The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01062022 BSC Agenda Item 3 STAFF REPORT Business of the Building and Standards Commission City of West University Place, Texas AGENDA OF: 01.06.22 DOCKET NO: 2021-0025 DATE SUBMITTED: 12.13.21 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Development Services ervices PREPARED BY: Alfonso Acosta PRESENTER: Alfonso, Acosta, City Building Official SUBJECT:Appeal for the denial of a low impact certification and requesting drainage plans pursuant to Section 18-56 of the City's code of STAFFE PRESENTER:Alfonso Acosta, City Building ordinance related to Single Family Structure Official Demolition and conversion to green space. ATTACHMENTS: Appeal request, Ordinance section STAFF SUMMARY Request for an appeal by Richard Yehle property owner of 6405 Rutgers West University Place, Texas 77005 of the decision of the Chief Building Official, Alfonso Acosta denying a low impact certification and requesting drainage plans pursuant to Section 18-56 of the City's code of ordinances related to a Single Family Structure Demolition and conversion to green space. �Q„NEST UN/1,F a a City of West University Place APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS ("CITY") TEXAS Address of site: 6405 Rutgers - Lot TR 7B, Block 30, Section 1, West University Place, TX Legal description of the site: Applicant: Richard and Ma Yehle Address: 6401 Rutgers and 6405 Rutgers Houston TX 77005 Contact: Richard Yehl Phone: 713-213-4554 Fax: Email Address: re ehle • comcast.net Decision or Action Requested(check one or more and provide requested data): (x)Appeal. Hear and decide an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination made by the building official (or other administrative official)of the City. • Name and title of the administrative official: Alfonso Acosta • Is the official's action in writing? ( )4 Yes; (x) copy is attached. ( ) No, but the action appealed is as follows: • When was the action taken? below: 12/08/21 Note: Appeals must be filed within a reasonable time. Please explain any delay • Exact code of ordinance section(s) involved: Sec. 18-56(a) • Grounds for appeal: The provisions of Section 18-56(a)were not applied because the Chief Building Official denied "low impact" certification, despite the fact that no changes are planned to the current soil level (elevation) of the lot at 6405 Rutgers as a consequence of converting the lot to greenspace. ( ) Special Exception. • Exact code of ordinance section that authorizes the special exception: • Exact wording of special exception requested: ( )Variance. • Exact code of ordinance section from which a variance is requested: • Exact wording of variance requested: Other Data. Are there drawings or other data? ( )No (x)Yes (list items here and attach them) See attached. State of TE)C County of 4-f_____.j S This instrument was acknowledged before me on i)r c t'Lin --)4�r • 13 by lat.--.7-5 trn 20 (Seal) c i;;, ANNA EVELYN Notary ID#129886701 �:r I,My Commission Expires My commission expir; P y 16.,, 22i2 1 , Notary Public *****$300 FILING F, E. PROVIDE ORI INAL PLUS 15 COPIES (16 TO AL) OF ALL SUBMITTALS***** Signature of applicant: / G 1/ i j Date: /k / / For Staff Use only Date filed: A _ D Form BSC-102 Date heard: _ Docket#: :41a\ - (�y��a g Other Data for 6405 Rutgers Appeal 1. Correspondence denying exception -December 8, 2021 2. Code of Ordinances Sec 18-54(d) 3. Code of Ordinances Sec. 18-56(a) 4. Survey of 6405 Rutgers 5. Map of adjacent lots 6. Photos: a. Front b. Garage c. Rear yard 7. Samples of e-mail correspondence with City a. December 2, 2021 b. December 5, 2021 c. December 7, 2021 d. December 10, 2021 0 Dick Yehle From: Alfonso Acosta <aacosta@westutx.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 4:09 PM To: Dick Yehle Cc: Gerardo Barrera; Dave Beach Subject: RE: Comment on order : 2123325-01 / 6405 RUTGERS AVENUE Flag Status: Flagged Good afternoon, Thank you for the additional information provided and for taking the time to meet with city staff at the property. As mention-• ler this afternoon, due to t e . if the project and conversion of the lot to green space, per the ordina --, the city will require the topographic surveys. Once e Demolition Permit Application and all required •. uments are submitted, city staff will make every effort to review I• . timely manner. Best regards, Alfonso Acosta Chief Building Official TSBPE#3861 City of West University Place 3826 Amherst West University Place, TX 77005 Tel 713-662-5830 Fax 713,662 5369 ATTENTION PUBLIC OFFICIALS: This email,plus any attachments,may constitute a public record of the City of West University Place and may be subject to public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. 