for further discussion and to hear from the
public in regular session. Councilmember Guffey seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes:
Kelly, Boehme, Guffey, Segal
Noes:
None
Absent:
Fry
Mayor Kelly announced that Council would convene into Executive Session in accordance with
Sections 551.071 and 551.071 of Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.
In Executive Session were Mayor and Council, City Manager Ross, City Attorney Petrov, Jolie Lenz,
Real Estate Attorney with JRPB, City Secretary Lenz, ACM/Public Works Director Peifer and Realtor
Roger Martin.
At 6:10 p.m., Councilmember Segal moved to convene into Executive Session to discuss Items 3
and 4. Councilmember Guffey seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes: Kelly, Guffey, Segal
Noes: None
Absent: Fry, Boehme stepped out of the room for a moment
3. Stormwater Detention and Ruffino Hills Property
Consultation with City Attorney concerning matters related to stormwater detention and Ruffino Hills
Property.
3of8
City Council Minutes, January 24, 2011
4. Real Estate
Matters related to 3816 University Boulevard and properties owned by the West University Baptist
Church.
At 6:42 p.m., Councilmember Boehme moved to adjourn the Executive Session and reconvene into
open session. Councilmember Segal seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes:
Kelly, Boehme, Guffey, Segal
Noes:
None
Absent:
Fry
No action taken.
REGULAR MEETING (BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS)
Agenda items were as follows:
Mayor Kelly called the meeting to order at 6:48 p.m. All Council, except Mayor Pro Tern Fry, was
present, including Mayor for the Day Connor McManus. City Manager Ross, City Secretary Lenz,
City Attorney Petrov, ACM/Public Works Director Peifer, and Police Chief Walker were present.
Mayor for the Day McManus lead the Pledge of Allegiance and Pledge to the Texas Flag.
City Secretary Lenz confirmed that Notice of the special and regular meetings was duly posted in
accordance with the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
5. Mayor for the Day Proclamation
After an introduction by Mayor Kelly, Mayor for the Day McManus read his Proclamation to the citizens
of West University Place, Texas.
6. Young Survival Coalition Young Breast Cancer Awareness Week
Mayor Kelly read a proclamation proclaiming the first week of October as Young Survival Coalition
Young Breast Cancer Awareness Week.
7. Public Comments
Citizens who signed up to speak for the West U Recreation Center spoke during discussion of that
item.
8. West U Recreation Center
Matters related to noise from the mechanical equipment at the West U Recreation Center, including
discussion regarding any improvements and associated costs.
Ed Bonura, 4217 Ruskin spoke to thank the mayor, council and city manager for efforts in
researching the sound issue. He said he is really excited about the proposals and feels that the
analysis was thorough and he hopes the proposals get approved.
Hope Northrup, 4217 Ruskin, spoke to say she lives directly behind the recreation center and
thanked Councilmembers Segal and Boehme and Mayor Kelly for taking time out of their busy
schedules to come to their home to get an understanding of the problem they were facing. She
4of8
City Council Minutes, January 24, 2011
said that's the way City government should work. Ms. Northrup also publicly thanked Mayor Pro
Tern Fry who at the last meeting said that when you have a large project like this there will be some
glitches that would need to be cleaned up afterwards. She also thanked City Manager Ross for his
efforts to come up with an economical solution and that she looks forward to once again enjoying
her beautiful property.
After comments from the public, City Manager Ross recommended that Council approve a not to
exceed amount of $33,000, which would include a small contingency for Option 2 for the pool
exhaust and the treatment of the blankets around the HVAC chiller.
Councilmember Boehme moved to approve City Manager Ross' recommendation. Councilmember
Segal seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes:
Kelly, Boehme, Gulley, Segal
Noes:
None
Absent:
Fry
At this time, Mayor Kelly announced that Council would discuss the Town Center item that was
recessed from Workshop for discussion during the regular agenda.
There were no public comments on this issue.
Councilmember Segal thanked the Committee and said he thinks they did what Council intended
them to do, which was to come up with proposals to satisfy the Mission Statement and look at how to
provide some additional rules in case someone wants to redevelop some or all of the properties. He
said the report is right to the point and easy to read and said the presentation by Chair Frankel was
excellent.
Councilmember Boehme said there have been some criticisms during the process, but however we
got to where we are was extremely well done. He said the Committee has a wealth of knowledge
and live in our City and have given us a document that he believes would have costs us between
$75,000 and $100,000. He said the document will now be given to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and there will be a wealth of discussion and public hearings at the Zoning and Planning
and City Council levels. Councilmember Boehme said from his point of view, he said whatever
happens will have to have the support of the surrounding neighbors so he encourages everyone to
read the report. He said though there are some bits and pieces of the report that he is not
particularly supportive of at this time, he feels that it is a great document that makes sense.
Councilmember Guffey thanked the Committee and said the ideas are really sound and will
eventually benefit the City. He said the City has a great financially interest in this because we could
probably double the sales tax and triple the ad valorem taxes if the ideas in the report completely
come to fruition and so the City might want to consider participating in paying for a portion of a
parking garage or something like that. He said we should at least make it known that the City would
be willing to consider this option so that perhaps somebody would pick up on this and do the full
redevelopment.
Mayor Kelly thanked the Committee for its work because not only did it save the City money, but it
provided a lot of citizen input with a cross-section of people that served on the Committee. He said it
is an incredible study and he also encouraged residents to read it.
5of8
City Council Minutes, January 24, 2011
With no other comments, Councilmember Segal moved that Council forward the Town Center Ad
Hoc Committee report to the Zoning and Planning Commission with instructions to proceed and
begin the process of drafting proposed zoning amendments consistent with modifications in their
discretion of the report. Councilmember Boehme seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes:
Kelly, Boehme, Guffey, Segal
Noes:
None
Absent:
Fry
9. Consent Agenda
All Consent Agenda items listed are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be
enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council
member requests in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
A. City Council Minutes
Approve City Council minutes of January 10, 2011.
Councilmember Segal moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Boehme
seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes:
Kelly, Boehme, Guffey, Segal
Noes:
None
Absent:
Fry
10. Using City Resources for Non-City advertising
Matters related to consideration of a policy that would allow for the use of City resources for non-
city advertising. This includes, but may not be limited to, the use of City water bills for fundraising
communications by the West University Elementary School Foundation, Inc.
Councilmember Boehme presented and said the West University Elementary School Foundation,
Inc., (WUESF) has asked if they could include their fundraising information in our water bills and is
requesting that Council consider a new policy that would allow them to do so.
Councilmember Boehme said the cost for the WUESF postage to send out fundraising information
would be almost $5,000 and he thinks it would be a shame for that $5,000 to go to the United
States Postal Service instead of being used to improve the West U Elementary School. He said
West U Elementary School is a key part of the West University experience and it certainly affects
property values. He said he thinks it is one of the true pride and joys of West University Place and
we need to do everything we can to promote it.
Councilmember Guffey asked if this would cost the City anything. Councilmember Boehme said
there would be no additional cost.
City Manager Ross confirmed that there would be no additional cost as long as the message fits
within the allotted space provided on the bills. He said a separate insert would require additional
funds.
City Attorney Petrov pointed out that when the Attorney General looked at the idea of any
governmental entity expending funds for a third party entity, there is a three-pronged test that need
to be met to comply with the law: (1) the expenditure furthers some governmental purpose of the
6of8
City Council Minutes, January 24, 2011
primary entity (in this case for the purpose of the City); (2) the cost to benefit ratio is a market ratio
(not paying more to get something of lesser value); and (3) there is some sort of written agreement
to memorialize what the City would be getting and how the City would be benefiting for whatever
the City does. He said a good example is our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Tri-
Sports, which is a third party entity that provides a benefit of youth sports to the kids of West U.
