HomeMy WebLinkAbout04032003 BSC Agenda Item 8 To: West U Zoning & Planning Commissioners
Framed Area Thoughts
Based upon Monday night's Public Hearing on Framed Area, it appears there is some
conceptual "heavy lifting" to do on Thursday night. Allow me to suggest some tools that
might be helpful in deciding the best course of action.
One of the issues voiced seems to revolve around the concept of "bulk". To date we
have approached describing "bulk" somewhat like the defining the beauty, i.e. a feature
that you know when you see but don't usually bother to articulate. (Continuing the
analogy, it may also be something in the eye of the beholder.) In lieu of the 80% Rule,
the ZPC has briefly considered "scale based zoning" which offers tools for discerning
acceptable alternatives between tall and narrow versus short and wide. "Scale based
zoning" was found to be a valid tool but we have accepted that the "80% Rule" is an
appropriate alternative that adequately approximates the result of other size control
methods, including "scale based zoning", when used in conjunction with other zoning
rules.
With the above preamble in mind, it may be helpful to get our arms around the issue of
"bulk". My impression is that the 80% Rule is expected to govern the size and hence
appearance of a house from all four sides. It is therefore wrong to focus solely on the
front elevation, although that is where it is easiest to judge the size of a house relative to
neighboring houses. For abutting neighbors, the side and to a lesser extent the rear
elevations are also important, as they determine how the house will impact the light and
air reaching neighboring properties.
Tools that might be considered in assessing the adequacy of the current definition of
Framed Area in controlling bulk might include considering the range of footprints and
elevations that could result from different building options. The exhibits that follow these
paragraphs show the buildable area of a 50X100 foot lot and possible footprints arising
from hypothetical 2 and 3 story houses.
Plan A on the spreadsheet is my suggestion of the footprint and proportions of the
"standard" two-story house anticipated when the 80% Rule was devised. Concepts A
and B are extreme ideas that result in 100% of the buildable area being covered by the
house, a 20% increase above the suggested "norm". Compared to Plan A, Concept A
clearly has a more bulky appearance with the second floor covering all the buildable
area. Concept B is less offensive to the base concept as the second story is smaller
than the Plan A ideal and hence appears less bulky. While full coverage of the
buildable area may be unusual and uncomfortable to those who favor open areas, it
probably is an acceptable concept under the 80% Rule if "buildable area" literally means
the area that is available for building. In terms of bulk, the trade off between more first
floor area and less second floor area is a compromise that reduces the amount of the
Re: Framed Area Concepts - 1.doc 1
Y
• •
building that towers above neighboring properties, and hence may be philosophically
acceptable.
Plan B is my suggestion of the footprint of a "standard" three-story house that might
have been anticipated by the 80% Rule. Concept C is an extreme idea that would
probably be seen as intuitively unacceptable, but may still be allowable under the
current 80% Rule. Clearly, it is the bulkiest of all options to neighboring properties in
the way it presents a large, elevated mass, but in terms of lot coverage, it is no "worse"
than Plan A. Concept D is a variation of Concept C that is probably more acceptable in
that it has the same lot coverage but less third story bulk. However, compared to Plan
B, it has 1/3 more second story area and hence more bulk imposing on neighboring
properties. I suggest that the differential nature of Concept C compared to the
"standard" approximates the issue that has stimulated the review of the Framed Area
definition.
I don't know what conclusions to draw from the above, except that to address the issue
of bulk, Framed Area above ground level is probably very important. If my premise is
correct and Plan A approximates the 2-story model foreseen by the 80% Rule, it would
appear that buildings trending toward Concept A, with more Framed Area (current
definition) on the second floor, are unacceptable. However, variations trending toward
Concept B are acceptable because they trade off elevated bulk for more lot coverage.
The same conclusion can probably be reached for the three-story model with elevated
bulk being less desirable.
For people unconvinced by the suggestions of the empirical model, the issue may turn
on deciding if "livable area" (plus a garage) must always be allowed to equate to
"Framed Area". Arguments favoring bigger and bulkier houses seem to presume that
only a solution that achieves the maximum livable area is acceptable. We should be
cognizant that it was a desire to constrain the size and bulk of houses that led to the
80% Rule, a rule that inherently forces tradeoffs.
Whether the current definition of Framed Area should permit the shifting of bulk to upper
stories is the real question to consider. The objective(s) of the 80% Rule should be kept
in sight when deciding what to do. They surely included allowing people to build
suitable houses, especially on small lots. They also include making some attempt to
preclude houses that have an excessively large or bulky appearance.
