Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11082012 ZPC Agenda Item 2 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 I Interim Report Zoning and Planning Commission (ZPC) November 8, 2012 Subject Dwellings and structures that contain elements of a dwelling. The Question Is West U open to allowing homeowners greater freedom to include in their single-family zoned and single-family occupied sites amenities such as mother-in-law suites, summer kitchens, cabana-type buildings and maid's quarters? No relaxation of the prohibition against multi-family occupancy is proposed. Background Recently, the ZPC has been discussing possible, staff-proposed clarifying changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Perhaps the most important of these has to do with the requirement that within a Single Family Zoning District a building site may contain only a single dwelling plus one accessory quarters (e.g., a maid's quarters). For a time, a second dwelling unit was allowed by being granted prior nonconforming (PNC) status. By virtue of a sunset clause in the late 1980's, the second dwelling unit lost its PNC status in 1997. Since then, all second dwellings (except accessory quarters) on a single building site are effectively nonconforming to the zoning regulations. Accessory quarters are a special case. By definition, accessory quarters are an allowed second dwelling, but only if they are on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principle building used for residential purposes. Accessory quarters may contain no more than 600 square feet of gross floor area (non-garage space). As this definition is currently interpreted by the City, any detached garage or accessory structure containing accessory quarters is, therefore, nonconforming. West U ordinances offer no significant flexibility. Chapter 18 regulations prohibit the Building Official from issuing any type of permit that would be an addition or remodeling permit for a non-conforming structure. Also, the zoning regulations prohibit the expansion or increase of any nonconforming space. Issues The ZPC's discussions of possible changes to the definitions of a dwelling and of accessory quarters have been hampered by lack of a clear goal. It is important to remember that these definitions were not written just as a prohibition against certain types of construction, but also to establish minimum requirements for a dwelling.The problem is that the ZPC sees the existing regulations as having the ability to over-regulate spaces that single families might want to use for special purposes. Spacious second story garages or outdoor living spaces that are intended to be extensions of swimming pools or patios come to mind. Examples of uses might include mother-in-law suites, summer kitchen areas or cabana-type buildings. Although there is much merit in regulating these uses, if the intention is to prohibit them outright, does that send the intended message for this community, or would some type of classification system for the different types of structures be a more workable solution? A related issue arises from the City's current (see attachment 1) interpretation of the definition of accessory quarters. At present the City allows accessory quarters on a single-family zoned site if the quarters are connected to the principal structure by a common hallway, even though the quarters may have a separate exterior entrance as well. This interpretation leads to two perverse incentives. First, owners of first and second-generation homes that have accessory quarters over detached garages or in separate buildings may not update them legally and must do so on the sly or not at all. This tends to degrade these properties to second class and hasten their destruction in favor of new construction. Second, in new construction the required common hallway is usually achieved by creating a long, high wall that runs from the front of the house to the back of the garage, a detached garage with accessory quarters no longer being an option. Neighbors tend to dislike these walls because they overfill the visual space, cut off sunlight and block air-flow. The logical foundation for allowing accessory quarters in attached-garage construction but not in detached-garage construction is, at best, obscure. Whatever is decided, the definition of accessory quarters needs to be clarified. To be clear, the ZPC supports limiting occupation of single-family building sites to single families. If done carefully,granting these families greater flexibility in the use of their property need not open the door to additional burdens on West U's infrastructure. Action Does West U want to continue with narrowly stated definitions of a dwelling and of accessory quarters as guards against multi-family occupancy of single-family sites or do we want to allow broader flexibility for families to use their homes. The commissioners and staff seek direction from City Council. We look forward to discussing this topic in a workshop session with Council, if desired. Best Regards, Steve Brown, Chair ZPC Bruce Frankel, Vice-Chair ZPC ATTACHMENT#1 From: Stephen Brown <sgbrown @hal-pc.org> Date: October 9, 2012 6:02:26 PM CDT To: Debbie Scarcella <DScarcella @westutx.gov> Subject: Re: Dwellings - Draft Report Debbie, I disagree. I see nothing in the way the definition reads to suggest that the prepositional phrase "within a principal building" is intended to modify anything other than the word "unit" that immediately precedes it. I think it takes special effort to read the phrase as a third requirement for AQ when it is not