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: reyehle@comcast.net<reyehle@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 3:39 PM To:Alfonso Acosta <aacosta@westutx.gov> Cc: Gerardo Barrera <GBarrera@westutx.gov>; Dave Beach <DBeach@westutx.gov> Subject: FW: Comment on order : 2123325-01/ 6405 RUTGERS AVENUE CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Alfonso, The hits just keep on coming. Are you sure this is good value for anyone except the survey company as it will have to be done twice to meet your requirement? I continue to assert there is no current problem, I will cause no new problem and therefore this work has no value. 1 Dick Yehle From: beth a-cb txllc.commailersur, ✓eystars rnm <betha=cbtxllc.com(a�mailer serve st betha_@cbgtxllc.com s com> On Behalf Of Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 2:55 PM To: reyehle comcast.net Subject: Comment on order : 2123325-01/6405 RUTGERS AVENUE NEW DISCUSSION Order Number: 6405 RUTGERS AVENUE Order Type: TOPO Address: 6405 RUTGERS AVENUE Discussion: Hello, The surveyor has come back with a price of$1025.00 plus tax to perform the survey for above referencedropertand we can have it completed within 10-12 business days, weather permitting. Our pricing and time frame for his reisuest good for 30 days. q If you would like to proceed, please call our office and speak to anyone in our Customer Service Department at 24 9485 and they will be able to take your payment information for you. This file is on HOLD until we hear back from . All credit card refunds are processed minus the transaction fees incurred from the credit card company you. on the job. A minimum 6% processing fee will be deducted from all credit card refunds. Additional fees to be alc spent upon processing. elated Thank you and please let me know if I may be of further assistance! 2 Sec. 18-54. - surveys; site plans. c_D (a) Basic survey. For each development project for which a permit is required, the applicant must submit a boundary survey showing all existing and proposed structures. The building official may waive this requirement if substantially equivalent information is available from other sources. (b) Forms survey. For each major development project and each new foundation of a building, the applicant must submit an additional survey showing the actual location of all foundation forms or guides as set upon the ground. The survey must show them with respect to the boundaries of the building site. This additional survey must be delivered to the building official not later than noon on the first city working day preceding the day on which the first part of the foundation is poured or affixed to the ground, and it shall be unlawful to proceed with such pouring or affixing before the bu. +ngocial makes a note on such Survey to the effect that the proposed foundation appears to comply with applicable regulations, e.g., yard and si tions. (c) Drainage, elevation (surveys and drawings). This Code requires additional-surveys or drawings for drainage, in certain circumstances. See, e.g., section 18-56 and section 744(5). The zoning ordinance requires a survey to establish the standard base elevation. (d) Standards. All surveys, drawings and site plans (including their form, scope, media -.o - . ications) must meet standards .r- ..-. . .- e. .- : . icia . The building official may require submission of site plans in reproducible form (e.g., mylar) and in electronic form. (e) Site plans. (1) Intent. The intent of this subsection is to aid persons who must comply with applicable regulations— not only during construction but also thereafter—by assembling, coordinating, and recording important surveys, drawings and compliance data. (2) When required; "low impact"exception. A site plan is required for projects involving major development or grade raising. Exception: No site plan is required for small-scale projects if the building official issues a low-impact certification after determining that the project will have no impact, or very minor impact, upon yards required by the zoning ordinance, neighboring property and drainage patterns. (3) Content. Each site plan must clearly depict the following, as applicable: a. Basic survey; b. Forms survey (after it becomes available); c. Drainage or topographic survey; d. Standard base elevation survey; e. Easements and plat restrictions; f. Buildings and other major structures; g. Open areas, pervious areas, landscaping strips, required trees and pervious areas for ............. .._____ ___ _ U Sec. 18-56. - to drainage; drainage plans. `\ (a) Basic drainage requirements. For each impact area (see definition in subsection (b)), the permittee must prepar a drainage plan and obtain the approval of the building official, as required by this section. Exception: No drainage plan is required for a project if the building official issues a "low impact" certification after determining/ that the project will probably have no drainage impact, or very low impact, upon neighboring property. In addition, each permittee, each successive owner and each successive person in control of an impact area .s a