Councilmember Boehme moved to approve requesting staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney,
to draft a Memorandum of Understanding between the WUESF and the City for stated purpose and
to bring it before Council for approval. Councilmember Segal seconded the motion.
Mayor Kelly asked if staff has a recommendation. City Manager Ross said this is a policy decision
that Council will make and the only thing from a staff perspective is carrying out whatever policies
and ordinances that Council does pass, so we would just want to make sure that this is something
that is unique to this entity and there's not some other entity that can show up on the door step the
next day. Mayor Kelly said that's his concern.
City Manager Ross said if there is a stated purpose in the MOU that shows the connection between
the City and this entity that can be crafted to that affect, then that might give Council the required
uniqueness.
Councilmember Segal said we are not establishing a policy, but rather entering into an MOU for a
certain purpose that will be stated and that the purpose may not be served by some other entity.
City Attorney Petrov said to a certain extent, the state law already sets the policy by stating that you
can't do "this" unless you make certain findings, which is what we would look at with an MOU.
City Manager Ross said we will also need to make sure that putting the information on the water bill
is all that Council would want to do and not do other things such as include in the information on our
electronic signs or other forms of advertising.
Councilmember Boehme said he does not want to layer this to death, but just wants an MOU that
will allow the WUESF to provide information in our water bills and if there is any additional cost then
they must bear that cost. He said we need to draft this as narrow as needed to move forward.
Councilmember Boehme amended his motion to read that Council instructs the staff to work with
the City Attorney to come up with an MOU between the West University Elementary School
Foundation, Inc., and the City of West University Place to allow them to place a printed message on
the City's water bill at no cost to the City. Councilmember Segal said his second stands.
Mayor Kelly said he has a lot of love for the West University Elementary School, but his reservation
is that this may be a slippery slope and the question is where would we draw the line? He said the
first analogy is St. Marks, because it is a school that is located in West University and contributes to
the property values of West University Place; so, he could see where it would be very hard pressed
to refuse St. Mark's the same privilege to have their fundraiser advertised in our water bills. He said
this is his only reservation.
Councilmember Boehme said he is perfectly prepared to draw the line at this time for public schools
located entirely inside the City of West University Place. He said a future Council may have
another request and if he is on that Council he would listen to those requests, but at this time West
University Elementary School is in dire need of our assistance and this would be a token of our
appreciation for all they do for this City.
7of8
City Council Minutes, January 24, 2011
Councilmember Segal said when it is shown that the WUESF satisfies the three-prong test, he
thinks its MOU will be unique to West U as a public entity and as our showcase H.I.S.D. school.
At this time a vote was made to the motion by Councilmember Boehme and second by
Councilmember Segal. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes:
Kelly, Boehme, Guffey, Segal
Noes:
None
Absent:
Fry
11. Reports by Council/Staff
No reports.
12. Adjourn
With no other business before Council, Mayor for the Day McManus moved to adjourn the meeting
at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Guffey seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent
Meeting Adjourned.
P
Kelly, Boehme, Guffey, Segal
None
Fry
Thelma A. Lenz, City Secretary
Date Approved:
8of8
Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Report
City of West
University Place
January 24, 2011
Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Report
Table of Contents
Introduction
Mission Statement from Council 2
West University Place Town Center 2
The Retail District 2
Edloe Retail Block Defined 4
Summary of the Existing Edloe Block 6
Current Commercial Provisions of Zoning Regulations 6
Committee's Approach to Recommendations 8
Challenges Facing Retail Property Owners ...................................................................9
Prior Nonconforming (PNC) Status ................................................................................9
Fragmented Ownership 10
Leasehold Interests 10
Economic Viability 10
Utility Easements 10
Buffering I I
Conclusions and Recommendations 12
Town Center Retail District Zoning Designation 13
Recommendations for Town Center Retail District 14
Use Restrictions 14
New Development 14
Building Setbacks 15
Height Restrictions 16
Parking Requirements 17
Ingress and Egress 18
Buffering Requirements 18
Open Area/Pervious Area 19
Possible Governmental Participation 19
Illustrations of Recommendations ................................................................................20
Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................28
Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Participants 29
Exhibits 30
INTRODUCTION
The Mayor and City Council appointed this Town Center Ad Hoc Committee ("the
Committee") in February 2010 to consider the issues associated with the status of Town
Center. Council recognized the challenges in applying the current commercial provisions of
the zoning regulations (Prior Nonconforming Use Exception) to future redevelopment in
Town Center, and nearby residents had expressed their concern as well about recent
redevelopments. Council solicited volunteers to serve on the ad hoc committee, followed up
by personal interviews with each applicant. Council selected the final Committee members
from this group. Appointed as liaisons from the city were Chris Peifer, Assistant City Manager
and Public Works Director, and Debbie Scarcella, City Planner.
The Committee met on average three times per month over a ten-month period and spent
over 500 hours studying this matter. Other than the $300 cost of two aerial photographs, the
Committee incurred no expenses. Other members of our city and community donated time
and professional services to the Committee. Their generosity and expertise have been an
invaluable contribution to the Committee's efforts and the Committee would like to thank
them for volunteering their time.
The greatest issue facing both the city and the owners of the property in the Town Center
Retail District is the reconstruction or redevelopment of improvements under the existing
commercial provisions of the zoning regulations. As will be shown, should any of the current
improvements suffer damage and the reconstruction not fall under the Prior Nonconforming
Use Exception contained in the commercial provisions of the zoning regulations, the owners
would be challenged and, in most cases, unable to replace the destroyed improvements. The
current requirements (e.g., setbacks, height, and parking) are so restrictive that the 6100 -
6200 block of Edloe, for example, would likely be redeveloped with only half of the leasable
space that exists today. Furthermore, the current commercial provisions of the zoning
regulations do not include any restrictions addressing the nearby residents should
reconstruction occur. For example, there is no language in the regulations regarding buffering
any improvements (i.e., noise, light) from the surrounding residential properties.
The Committee studied three potential scenarios that were deemed feasible. They include:
1. Redevelopment or reconstruction of individual tracts under the current commercial
provisions of the zoning regulations.
2. Redevelopment or reconstruction of individual tracts under the Committee's
proposed commercial provisions of the zoning regulations.
3. Redevelopment of all individual tracts under a common development plan under the
Committee's proposed regulations.
The Committee was in agreement that all three scenarios should be plausible for the
commercial property owners. Overly restrictive commercial provisions to the zoning
regulations were viewed as possible deterrents to redevelopment, potentially creating an area
of urban blight in the center of West University Place.
Mission Statement from Council
To explore options for creating a mixed-use development envelope and palette for a Town
Center Zoning district, thus facilitating the opportunity to encourage appropriate and
community redevelopment with relief from traditional zoning requirements, encompassing the
analysis and proposal of a Town Center zoning district if appropriate. This exploration will
include but not be limited to building height and setback, pedestrian friendly access, parking,
buffering and ultimate feasibility.
West University Place Town Center
The West University Place Town Center is defined in the Comprehensive Plan of West
University Place, Art 8.0 1, as the 25 acres consisting of West University Elementary School, the
city's Administration Building and related facilities, West University Baptist Church, Harris
County Library Branch, West University Methodist Church and the Retail District on Edloe.
See Exhibit A of the Appendix.
Retail District
The Retail District is defined as the 3.16 acres made up of seven (7) contiguous parcels of land,
covering the 6000 - 6200 blocks of Edloe Street. University Boulevard is the southern
boundary, Georgetown Street the northern boundary, Poor Farm Ditch the eastern boundary
and Edloe Street the western boundary.