so designated. In other words, if they had wanted to specify three requirements they would have listed them as such. Furthermore, as a matter of common sense, why should AQ in a principal building be preferred/allowed over AQ in a detached garage? Jim Dougherty probably had a hand if drafting this AQ definition. Perhaps he would remember what the original intent was. I will look forward to further friendly discussion of this question on Thursday night. Steve On Oct 9, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Debbie Scarcella wrote: Steve, The definition for accessory quarters and dwelling unit are below. The wording is what prompts me to believe the intent was to prohibit these in detached structures. The aq must first be a dwelling unit that is#2 located on the same building site with a dwelling unit and#3 located within a principal building used for sf detached use. The sf detached use only allows one dwelling and one accessory quarters on the building site . Also the definition of residential use limits the relation and number of the persons living in the detached garage. Accessory quarters (or "AQ"). A dwelling unit meeting all of the following criteria: (i) it is located on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principal building used for single-family (detached) use; and (ii) it includes no more than six hundred square feet of gross floor area. Dwelling unit(or "DU"). A building, a single room or a group of rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those which have all of the following: (i) direct access from outside of the building or through a common hall; (ii) plumbing and electrical facilities sufficient to serve a kitchen sink, a refrigerator and cooking equipment; and (iii) a full bathroom including a sink, a commode and either a bathtub or a shower. Debbie Scarcella City Planner City of West University Place 713-662-5893 mailto:dscarcella @westutx.gov(please note new e-mail address!) ATTENTION PUBLIC OFFICIALS: A "REPLY TO ALL" OF THIS E-MAIL COULD LEAD TO VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. PLEASE REPLY ONLY TO THE SENDER. From: Steve Brown Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:32 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: Dwellings - Draft Report Debbie, I am attaching my rework of your draft report to Council on dwellings. I have tried to keep the sense of your draft but with some flavor of how I might say things if I were appearing before Council. In working through the memo I had one significant problem. I have read the current definition of AQ several times and I can't find anything in it that says accessory quarters cannot be in a detached garage or,for that matter, in a separate accessory building. The definition says only that the AQ must be"located on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principal building used for single- family(detached) use." This only says that a dwelling unit (presumably the principal unit) must be within the principal building. It does not say that the AQ must be within the principal building. I look forward to discussing this question with you. I am probably missing something important, perhaps located elsewhere in the code. Meanwhile, I left your conclusion (that any detached garage or accessory structure containing accessory quarters is then nonconforming) unchanged for purposes of this draft of the memo to Council. Other than the agenda, I have yet to look at the material you sent by email today. Steve JrIt (i J'--3 r e caw r, Sovizegil Interim Report ) 0051 a Zoning and Planning Commission (ZPC) 0 , November 8, 2012 ecultz Subject , ,n, ,L&Dwellings and structures that contain elements of a dwelling. (SJ�lil The Question Is West U open to allowing homeowners greater freedom to include in their single-family zoned and single-family occupied sites amenities such as mother-in-law suites, man caves, summer kitchens, cabana-type buildings and maid's quarters? No relaxation of the prohibition against multi-family occupancy is proposed for consideration. Background Recently, the ZPC has been discussing possible, staff-proposed clarifying changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Perhaps, due to current trends, the most important of these relates to the requirement that within a Single Family Zoning District a building site may contain only a single dwelling plus one accessory quarters (e.g., a maid's quarters). In the past, a second dwelling unit was allowed by being granted prior nonconforming (PNC) status. By virtue of a sunset clause in the late 1980's, the second dwelling unit lost its PNC status in 1997. Since then, all second dwellings (except accessory quarters) on a single-family district building site are effectively nonconforming to the zoning regulations. Chapter 18 regulations prohibit the Building Official from issuing any type of permit that would be an addition or remodeling permit for a non- conforming structure. Also, the zoning regulations prohibit the expansion or increase of any nonconforming space. Accessory quarters are a special case and are defined in the Zoning Ordinance as: A dwelling unit meeting all of the following criteria: (i) it is located on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principal building used for single-family (detached) use; and (ii) it includes no more than six hundred square feet of gross floor area. Under the City's current interpretation of this definition, accessory quarters are an allowed second dwelling only if they are 1) on the same building site with a dwelling unit 2) within a principle building