Disclaimer - The above paper is provided to ZPC members as a discussion aid. It is not
intended to promote one view over another. Other ideas of how to evaluate the issue
are sought and welcome.
R.E. Yehle
March 12, 2003
Re: Framed Area Concepts - 1.doc 2
r � zo
40'
5 60' 2,400 Sq. Ft. k 5 4,
Buildable Area
•
20'
Re: Framed Area Concepts - 1.doc 3
• •
t
80% Framed Area Concepts
(5,000 Sq. Ft. Lot)
Case First Floor Second Third Total Footprint Footprint on
Floor Floor Framed on Lot Buildable
Area Area
A Plan A 2,000 2,000 - 4,000 40% 83%
B Concept A 1,600 2,400 - 4,000 48% 100%
C Concept B 2,400 1,600 - 4,000 48% 100%
D Plan B 1,500 1,500 1,000 4,000 30% 63%
E Concept C - 2,000 2,000 4,000 40% 83%
F Concept D 1,000 2,000 1,000 4,000 40% 83%
Re: Framed Area Concepts - 1.doc 4
• •
Exhibit A
Zoning & Planning Commission
City of West University Place, Texas
3800 University Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77005
December 12, 2002
Honorable Mayor &
Members of the City Council
City of West University Place
3808 University Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77005
Subject : Preliminary report on a proposal to amend the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of West University Place, Texas
("City") relating to "framed area"
To the Honorable Mayor
& Members of City Council :
The Zoning & Planning Commission of the City submits this, its
preliminary report, on the subject proposal, for the assistance of the
Council as well as other interested persons .
Scope of Proposal. The proposal is to amend the definition of
"framed area" in Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, as indicated in the
attachment to this report . The principal purposes are to: (1) count
space beneath air-conditioned space (for example, a breezeway beneath a
bedroom) as "framed area, " and (2) clarify and tighten the existing
definition.
The proposal would not change the percentage of allowable "framed
area" in Table 7-4b. The percentage would remain 80% in the single-
family detached districts (or 100% in certain higher-density
districts) .
Preliminary Recommendation. Based on the limited review given
this matter so far, and subject to further review following public
hearing, the Commission: (i) finds that the proposal , if adopted,
would be in the public interest, (ii) makes a preliminary
recommendation favorable to the proposal, (ii) recommends that the City
Council call a joint public hearing to consider this matter. The
Commission invites all interested persons to participate in the joint
public hearing.
The Vote . The following members of the Commission approve this
preliminary report : Commissioners Whitlock, Pohl, Stewart, Yehle, Brown
and Nelson voted "aye . " (Commissioner Boucher arrived at the meeting
after the vote on this item. )
• •
Respectfully submitted:
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
11.-_1•,i, fre...
By:
For the Commission
• •
Exhibit B
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Zoning & Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of West University Place,
Texas ("City") will hold a joint public hearing in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building,
3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005 during the City Council meeting set to begin
at 6:30 p.m. on March 10, 2003. The hearing may be recessed and continued to the City
Council meeting set to begin at 6:30 p.m. on March 24, 2003, at the same place. The purpose
for the hearing is to provide an opportunity for parties in interest and citizens to be heard in
relation to proposals to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
Framed Area. This proposal is to amend the definition of"framed area" in Article 2 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The principal purposes are to:
(1) count space beneath air-conditioned space (for example, a breezeway beneath a
bedroom) as "framed area;" and
(2) clarify and tighten the existing definition.
The proposal would not change the percentage of allowable "framed area" in Table 7-4b.
The percentage would remain 80% in the single-family detached districts (or 100% in
certain higher-density districts).
Driveways, Maneuvering Areas, Curb Cuts, Etc. This proposal is to amend Table 7-
5a, Sections 10-102 and 10-103 and Article 2 as follows:
(1) provide a general "clean up" of the regulations, including some cross-referencing,
definitions and reorganization;
(2) allow a 30-foot-wide driveway for side-facing garages with three or more bays
(compared to 20 feet under the current ordinance);
(3) add measurement rules for maximum driveway width and maximum curb cut width
(Note: driveway maximum widths would be measured in the street area--i.e., the
ROW--and in front yards, only. As a result, the maximum widths would not apply
elsewhere. Curb cut widths would be measured at the edge of the roadway.); and
(4) allow parking pads, stub driveways or other maneuvering areas in residential front
yards connected to a major thoroughfare (i.e., Kirby, Bellaire or Bissonnet), to
allow vehicles to turn around and enter the thoroughfare going forward.