Each parcel is owned by a different individual or entity. Other than the Thompson & Hanson
property, all parcels have a depth of 155 feet. The widths vary with the widest parcel boasting
454 feet of linear frontage (Thompson & Hanson) and the narrowest with 20 feet of linear
frontage (Edloe Cafe & Catering). All seven (7) parcels are currently improved with a principal
structure. With the exception of the Thompson & Hanson Building, which is under
redevelopment, all of the buildings in the Retail District are 100% leased and occupied.
2
The following aerial illustrates the location of the Retail District, the configuration of each
property and their owners.
TOWN CENTER RETAIL DISTRICT
Most of the structures are 30 - 60 years old, and have been renovated to accommodate the
current tenants. All of the buildings are single story structures except for two. Together the
seven structures comprise a total gross leasable area of approximately 56,626 square feet. The
total number of on-site parking spaces is 166, equating to a parking ratio of 2.9 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. On the west side of Edloe (between Rice and
University Boulevards) there are an additional 45 parking spaces and on the north side of
University an additional 10 parking spaces. These spaces are shared between the retail, the
elementary school and the ball fields. This increases the number of total parking spaces to 221
and the parking ratio to 3.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area.
Edloe Retail Block ("Edloe Block") Defined
Shortly after the formation of this Committee, the building previously occupied by JMH
Grocery (located in the 6000 block of Edloe) was purchased by Thompson & Hanson, a local
landscape architecture firm. The owner announced plans to redevelop the site and open a
restaurant (Tiny's No. 5), similar to Tiny Boxwoods, their original restaurant at 3614 W.
Alabama. The scope of Thompson & Hanson's redevelopment involves taking a building
originally designed for a single user and converting it to a multi-tenant building to house Tiny's
No. 5, Texas Citizens National Bank, a small plant shop and an additional tenant to be
determined. Since this project is ongoing, the Committee decided to limit its focus to the 6100
- 6200 blocks of Edloe (between Rice and University Boulevards) in developing the
recommendations. To differentiate this section of the Retail District, we will refer to it in this
document as the "Edloe Retail Block," or simply the "Edloe Block."
The Edloe Block is comprised of six (6) tracts totaling 2.19 acres with a total gross leasable area
of approximately 45,719 square feet. The total number of parking spaces is 117, (including the
10 spots on the north side of University Blvd.) equating to a parking ratio of 2.6 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Including the spaces along the west side of Edloe
and the north side of University mentioned above, the parking ratio increases to 3.5 spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The six (6) buildings currently house approximately 20
different businesses, all locally owned and operated with the exception of one national retail
operation, BBVA Compass Bank.
4
The following illustration is an aerial view of the businesses in the Edloe Block.
TOWN 'CENTER RETAIL DISTRICT
BUSINESSES
Below is a summary of the existing conditions pertaining to property size, the
improvements and parking for each property located in the Edloe Block. Note that
the parking spaces on the west side of Edloe and north side of University Boulevard
are included in this summary.
Summary of the Existing Improvements Edloe Block
Owner
Acres
Sq. Ft.
Improvements
Total
Parking
Parking
Ratio Per
Thousand
Square
3642 University Partners, LP
0.44
19,375
14,627
28
1.9:1
6203 Edloe Partnership, LP
0.60
21,313
7,380
24
3.3:1
Stockard Realty Partnership, Ltd.
0.26
13,563
5,815
7
1.2:1
West University Masonic Lodge
0.18
7,750
7,896
6
0.8:1
Janet Carter
0.07
3,100
1,484
0
0.0:1
Alan Hassenflue & Scott Luther
0.83
37,200
8,517
52
6.1:1
CURRENT COMMERCIAL PROVISIONS OF
ZONING REGULATIONS:
With the exception of the Town Center, all land in West University Place zoned for
commercial use/development is located along the city's major thoroughfares, on the periphery
of the city. (Refer to Exhibit B for copy of City Zoning Map).
The density of homes, city amenities, churches, West University Place Elementary School and
its sports complex make the Town Center an area that is heavily frequented by our residents.
This is the most "urban" area within the city, where pedestrian and vehicular traffic can be
relatively high. Despite its uniqueness, the Retail District is currently subject to the same
provisions of the zoning regulations as all commercial properties on Kirby Drive, Bissonnet
Street and Holcombe Boulevard. However, as mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan,
no other commercial/retail area of the city plays such a vital role in the quality of
life for the citizens of West University Place.
The following list summarizes the commercial provisions under West University Place's current
zoning regulations for all land within the City of West University Place zoned for commercial
use/development, including Town Center.
• Setbacks: 30' front, S' side, 15' street side, and 5' at the rear
• Building Height: 35' maximum, but building adjacent to single family is limited in height to
the distance from the single family property line.
• Open Area 15% of site
• Pervious area I S% of site
6
• Parking Requirements: Generally 5 per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area.
However, depending on the classification of use, the range is 4 - 10 parking spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Parking must also be on-site and is limited to
surface parking (No parking above or below grade).
• Classification of Use: Light and Medium. Refer to Appendix A of the City Code of
Ordinances:
http://Iibra!:X.municode.com/index.aspx?clientld= 14072&stateld=43&stateName=Texas
The following sketch shows the Edloe Block with the various setbacks and existing easements
to so that the reader can visualize the restrictions which are affecting the Edloe Block.
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY SETBACKS
CURRENT COMMERCIAL CODE
7
PERMISSIBLE BUIWWGAREA
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
UTILITY EASEMENT
Committee's Approach to Recommendations
Careful consideration was given by the Committee before proposing any changes in the
commercial provisions of the zoning regulations with respect to following:
• Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of West University Place and the betterment
of the quality of life for West University Place citizens
• The needs of the Edloe Block property owners and their tenants
• Allowing property owners to redevelop their tracts before obsolescence of
improvements or after partial or total destruction of these improvements
• Economic viability
• Compatibility with residents' lifestyles and adequate buffering for the residential
properties in proximity to the Edloe Block
In its first meeting, the Committee decided not to fulfill this task in a theoretical vacuum, but to
start by verifying the issues facing the current owners of the Edloe Block properties (including
Thompson & Hanson). Each owner was invited to appear at a Committee meeting to discuss
the advantages and disadvantages they face under the current commercial provisions of the
zoning regulations. The owners were also asked about the general terms of their current leases,
rental rates, and their plans, if any, to redevelop their property. Each owner was also asked to
identify the key issue he or she believed would have the most impact on redevelopment of their
tract. Without exception, the parking situation was cited as having the most impact on
redevelopment. Two other key themes that came out of the interviews were 1) there is a
significant demand for both office and retail space in the Edloe Block, (some owners had a
waiting list), and 2) there was no consensus among property owners with respect to any
property redevelopment.
Following the completion of the interviews, the Committee met at the Edloe Block and walked
the site to further understand the current easements, setbacks and utilities. The on-site visit
also provided the Committee the opportunity to confirm the parking availability. The next step
was to create a potential plan(s) to use as the model or "envelope" to help the Committee
establish its recommendations for amending the commercial provisions of the zoning
regulations. This pragmatic approach was taken to ensure that the Committee's
recommendations were accurate, realistic, and sensitive to the needs of both commercial and
residential property owners.
After these parameters were established, the architect on the Committee and another local
architect (a resident of West University Place) volunteered their time and services both
independently and in a final joint effort to produce various schematics to illustrate the proposed
recommendations. Using this information, the Committee collaborated to propose
amendments to the current commercial provisions of the zoning regulations as are further
outlined in this report.
8
CHALLENGES FACING RETAIL PROPERTY OWNERS
The Committee identified key issues that have a direct impact on the Edloe Block which are
Prior Nonconforming (PNC) status, fragmented ownership, leasehold interests, economic
viability, an existing utility easement and the need for buffering to protect the interests of
nearby residential property owners. These issues are discussed in greater detail below.