used for residential purposes, and 3) contain no more than 600 square feet of gross floor area (non- garage space). Consequently, any detached garage or accessory structure containing accessory quarters is nonconforming due to the fact that such accessory quarters are not located within a principal building used for residential purposes. The ZPC has deliberated on this interpretation of the definition, but concluded that such consideration is immaterial at this point because this is how the City has enforced it 00120680 and West U ordinances offer no significant flexibility. The ZPC's objective is to ensure that its proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance reflect West U's current position on such structures. Issues The ZPC's discussions of possible changes to the definitions of a dwelling and of accessory quarters have been hampered by lack of a clear goal. It is important to remember that these definitions were not written just as a prohibition against certain types of construction, but also to establish minimum requirements for a dwelling. The ZPC's concern is that the existing regulations have the ability to over- regulate spaces that single families might want to use for special "single-family" purposes. Spacious second story garages or outdoor living spaces that are intended to be extensions of swimming pools or patios come to mind. Examples of such uses might include mother-in-law suites, man caves, summer kitchen areas or cabana-type buildings. Although there is much merit in regulating these uses, it is unclear if the definitions in the current Zoning Ordinances are the appropriate means for prohibiting such structures outright, or if that is even the intended message for this community. Would some type of classification system for the different types of structures be a more workable solution? Additional issues arise from the City's current (see attachment 1) interpretation of the definition of accessory quarters. At present, the City allows accessory quarters on a single-family zoned site if the quarters are connected to the principal structure by a common hallway, even though the quarters may have a separate exterior entrance as well. This interpretation appears to lead to some unintended consequences. First, owners of first and second-generation homes that have accessory quarters over detached garages or in separate buildings may not update them legally and must do so on the sly or not at all. This tends to degrade these properties to second class and hasten their destruction in favor of new construction. Second, in new construction, the required common hallway is usually achieved by constructing a long, high wall that runs from the front of the house to the back of the garage, a detached garage with accessory quarters no longer being an option. Neighbors tend to dislike these walls because they overfill the visual space, cut off sunlight and block air-flow. The logical foundation for allowing accessory quarters in attached-garage construction, but not in detached-garage construction is, at best, obscure. Evidence suggests that such accessory quarters are allowed since it is unlikely that homeowners would lease accessory quarters that are connected to the primary residence to an unrelated person, but this seems to unnecessary as leasing is already prohibited by the Code of Ordinances. Whatever is decided, the definition of accessory quarters needs to be clarified. To be clear, the ZPC supports limiting occupation of single-family building sites to single families. If done carefully, granting these families greater flexibility in the use of their property need not open the door to multi-family occupancy of single family sites, which would result in additional burdens on West U's infrastructure. Action Does West U want to continue with the narrowly stated definitions of a dwelling and of accessory quarters as guards against multi-family occupancy of single-family sites or does West U want to allow broader flexibility for families to use their homes? The commissioners and staff seek direction from City 00120680 Council so that we may propose revisions to the Zoning Ordinance that represent City Council's standpoint and are in the best interest of residents of West U. We look forward to discussing this topic in a workshop session with Council, if desired. Best Regards, Steve Brown, Chair ZPC Bruce Frankel, Vice-Chair ZPC 00120080 ATTACHMENT#1 From: Stephen Brown <sgbrown @ hal-pc.org> Date: October 9, 2012 6:02:26 PM CDT To: Debbie Scarcella <DScarcella @westutx.gov> Subject: Re: Dwellings - Draft Report Debbie, I disagree. I see nothing in the way the definition reads to suggest that the prepositional phrase "within a principal building" is intended to modify anything other than the word "unit" that immediately precedes it. I think it takes special effort to read the phrase as a third requirement for AQ when it is not so designated. In other words, if they had wanted to specify three requirements they would have listed them as such. Furthermore, as a matter of common sense, why should AQ in a principal building be preferred/allowed over AQ in a detached garage? Jim Dougherty probably had a hand if drafting this AQ definition. Perhaps he would remember what the original intent was. I will look forward to further friendly discussion of this question on Thursday night. Steve On Oct 9, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Debbie Scarcella wrote: Steve, 00120680 The definition for accessory quarters and dwelling unit are below. The wording is what prompts me to believe the intent was to