Additional details on the proposals as well as the Zoning Ordinance are all available for public
inspection in the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005. The
proposed amendments would be generally applicable within the City, and any person interested
in such matters should attend the hearings. The proposals may be adopted only after notice
and hearing, and they would control over any inconsistent provision in the current Zoning
Ordinance.
Date: /s/ Kay Holloway, City Secretary
S •
Revised Draft
"Framed Area"
Amendment
12-12-02
Framed area. -- .. . . ' -- . . .. _ - . . . -- -- ' .
allows to project into a front yard .Framed area means all building space and any area(at or above ground
level)beneath air-conditioned building space, excluding: (i) unfinished attic or basement space with no
fixed accessway or with less than seven feet of headroom; (ii) pervious area at ground level beneath bay
windows cantilevered s.ace and similar .arts of buildin•s .ro'ectin• 15 inches or less• and iii front
.orch space that lawfull .ro'ects into a front and or could lawfull .ro'ect if the buildin• were closer
to the front street line). Framed area is measured on each floor level using the outer walls (or perimeter)
to calculate the area also includin• the outer walls of ba windows cantilevered space and similar space
regardless of the height of the floor). For measurement purposes, eaves cornices,chimneys, fireplaces,
window sills, belt courses and similar non-occupable spaces are disregarded if they comply with the limits
for projections into front yards as specified in Table 7-6.
• •
� `� d Are. •� ment
® � e� rea A>< ri tgt�
*4-,
In 9.944-t nin ,dinance K .gib• • .
= 5 b' earing�� to con A.e „,..,-.---,;,.--,e 0 i' ses by r e��
- ,.d Framed . x• 9 t°o o °i square
of the lot _
Zoning C.I' •ission �
N. Y �osefo ��entto
cc 16 11edA =p- ' ton
�: : •
rame�_
de
••n of fr• The
• a �•n • coition s to
fr.� •s ed by haves .r , e than . .
outst• on very bu
every • -x ,g only:
in r attic -I t, - space r.
be reached sway, .r if 4
it has less than •f oom,and �"
ti an s ace whic allows to
� ) Yp
project into a front ' *
�� -d Ar- VAN s: a ent
�g P 1 osed , Area"
� , ,A. - ' menu :2
� • a a .:, all builds a _ . Y area
■ :°• .. o inclu•- • ;14,,, ath r
atr „• • •° d • - asifitt �• -
(a' . ou a ° el)ben e• _ -•1- • ed
such 'IX, buil•� � <- �xclucT�(i)unfin � : : c i'
• wa p baseme Y t!�hA -d access • vit:
■The allo <" t ie d w will remi less than se exfeei o hea:: �m (ii)pe
80%in Sing' 4 ',eta�t,t district area at growid le�ct hcne 2th windows
cantilevered sp ice;n`,d sinular d f o..buildings
.. projecting 15 inches or[ ss d ont porch
space that lawfully pra its+$"�, fr ?xyard(or
could lawfully project, : s. ®� g were closer
to the street line).
1
• •
is ose . � rea" uri e�� define !to not count
Contr s e as ea"
• is �ured on e.�_ 22 sr le J usin �..
Yom. g I --- a, "`ems .r 7r
th (o . eter)to ell,' I . t` ea
p
(also eon ales of b.- _ 3
(also
Id L ttfrspace,r-_aa _ `b
the height o Fo�>-.suremen' 8
F
purposes,eav lu fireplac s, )'_
window sills,bee 6 Si on- _ ��
occupable spaces are .z.,,,,,,,__, _ comply x
with the limits for proj ront yards as r
specified in Table 7-6. ',` f s�A�
..e s e i o rnt this space as
The pr. a ount both of _
ea c -_'�1_ .roposed
s towari .e$ a"
:',1',,' tik,,,,q;;%ir‘34.":".;rA:tatk4„,:,re f'"!-
a j, +w a C� �Imo.. ,77.,.51-1.1x=,'-� .�
j
}
S-. :::::::::::::-F-7_7:1,,,„.NOT COUNT
G A F
� a�Tw{^A-'A�f w e "Knkw�rrt ANCE WILL.
x s
e� ion vvi �� dage a a
less bulky des?s �,
@'- , '
2