1) PRIOR NONCONFORMING (PNC) STATUS: The majority of the existing
structures in the Edloe Block predate the current commercial provisions of the zoning
regulations enacted in 1987. Any type of redevelopment activity (voluntary or
involuntary) would trigger loss of PNC status granted to these sites when the 1987
regulations were enacted. Should a partial destruction occur, the improvements could
be rebuilt under the PNC Use Exception, assuming such partial destruction did not
exceed the limitations contained in the commercial provisions of the zoning regulations.
However, dependence on PNC Use Exception for reconstruction would result in
limited redevelopment opportunities. New construction, on the other hand, would
require full compliance with the current regulations, which are very restrictive.
As illustrated below the developable square footage for each individual site after
applying the restrictions in the current commercial provisions of the zoning regulations
(assuming a property owner wished to maintain the current use of their tract, i.e., a
building currently used as a restaurant would be rebuilt as a restaurant) is drastically
reduced, making it economically challenging for some owners to redevelop their tracts.
Failure to redevelop would result in a reduction in the tax base to the city, with the
vacant land potentially leading to blight in the Town Center.
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY" RF,DFVFI.OPMF_N'T
COMPLIANT WITII CURRENT COMMERCIAL CODE
9
WE BUILDING Foo~RIW
MI MI DRAINAGE EASEMENT
UTILR EASEMENT
a
2) FRAGMENTED OWNERSHIP: The six (6) tracts along the Edloe Block are owned
separately. After meeting with the property owners, it became apparent that currently
there is no consensus among the owners regarding redevelopment. Since some
property owners are not supportive of a joint development at this time, it is most likely
that that the individual owners would redevelop their tracts on their own and at
different times. Aesthetically, this type of redevelopment could result in a lack of
continuity or common design in the Edloe Block. Financially, the property owners
would not experience the same economies of scale with respect to costs and efficiency
in meeting the common area requirements (e.g. driveways, dumpsters, grease traps,
lighting, or parking) that a joint redevelopment effort would leverage. Property owners
would not be the only ones to benefit from such a joint development. With fewer curb
cuts, dumpsters, grease traps and additional parking, the City of West University Place
would benefit from a cleaner, less congested environment.
3) LEASEHOLD INTERESTS: The improvements in the Edloe Block are fully leased
under varying terms. Some leases contain options to extend the lease beyond the
expiration of the primary term. A number of leases will expire in 2015 if not
renegotiated. Any redevelopment will have to address the leasehold interests and their
right to occupancy. The Committee did not interview any of the tenants.
4) ECONOMIC VIABILITY: The decision by a commercial property owner to
reconstruct any improvements (under a PNC Use Exception) or redevelop under the
commercial provisions of the zoning regulations would be predicated upon the
economic viability of the project; these investment properties are held for profit. Any
recommendations made by the Committee take this into consideration.
5) UTILITY EASEMENT:
Poor Farm Ditch is part of the Harris County Flood Control District and is the Edloe
Block's eastern boundary running north/south and bisecting the city. This 50 year-old,
30 foot wide concrete-lined ditch channels storm water from West University Place
into Braes Bayou to the south. The eastern property line of each parcel in the Edloe
Block starts from the center of Poor Farm Ditch, and the western property line extends
to within 5 feet of the curb along Edloe Street.
A 25 foot utility easement granted to CenterPoint Energy 40+ years ago starts in the
center of the ditch and extends 10 feet beyond the banks of the ditch. This additional
10 foot public easement affects every parcel in the Edloe Block and cannot contain
structures of any kind. judging from the Committee's on-site visit, it appears that most
properties in the Edloe Block are not compliant with this easement. With a block depth
of only 155 feet, this easement is a major constraint to any future redevelopment,
regardless of whether the site maintains its PNC status or not. When taking into
consideration the depth of the Edloe Block, the easements, setbacks, sidewalks, and
required parking, the actual buildable area on these sites is very tight. (Refer to
"Individual Property Setbacks Current Commercial Code", page 9)
10
6) BUFFERING:
Under PNC Status, the commercial provisions of the zoning regulations are either very
lax, dated or non-existent regarding buffering of improvements from the residential
neighborhood. For example, the noise generated from mechanical equipment and an
outdoor dining area is disturbing the quiet enjoyment of homeowners in the nearby
residences. Given the "urban" character of the land which makes up the Edloe Block,
adequate buffering should be addressed in any proposed changes to the commercial
provisions of the zoning regulations to ensure that any future redevelopment is
compatible with nearby residents. Considerations pertaining to this issue are as follows:
• Noise: Though the current zoning regulations address noise levels, the decibel limit
is very high compared to other cities' standards. Tightening the restrictions would
ensure that future redevelopment does not result in a nuisance to neighboring
residential property owners, especially at certain hours of the day.
• Odors: Restaurant vents, garbage dumpsters and grease traps should be contained
on the property and not be a nuisance to the surrounding neighbors.
• Lighting: Lighting should be shaded or filtered so that lights do not intrude on the
neighboring residential property owners.
• Visual: Overlook into neighboring residential properties should be avoided.
• Orientation of Improvements: The current orientation of improvements does
not provide for adequate buffering, pedestrian safety or efficient traffic flow, and is
contrary to the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan.
11
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current commercial provisions of the zoning regulations are considered by this Committee
to be out-of-date, too restrictive, and present the biggest challenge with respect to 1)
preserving the existing improvements in the Edloe Block, 2) allowing the redevelopment of
these sites either individually or as one large contiguous Edloe Block development, and 3)
preventing a situation where the Edloe Block is reduced to empty lots or vacant structures. As
previously noted, should any of the current improvements be destroyed by a catastrophic
event, these sites would lose PNC status and new construction would require redevelopment
in full compliance with the current regulations. As a result, the economic viability would be in
jeopardy, creating an option for owners to abandon their sites. In the event that these tracts
were not redeveloped, the city would experience a loss of both ad valorem and sales taxes.
Moreover, the West University Place community would suffer the loss of a very popular city
amenity.
Sustaining and improving the use, appeal, and economic viability of the Edloe Block is an integral
part of the city's Comprehensive Plan. In order for the city to achieve its objectives under the
Plan, adopting a revised set of zoning regulations specific to the Edloe Block is advisable to help
ensure its useful life and economic longevity. The aforementioned challenges and issues
pertaining to redevelopment validate the need to modify and provide relief from current
setbacks, height restrictions, parking and pervious area restrictions pertaining specifically to this
urban commercial tract.
It is therefore the recommendation of this Committee that the Zoning & Planning
Commission and City Council approve the establishment of a new Commercial
Zoning designation for the "Town Center Edloe Retail District," amending the
current commercial provisions of the zoning regulations which govern this area.
12
TOWN CENTER RETAIL DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION
The Town Center Retail District (or "TCRD") Designation would create an "envelope" or
palette for encouraging the renovation, redevelopment and beautification of the TCRD
pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 8, Article 8.02). The Committee's proposed
amendments take into consideration the following:
• Redevelopment of an individual owner's property;
• Redevelopment by a joint venture between owners of two or more properties;
and
• Redevelopment of the entire Edloe Block under either a single owner or joint
venture, with a plan to construct a single mixed-use development.
Though there is a strong probability that redevelopment efforts in the Edloe Block in the near
term will progress more individually than jointly, the Committee focused on the long-term.
Consideration was given to increased construction and land costs in the future, with the
ultimate goal to develop recommendations that would serve the city and community for many
years to come.