prohibit these in detached structures. The aq must first be a dwelling unit that is #2 located on the same building site with a dwelling unit and#3 located within a principal building used for sf detached use. The sf detached use only allows one dwelling and one accessory quarters on the building site . Also the definition of residential use limits the relation and number of the persons living in the detached garage. Accessory quarters (or "AQ"). A dwelling unit meeting all of the following criteria: (i) it is located on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principal building used for single-family (detached) use; and (ii) it includes no more than six hundred square feet of gross floor area. Dwelling unit(or "DU"). A building, a single room or a group of rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those which have all of the following: (i) direct access from outside of the building or through a common hall; (ii) plumbing and electrical facilities sufficient to serve a kitchen sink, a refrigerator and cooking equipment; and (iii) a full bathroom including a sink, a commode and either a bathtub or a shower. Debbie Scarcella City Planner City of West University Place 713-662-5893 mai'Ito:dscarcella@westutx.gov (please note new e-mail address!) ATTENTION PUBLIC OFFICIALS: A "REPLY TO ALL" OF THIS E-MAIL COULD LEAD TO VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. PLEASE REPLY ONLY TO THE SENDER. From: Steve Brown Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:32 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: Dwellings - Draft Report 00120680 Debbie, I am attaching my rework of your draft report to Council on dwellings. I have tried to keep the sense of your draft but with some flavor of how I might say things if I were appearing before Council. In working through the memo I had one significant problem. I have read the current definition of AQ several times and I can't find anything in it that says accessory quarters cannot be in a detached garage or,for that matter, in a separate accessory building. The definition says only that the AQ must be"located on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principal building used for single- family(detached) use." This only says that a dwelling unit (presumably the principal unit)must be within the principal building. It does not say that the AQ must be within the principal building. I look forward to discussing this question with you. I am probably missing something important, perhaps located elsewhere in the code. Meanwhile, I left your conclusion (that any detached garage or accessory structure containing accessory quarters is then nonconforming) unchanged for purposes of this draft of the memo to Council. Other than the agenda, I have yet to look at the material you sent by email today. Steve 00120680 h 9 rn, Attachment 1 Dwellings & Accessory Quarters Email Exchange Between Steve Brown and Debbie Scarcella,October 9,2012 Concern - Steve In working through your draft report to council on dwellings I had one significant problem. I have read the current definition of AQ several times and I can't find anything in it that says accessory quarters cannot be in a detached garage or, for that matter, in a separate accessory building. The definition says only that the AQ must be "located on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principal building used for single-family (detached) use." This only says that a dwelling unit (presumably the principal unit) must be within the principal building. It does not say that the AQ must be within the principal building. I look forward to discussing this question with you. I am probably missing something important, perhaps located elsewhere in the code. Response - Debbie The definition for accessory quarters and dwelling unit are below. The wording is what prompts me to believe the intent was to prohibit these in detached structures. The aq must first be a dwelling unit that is #2 located on the same building site with a dwelling unit and#3 located within a principal building used for sf detached use. The sf detached use only allows one dwelling and one accessory quarters on the building site . Also the definition of residential use limits the relation and number of the persons living in the detached garage. Accessory quarters (or "AQ"). A dwelling unit meeting all of the following criteria: (i) it is located on the same building site with a dwelling unit within a principal building used for single-family (detached) use; and (ii) it includes no more than six hundred square feet of gross floor area. Dwelling unit (or "DU"). A building, a single room or a group of rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those which have all of the following: (i) direct access from outside of the building or through a common hall; (ii) plumbing and electrical facilities sufficient to serve a kitchen sink, a refrigerator and cooking equipment; and (iii) a full bathroom including a sink, a commode and either a bathtub or a shower. Reply - Steve I disagree. I see nothing in the way the definition reads to suggest that the prepositional phrase "within a principal building" is intended to modify anything other than the word "unit" that immediately precedes it. I think it takes special effort to read the phrase as a third requirement for AQ when it is not so designated. In other words, if they had wanted to specify three requirements they would have listed them as such. Furthermore, as a matter of common sense, why should AQ in a principal building be preferred/allowed over AQ in a detached garage?