In addition to the standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, key considerations examined
by this Committee regarding the creation of this new designation were:
• Compatibility with nearby single family homes, West University Place Elementary,
parks, fields, the Scout House, and city government facilities
• Adequate parking for businesses and other Town Center activities
• Promotion of a pedestrian-friendly environment
• Better utilization of this "urban" commercial block - "A place to live, work, and
play"
• Economic viability today and 50 years from now
• Redevelopment to become more of an asset/complement to our community
• Improved traffic flow at all hours
The following recommendations should only apply to future development or
reconstruction.
13
Recommendations for Town Center Retail District
A) Use Restrictions:
Recommendation
• Permitted Uses - Retail and Office (business, medical and food service) uses only
• Restricted Uses - Residential use of any kind, bars or nightclubs, entertainment
venues, sexually oriented businesses, automotive businesses, car washes, pool halls,
gambling establishments or businesses with any gambling equipment (if allowed by
state law in the future), surgical use, and emergency clinics
Reasoning:
Retail, office, medical and food service are commercial classifications and represent the types of
businesses most compatible with the nearby residential environment. Should a mixed-use
development be proposed, it is the opinion of this Committee that the development should be
comprised of office over retail versus residential over retail for the following reasons: 1) retail
and office uses are within the city's commercial classification, 2) townhomes, condominiums
and/or apartments are not a commercial classification and are only permitted on the periphery
of the city, and 3) commercial uses would be less intrusive on the neighborhood in terms of
noise and light.
The restricted uses reflect the type of business establishments that the Committee deemed
either undesirable or incompatible with the TCRD and the overall community. This is not an
exhaustive list; the Zoning & Planning Commission should study this matter further.
B) New Development:
Recommendation
• New buildings are to front on Edloe, Rice or University and should be constructed
at the building setback lines.
• Structural frames are to be steel or reinforced concrete
• Exterior finishes are to be of the same quality and durability as other structures in
the Town Center which include educational, religious and governmental facilities.
(Per Buildings and Standards Commission, examples of acceptable materials include
brick, natural and cast stone, and glazing systems)
Reasoning:
Reconstruction of the TCRD will frame the eastern edge of the West University Town Center.
New structures will have common frontages along Edloe, Rice and University. This orientation
and a uniform palette of materials will provide continuity of future development. The building
lines would allow a minimum 15 foot roadside zone on each of the three streets to
accommodate building access, walkways, furnishings and landscaping. Outdoor seating is
encouraged in this sidewalk and clear zone on the opposite side of the site from the adjacent
residences.
14
C) Building Setbacks:
Recommendation
• Edloe Street - 10 feet from property line
• Rice Boulevard - 0 feet (Fagade 16' from property line to curb)
• University Boulevard - 5 feet from property line (31 feet from property line to
curb)
• Poor Farm Ditch - 25 feet from property line (20 feet if easement reduced)
• Interior tracts - 0 feet/Common Walls permitted.
ReasoninQ•
• With the block depth of only 155 feet in the Edloe Block (including a 10 foot utility
easement), the buildable area is very tight by industry standards. Maximizing the total
buildable area is imperative for economic viability.
• If a redevelopment plan for the entire block were considered, a developer might seek a
reduction of the utility easement by 5 feet (or half), for example. The support of the city
would be needed to obtain this reduction from the utility company. The Committee
researched this issue and identified the recent expansion of The River Oaks Shopping
Center (Weingarten Realty, Inc.) as a recent project where a local developer was successful
in negotiating a reduction in a utility easement under almost identical conditions.
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY SETBACKS
15
~ PERMISSIBLE BIIILDiNG AREl1 i`~
tv DRAINAGE EASEMENT f~~L/1
lRIL1TV EASEMENT
D) Height Restrictions
Recommendation:
• 35 foot maximum building height, consistent with current zoning regulations
• The Zoning and Planning Commission should consider a special exemption provision
to provide an option for a unified development provided certain conditions are met.
At that time, consideration should be given to a maximum building height of 42 feet
for the building roof for the westernmost 60 feet along Edloe Street, with an
allowance of up to 3 feet above roof line for any type of architectural screen.
Improvements to be limited to 3 floors.
Reasoning:
Without provisions for adequate density, it would be difficult for an owner in the Edloe Block
to replace existing improvements at current costs and be in compliance with the current
commercial provisions of the zoning regulations and the building codes. These costs have
grown significantly in the 24 years since the current regulations were enacted in 1987. In the
future, to achieve an increase in density, it may be necessary to provide an option for a three
story structure. The maximum building height of 42 feet was derived by taking current building
practices in retail, office and mixed-use development and applying them to the building envelope
for redevelopment in the Edloe Block. Additionally, to provide for screening of any roof-top
mechanical equipment from the eye of the public, an allowance of 3 feet for any type of
architectural screen is suggested. This would increase the total building height to 45 feet. It is
highly unlikely that any single owner could economically develop their property to this height.
However, a common or joint development of a significant portion of the Edloe Block might
entertain this option, developing a property that would provide even more services for our
community, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Under the current commercial provisions of the zoning regulations, the maximum height for a
single family home or commercial building is 35 feet. Therefore, the Committee recommends
that structures erected along the rear of every site (eastern most 70 feet of buildable area),
closest to the homes which abut Poor Farm Ditch, should not be greater than the maximum
height of a single family home.
Restricting the Edloe Block to a maximum height of 35 feet in perpetuity would limit
redevelopment to a maximum of two stories, which may not be economically viable in the
future. It should be noted that this would not be the first structure in West University Place to
exceed the maximum building height under current zoning regulations. The recent addition to
the West University Place Elementary School currently stands at 42.7 feet. Additionally, a
number of churches exceed the current 35 feet restriction.
16
i'S n
'n10~sT i, Cc&vo!Vvu+
✓N11.ClLb,~T~I ~I.L~j. <
±151
45' SPECIAL EXCEPTION
,JL, 35'
1& t
E) Parking Requirements:
v~1
TMM
Recommendation
• Minimum Parking Ratio of 2 per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA),
regardless of use.
• Parking may be surface or structured parking above grade. Structured parking below
grade shall not be permitted.
• Structured Parking Regulations:
0 35 feet - Maximum height of the structure;
o No speed bumps (which create noise);
o Open ventilation (avoids forced ventilation, which also contributes to noise);
o All floors should be illuminated during evening hours of operation. Lighting
on the top floor to be designed to avoid light pollution in surrounding
residential properties; and
o Exterior materials should be chosen from materials approved by the Building
and Standards Commission. See Section B, "New Development" for
examples of acceptable materials.
Reasoning:
This subject matter was discussed by the Committee at nausea. The recommended parking
ratio is absolutely the only practical and feasible solution that allows for the property owners in
the TCRD to redevelop their properties with the same building area that exists today without
requiring property owners to take on the costs of structured parking. Given the urban
17
characteristic of the TCRD, it is the opinion of the Committee that traditional parking ratios
(number of required parking space per thousand square feet of gross leasable area) not be
followed. The rationale here is not to let the types of business dictate the number of parking
spaces required (which would increase the number of parking spaces and vehicular traffic), but
to both allow the number of parking spaces to dictate the types of businesses in the Edloe
Block and to encourage residents to walk to the TCRD. Despite the fact that the demand on
parking can be strong in the TCRD due to the businesses, school and city amenities located in
Town Center, peak periods of demand are staggered throughout the day and school week.
Therefore, the Committee anticipates that neither congestion nor overflow parking in
neighboring streets would be problematic. The attached Parking Study (Exhibit C) for the
parking space usage estimates further supports the Committee's reduced parking
recommendations. Allowing structured parking in the Edloe Block may be the only opportunity
that the City of West University Place may ever have to add parking spaces in Town Center.
As previously noted, with the close proximity of the elementary school, ball fields, churches,
city offices and Scout House to the TCRD, demand on parking can be extraneous at certain
times of the day. No sites exist in Town Center that could alleviate this demand except for
the property that makes up the Edloe Block.
The Committee feels that making allowances for such structures promotes smart development
and bodes well for the future of Town Center. It should be further noted that today's
structured parking lots are constructed using attractive materials that result in softer, more
attractive structures that conceal cars and either blend in easier with its surroundings and/or be
camouflaged from the eye of the public.
F) Ingress and Egress:
Recommendation
Curb cuts should continue to be permitted on Rice and Edloe and should be allowed on
University to help promote optimal traffic flow as well as ease of ingress/egress into
these properties. Furthermore, these curb cuts allow for the buildings on these sites to
be oriented to Edloe, hence allowing for the TCRD to be more pedestrian friendly and
safer for citizens traversing from one end of the TCRD to the other. This matter is
addressed further in Exhibit C.
G) Buffering Requirements:
Recommendation:
• Noise - Current 24-hour limit of 70 decibels should be reduced. As an example,
note the decibel standards established below:
City Daytime Nighttime (10 pm - 7 am)
Houston 65 dB 58 dB
Austin 55 dB 45 dB
Some cities have introduced a third tier for 7:00 pm -10:00 pm as well.
18
Outdoor Seating should be located to the street side of the development and, if
located on Rice or University, be shielded from the surrounding residential
neighborhood by a sound and light wall to buffer the noise. All mechanical
equipment should also be located on top of or immediately behind any principal
building and be shielded from surrounding residential neighborhood by a barrier.
• Odors - Grease traps to be located along Edloe Street. Owners should be required
to house all dumpsters inside a trash enclosure comprised of four walls and a top.
• Light - Lighting should be properly screened so that it does not project into the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
• Visual Buffering Zone - Along the east side of each of the properties in the Edloe
Block there should be a landscaped buffering zone, which may be included in the
overall calculation of the pervious area mentioned below. The buffering zone should
be landscaped with both trees and other durable, desirable vegetation. The primary
purpose of this zone would be to minimize the transfer of light and noise from the
rear portion of the commercial buildings to the nearby residential properties.
Reasoning:
The development should be buffered from the surrounding residential neighborhood to lessen
the intrusion of the improvements and its users into these properties. Currently, the greatest
issues with the businesses located in the TCRD are the undesired noise, odors and light.
H) Open Area/Pervious Area:
Recommendation
• 10% Pervious area which may include the landscape area, tree planters, "green"
roofs and any pavers utilized in the parking area.
I) Possible Governmental Participation
Consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan, parking, streetscaping/landscaping, and
the right-sizing and relocation of utilities were identified as areas where the city has an
opportunity to encourage as well as set an aesthetic standard for the acceptable
redevelopment of a key area of the Town Center. Most notably, the entire area suffers
from an acute shortage of usable vehicular parking, which was confirmed by the
commercial property owners interviewed.
The Committee consulted with Weingarten Realty, who recently completed a parking
structure for a local two story retail development. From that conversation it was
agreed that a cost of $15,000 - $18,000 per parking space would be a realistic
assumption. It is unlikely that a developer of either a portion of, or the entire Edloe
Block could afford the cost of such a parking structure.
19
In other local developments, municipalities have subsidized the cost of parking
structures through various financial strategies. In light of this, it may be advisable for the
City of West University Place to consider options in the event that a unified
development becomes a reality, especially as the city's debt service related to
infrastructure declines over time. By being prepared for such an eventuality, the city
would be poised to encourage redevelopment of this area, making it attractive to a
tenant mix consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, realizing the city's goal for a Town
Center that enhances the quality of life for the residents of West University Place.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following site plans and building elevation renderings assist in visualizing the impact of our
recommendations and illustrate a potential design for redevelopment from a common
perspective and scale. In addition, we have included a summary of the current and proposed
GLA, per tract, for each property owner in the TCRD. The full description of each is detailed
below:
Individual Property Redevelopment Compliant with Proposed Commercial Code
• Site Plan
• Building Elevation
• Building Elevation of Before vs. After
• Chart - Summary illustrating the impact of the Current and Proposed Commercial
Code on TCRD
Overall Block Redevelopment Compliant with Proposed Commercial Code
• Site Plan
• Building Elevation
• Building Elevation Before vs. After
20
w
Q
0
U
U
x
w
O
D
w
a.
O
a
N
z
d
0.
O
U
z
w
a
O
w
w
w
w
a
O
a
Q
Q
Q
z
t
z
W W
o W
u W Q
2 (a{~{ W
J J
m o D
N
z
a
op
uC
F- u
w¢
O
w~
w
~ C
> LL:
vn
N O
O
o
a
.J F^
z
M
N
o\°
mc
^
M
co
^
M
O
N
r4
Yn1 U
;.-rs,
N
M
C
w
C>
%D
v
C LL~
N
N
co
00
V-
N
cC N
=
Lr
`0
n
Ln
_
^
L11
~ al
O
O
L LL
Ln
Ln
O
O
~
O
M
N
N
N
%p
a O
O u
L
be
O
O
O~
O
p~
R c
~
O
O
r
e
p
O
°
U
%
0
M
~
~
°
N
1,
0
i
o
v
a
c Li
1
L
Go
m
11,
00
OD
Ln
-
40
a,
00
00
V,
^
Go
U C
od
C
N C%F
v. t
u
o
0
0
0
0
c LL:
i
~
a00
coo
0
'
Lon
°D
L. C L/
L. C
L<1
-
N
06
N
0
V' N
a
y ~a
O
N
C)
Ln
%0
%
L
ei
M
Go -
0
00
co
V-
Ln
L
>
d
ri
Lri
ri
-
co
Ln
V
'Q
^
M
rn
O
O
O
C LL
M
M
Ln
Ln
O
fV
M
J N
Q`
-
M
n
M
M
p
J
V
L
J
L
L
0
a
0)
n
C
L
y
L
yC
L
m
L
06
~~,i
L
d
Q)
C
~
d
V aJ
L
L
Ln
. L
.V
C
N
Ld
p
0,0
10
LC
U
a)
s
`J
a
~
N
d
m J
aLi 0
a) a,
:3
0
L-
L
cli
0
> J
N
0 J
CL
>
0
d
C
p
ro
L
w
N
M
-le
_A
M-
N
O
Q
'0
fn
M
'IT
cq
w
Q
O
U
W
U
C. ce
w
0
W
>O
LQU
Q
W
UQ
00
fY1 p..
oQ
a
a
0
~lv
w w
p w
LL
Z Q~Q W>
p Z F
J_ J
7 r
CD O 7
1l
x
H
3
z
a
a w
a. O
~C
~v
u~
w
G
Q
WC
[z] u
~ ~
Ca] L'.j
~ N
G~-
~ ~
Gt.'
rl-
N
CONCLUDING REMARKS
After concluding its investigation of the issues facing the Retail District, it is the unanimous
opinion of this Committee that City Council along with the Zoning and Planning Commission
should initiate the required actions to begin the process of codifying the various
recommendations made in this Report. Understanding that the public process of modifying
ordinances is long and involved, with a great deal of input from the citizens of West University
Place, the Committee anticipates that adopting some of these recommendations will take many
months.
Given the unique character of the area, the age of the buildings in the Retail District, and its
importance to the quality of life for the residents of West University Place, the Committee
believes that the time to act is now, and strongly encourages Council and the Zoning and
Planning Commission to move forward in ensuring that the City of West University Place
meets and exceeds the objectives stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
This Committee wishes to thank City Council for the opportunity to provide this Council, the
Zoning and Planning Commission, and the residents of the City of West University Place with
our review and recommendations. It has been an exhaustive yet rewarding exercise and this
Committee, to a person, feels honored to have been of service to our community.
28
Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Participants:
The Town Center Ad Hoc Committee is made up of eleven (11) members, including nine (9)
residents of West University Place and two (2) city employees. The committee volunteers
were selected by Mayor Bob Kelly, City Council Members George Boehme, Bob Fry, Chuck
Guffey, Steven Segal, and Committee Chair Bruce Frankel. The committee members were
selected primarily on their area of expertise and experience applicable to the task at hand.
Two of the four homeowners who own homes directly behind the Edloe Block volunteered for
a seat on the committee and were chosen to serve M.
Committee Members:
City Residents
Bruce W. Frankel (Chair) - Retail Developer/Broker (Principal)
Connie Clark- Retired Traffic Engineer/Harris County
*Albert Kelso - Retired Businessman and Real Estate Attorney
Josh Marcell - Real Estate Transaction Advisor/UGL Equis
Larkin Matthews - Home Builder (Principal)
Mike McEnany - Retired Architect
*Lynn Nesbitt - Manager at AIG
Joe Priske - Developer (Principal)
John Tsertos - Construction/Development Company (Principal)
City Staff Liaisons
Chris Peifer- West University Place/Public Works Director
Debbie Scarcella - West University Place/City Planner
Contributing Parties:
Marc Boucher - Hermes Architects, Inc. (Partner/West U Resident)
James D. Hill - Civic Design Associates (Principal)
Burdette Huffman - Weingarten Realty, Inc. (Director of New Development)
Reid C. Wilson - Wilson, Cribbs & Goren, P.C. (Partner/West U Resident)
Property Owners Interviewed:
Jim Reid/Michael Freedman (Gray Building) - 3642 University Boulevard
Jim Reid (Strip Center) - 6207 Edloe Street
Chip Stockard - Stockard Family Trust (Little Mates) - 6203 Edloe Street
Chris Black (Masonic Lodge) - 6125 Edloe Street
Janet Carter (Edloe St. Cafe & Catering) - 61 19 Edloe Street
Scot Luther/Alan Hassenflu (BBVA Compass Bank) - 61 15 Edloe Street
Gregg Thompson (Tiny's No. 5) - 3636 Rice Boulevard
29
Town Center Ad Hoc Committee Report
Exhibits
Comprehensive Plan (Pertinent Portion) ............................................A
West University Place Zoning Map .....................................................B
Parking Usage Study ..........................................................................C
Individual Property Setbacks - Current Commercial Code .....................D
Individual Property Setbacks - Proposed Commercial Code ...................E
Individual Property Redevelopment - Compliance with Current
Commercial Code .............................................................................F
Height Comparison of Local Structures ...............................................G
30
EXHIBIT "A"
CODE OF ORDINANCES
APPENDIX D-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ARTICLE VIII-TOWN CENTER
Section 8.01. - General.
(a)
Approximately a 25-acre area which includes West University Elementary, the City's administration
building and related facilities, West University Baptist Church, Harris County Library Branch, West
University Methodist Church and the retail area on Edloe constitute the Town Center. Most
interaction between citizens occurs in this area through municipal functions, educational activities,
shopping, religious activities/programs and youth sports. Much of the small town atmosphere so
prized by citizens of the City derives from the interactions in the Town Center. The Town Center is
a mixed use area, containing government, education, religious, recreation and retail uses. The
Town Center and its existing uses should be preserved and enhanced. Expansion should be
allowed only where appropriate so as to preserve a positive impact on the residential area, based
upon an individual consideration of the particular expansion.
Section 8.02. - Town Center Retail District.
(a)
(b)
The economic viability of the Town Center Retail District on Edloe should be preserved to benefit
City residents. The land in this area should be restricted to compatible commercial and other uses
and should be consistent with close proximity to single-family residential neighborhoods. These
areas must be buffered, screened, and regulated as to parking, height and density so as to
minimize any detrimental effects. Renovation, redevelopment and beautification of the area should
be encouraged. Techniques to encourage and support redevelopment should be explored. Input
from the business owners and operators is needed in developing new regulations.
The City should make necessary capital improvements to support and upgrade the Town Center
Retail District with specific emphasis on sidewalks, bicycle lanes, pedestrian crosswalks, lighting,
signs and parking.
EXHIBIT "B"
I
`
I?"
at T ry u, 7 V II
t
a l
Ltlp
~r+Ti f ~Fa L 4.~ ~e 1 -,-t' 91
t U 1 Y'N~ A7 ^f" 'Lr, F t `f W + A
El I-
Y
4
1
,
a
rL
~kd
3
_
{ (c. ;y -Y -r I i t o
R~ J,
1)
~ -r-nt{i 1 d ~9 9 ~ L
-Y3
€
1i-IF
t f r€I rT
s
mac h 1 I t
$
6 r I , '.S t. ~~yr.....-µµµ7.....- I T ppp yyy
I' i
CL
ks r-••z 1 I
71
4 l@ y~F3 Iii
H - rr`} Y 1 it~
r""
-
m
N
m'
TS 7r r
F I, i---•-T,-• i
a m C
Fs R^
F
t c {{f((-- y Y i i r~ iy`~
3
- =
I.{ n $ I f Y {Z }
r F ~ l 1 I `fitt
d
r
: i F+--F; rl+
-r'i"~
.
{'wl .
i
r
{
Y
~LJ
Lrr'm`7'YIY
1't F
.j
y
i~
t i
I Y
Y~' v44 '
1
1,
~ i r i i I
t t ...J K`. I -J. I
aTY' I#{ ~ t
7 § ST
1 r 3 le#~v 1~ 3 e~ '.;r,
41
F a d 4 4h i I} _ 1
71
bi •-ar-
I { 71~I~_ y C-r _
i
I
77T75:rT 777
~f:
A7
ki~ 21L
'
m
~Y
l
'lT
f
T
~F-
4 y
r'-
3~
#
3
_ r " f': .1 ems.
Gi r4'
w
:
s
s
F~ •..i K x--i, rl:y~vt 4,
Q
i
.
3 3' 1 ~ ~ ' ~ 4 y p 5 a HIM? } ~paa va'ae as a
pp~
e ~f~q
#
,
j
T~
~
F'
i
FS
~
'
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
F
~
g
i ~
z
gtigt r
;j
~T'
•
o
o
v
o
o
o ei
o ~ 5 fi
3 ~
;i~+
t
ttiiI I
i+J;
y
i~ ~'s~{9ii 3w fE;}; 1(1Q6Ya Ci S Al w M 2 3~ g
2i o P d
! pp
I
I
:~~I~p C k ~ {d~ a ~ ~ $ a ?
4 j q
EXHIBIT "C"
Parking Usage Study
To understand the effect of the Committee's proposed parking ratio of 2.0 parking spaces per
1,000 square foot of gross leasable area, the Committee requested the traffic engineer on the
committee prepare an informal review of parking usage for various uses that most likely will
occupy space in the Edloe Block. The Committee felt that this report was needed to better
appreciate the unique parking demand characteristics that may apply to Town Center and that
a reduced minimum parking requirement is sufficient for the TCRD. This is summarized in the
attached table which estimates the parking usage by hour by property.
The table was prepared based on the site plan for the Edloe Block entitled "Individual Property
Redevelopment Compliant with Proposed Commercial Code" which can be found on page 9.
The calculation was made with the best known available parking data collected and
summarized by time of day. For each property, the estimated average was drawn from the ITE
Parking Generation urban environment tables which include the variables of parking demand
affected by alternative modes of travel including transit, walking and bicycling.
The total number of parking spaces noted in the table (128) does not include the 45 spaces
along Edloe Street. However, when combining the on-street parking spaces to the on-site
parking spaces, the total number of parking spaces in the Edloe Block increases to 173.
According to the data, the period from 11:00am - 1:00pm daily has the heaviest demand on
parking with 153 spaces being used. Hence, the 173 parking spaces provided should be more
than adequate to meet the demand during this period.
As noted in the body of this report the current improvements on the Edloe Block comprised of
approximately 45,719 square feet has a parking ratio of 2.6 on-site parking spaces per 1,000
square feet of leasable area. However, an examination of the "Summary of Existing
Improvements Edloe Block" table on page 6 reveals that the total 117 parking spaces are
inefficiently allocated, such that several of the properties provide less than 1 parking space per
1,000 square feet of leasable area, while others provide up to 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
leasable area. For instance, presently customers are forced to use on-street parking and/or the
closest business' unused parking during the busy lunch hour.
Shared Parking
To improve the opportunity for shared parking, the Committee's Proposed Commercial Code
promotes parking to be organized to the rear of each property. With access from University
Boulevard and Rice Boulevard a more efficient and equitable organization of parking can be
achieved. Furthermore, adjoining businesses could be encouraged to enter into a reciprocal
parking easement agreement (REA) with each other in order to improve traffic flow as well as
increase the number of parking spaces by utilizing the boundary space between lots.
Driveways and University Boulevard Curb Cut
To enhance safety for pedestrians, reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflict, and to improve
traffic flow and egress/ ingress in the TCRD, the number of driveways onto Edloe Street should
be minimized. The curb cut on Rice Boulevard should be retained and a curb cut on University
Boulevard should be allowed to further promote a better flow of traffic and eliminate some
congestion on Edloe Street. Allowing an additional curb cut on University Boulevard is a
practical and necessary aspect of the design for enhancing the efficiency and organization of a
TCRD parking lot, and promotes safety for pedestrians. Moving all of the on-site parking to the
back of a new TCRD development creates a more organized and efficient parking lot with the
parking maneuvers separated from pedestrians. This follows the current trend for "Main
Street" and/or "Mixed-Use" developments, creating a more comfortable and pedestrian
friendly environment. A more attractive streetscape is also achieved. On-street parking on the
east side of Edloe Street was removed to make allowances for additional sidewalk space with
uniform building set-backs to accommodate a higher level of pedestrian and outdoor dining
activity.
A proper determination of the driveway specifications and flow characteristics can be resolved
by City staff with a traffic impact analysis for the redevelopment during the permitting process
when redevelopment occurs. For instance, a right-in/right-out only movement, from a new
driveway on University Boulevard, may be necessary.
Calculated On-Site Parking Ratios
Current Parking Code requires between 4 - 14 spaces per 1000 square feet of leasable area,
which is determined by use classification.
Currently, on-site parking for the businesses in the Edloe Block (totaling 45,719 square feet)
vary from less than 1 space per 1000 square feet of leasable area to 6 spaces per 1000 square
feet of leasable area, which equates to an average of 2.6 spaces per 1000 square feet of
leasable area.
The Committee's Proposed Commercial Code for the redevelopment of the Edloe Block
(totaling 61,000sf) allows for a parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of leasable area
regardless of the use classification.
Conclusion
Given that urban characteristics of the Edloe Block/TCRD, traditional parking requirements
should not be followed.
In evaluating the parking demand for a redevelopment of Edloe Block, it is apparent that the
total land available does not support redevelopment with the City's current (or "typical")
commercial parking requirement. Furthermore, such a "typical" commercial parking
requirement is not sensitive to the context of the site. The small commercial area of the Edloe
Block centrally nestled within a residential community demands a unique approach. Revising
the parking requirements is one of the strategies that should be considered to encourage a
more compact form of development, and to balance parking demand with the residential feel
of the community. This report is a beginning point for traffic analysis for an Edloe Block
redevelopment, but the results can be used to support moving away from minimum parking
requirements for a specific use that require abundant levels of parking, not feasible for the
Edloe Block.
(The Estimated Parking Usage Table can be found on the following page).
Analysis prepared by Connie E. Clark
Estimated Weekday Parking Usage based on Scenario of
Individual Property Redevelopment
Comoliant with Proposed Commercial Code
eekday
Tract 1,
2-Story
office
bldg,
urban
ract 2,
Apparel
Store
Tract 3,
High-
Turnover
Family
Restaurant
ract 4,
Medical-
Dental
Office Bldg
Tract 6*,
Sit-Down
Restaurant,
Shared
Parking
with Office
Bldg
ract 6*,
Walk-In
Bank/Office
ract 6*,
2-Story
Office Bldg,
urban
arking
Demand
Totals
Gross Leaseable Area
13,500
12,500
6,500
2,500
4,000
4,000
18,000
61,000 sf
Pkg spaces provided
31
25
15
5
52
128
n of
parked
cars/hour
12-4 am
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:OO AM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6:OO AM
0
0
10
0
3
0
0
13
7:00 AM
0
0
17
1
5
0
0
24 "
B:OO AM
6
0
22
4
7
0
0
40
9:00 AM
22
0
30
7
9
5
29
103
10:OO AM
29
0
34
9
10
8
39
128
11:00 AM
31
10
41
9
13
7
41
153
12:00 PM
31
0
41
8
13
8
41
142
1:00 PM
30
12
41
7
13
8
41
152
2:00 PM
31
12
21
8
6
9
41
129
3:00 PM
32
14
17
8
5
8
43
127
4:00 PM
32
9
17
8
5
8
43
122
5:00 PM
30
9
33
6
10
0
40
128
6:00 PM
30
7
34
0
10
0
40
120
7:00 PM
20
8
26
0
8
0
27
89
8:00 PM
0
7
26
0
8
0
0
41
9:00 PM
0
0
25
0
8
0
0
32
10:00 PM
0
0
19
0
6
0
0
25
11:00 PM
0
0
17
0
5
0
0
23
Average Peak Hour
Demand per 1000 sf
2.4
1.13
6.37
3.53
3.13
2.3
2.4
21.26
Note: Average statistical data derived from the 3rd Edition, Parking Generation, 2004. ITE Publication No.IR-034B.
*Space in the 26,000 sf office building on Tract 6 in the Individual Property Redevelopment exhibit was allocated as follows:
18,000 sf for office space, 4,000 sffor restaurant space, and 4,000 sf for a walk-in bank.
EXHIBIT "D"
Individual Property Setbacks - Current Commercial Code
[See attached]
U Q
¢O
~U
W~
~ W
O
O
Q ~
--LY
J
QU
z
a
Z
ES w
d 2 Z
N
W
J
M W LLLLLLL.111
z r
~ J
F
a ❑
EXHIBIT "E"
Individual Property Setbacks - Proposed Commercial Code
[See attached]
v~ W
~Q
¢O
t~ U
~v
F-' W
aQ
Q
O a
>O
Q0.
z
6
z
z
w h
m w w
uaJ ui
m w a
w
J
CL
EXHIBIT "F"
Individual Property Redevelopment
Compliant with Current Commercial Code
[See attached]
w
D
O
U
u
x
w
v
C.i
F
3
w
a
0
F-
z
w
0
a
w
w
C~
w
C4
a,
0
z
z
W Iz
F yNQ ~
O W W
0 w w
Z a }
O Z J
m O ~
EXHIBIT "G"
Height Comparison of Local Structures
[See attached]
h
a~
z
w
wx
w
3
r
S
Qa
~x
F-
O
Q
O
z
F
w
F
w
3
a
c
z~
I
c ~
al I
w
X~
LL:
U~
W
a
~1 M