continuing duty to: (1) Provide basic site drainage (see definition below) at all times, unless otherwise specifies an approved drainage plan or an approved amendment; and (2) Comply with the approve• •rainage plan (if the plan was required by this Code or any prior city ordinance) or an approved amendment at all times. (b) Definitions. In this section, the following terms have the meanings shown, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) Basic site drainage means drainage that: a. Captures substantially all of the rainwater that would fall onto the impact area, assuming a rainfall of one inch in one hour; and b. Causes that rainwater to be absorbed within the same building site or conveyed to a lawful receiving place for rainwater, without escaping onto any other site and without washing detectable quantities of soil or debris off the building site. Rainwater may be conveyed across another site, if properly authorized by perpetual, recorded easement or a similar interest in the land. (2) Impact area means the area where grade-raising, major development or creation of green space occurs(or occurred after July 7, 1991). In the case of major development or creation of green space, the entire building site is included in the impact area. (c) Drainage plans;content, types, etc.The applicant must prepare each drainage plan in two versions: "as designed" and "as built."The requirements are as follows: "As Designed"Version (1) A topographic survey drawing —the impact area and the receiving points for runoff, "as-is," before (with sufficient "spot" elevations work on the site begins and flow directions, as determined by the building official) showing— —established drainage patterns across property lines (2) Clear drawings and —provide basic site drainage but in no case shall more than six inches descriptions of temporary and above existing grade of fill be allowed. However, the building official permanent drainage measures may authorize additional fill above the six-inch limit if the building "as designed" that— official determines additional fill is necessary for proper drainage v - „,,, 0 South 1/2 of Lot Seven (7), in Block Thirty (30), of WEST UNIVERSITY ****** 1 '• PLACE, an addition to the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas, ; OLD REPUBLIC C,,„.., accordingto the amended Mapor Plat thereof recorded in Volume * * *** „no.uTull,..,s..,r,o.nr 444, Page 560, of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas. LEGEND f ' LOT { 0 1/2” ROD FOUND 650.00' yy. ® 1/2" R00 SET ..,1 C- O 1" PIPE FOUND o �4 '" ®"X" FOUND/SET 0 5/8" ROD FOUND .;;_. ♦ POINT FOR CORNER FENCE POST FOR CORNER CONTROLLING CM MONUMENT 94 AC AIR CONDITIONER PE POOL EQUIPMENT E TE TPADRANSFORMER _ II COLUMN �i A,. z J • POWER POLE T A UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC A OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TELE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL BL BUILDING UNE AE AERIAL EASEMENT SANITARY O 0 SSE SEWER O 0 EASEMENT O 0 GM GAS METER U) Ln WM WATER METER - LOT 28.3' �, LP LIGHT POLE UTILITY U) UE EASEMENT Q W —OHP— L J 10 OVERHEA D VELECTRIC OO LOT M —DES— p OVERHEAD ELECTRIC u'1 SERVICE ONE STORY v —0— FRAME CHAIN LINK WOOD FENCE 0.5' 1" WIDE TYPICAL —N— IRON FENCE 5.1' 34.3' 10.8 —X— BARBED WIRE —O— DOUBLE SIDED WOOD FENCE D O ,.4 M EDGE OF ASPHALT d EDGE OF GRAVEL I_ ' ' 1 CONCRETE COVERED AREA NORTH 50.00' ® •WATER • BRICK METER WATER t✓ V`-'1 METER STONE MA:LDCR RUTGERS AVENUE XCEPTIONS: MIIOTES: IC NOTE: BEARINGS, EASEMENTS AND BUILDING LINES ARE BY RECORDED PLAT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. FLOOD NOTE: According to the F.I.R.M. No. 48201C086OL, this property does lie NOTE: PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TERMS, In Zone AE and DOES lie within the 100 year flood zone. CONDITIONS, AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED INNINSTRUMENTS RECORDED IN This survey Is made In conjunction with the Information provided by Old Republic VOL. 387, PG. 169, VOL. 444, PG. 560, VOL. 771, NatlonaL Title Insurance Company. Use of this survey by any other parties and/or for PG. 579, VOL. 1033, PG. 372 other purposes shall be at user's own risk and any loss resulting from other use shall not be the responsibility of the undersigned. This is to certify that I have on this date made o careful and accurate survey on the ground of the subject property. The plat hereon Is a correct and accurate representation of the property lines and dimensions are as indicated; location and type of buildings are as shown; and EXCEPT AS SHOWN, there ore no visible and apparent encroachments or protrusions on the •round. V 11( Drawn By:BVM/Lorry LIF Scale: 1" = 20' �. CBG • 1`,�,\•1, fR;n't;y Date: 10-26-2021 N.\f I L\V ALAN PALM Accepted by: 419 Century Plaza Dr., Ste. 210 GE No.: Houston, TX 77073 �•,¢r 6.4 •, Purchaser P 281.443.9288 '' LT.:v•• Date: 21012559 F 281.443.9224 •/ ' fj Job No. 2123325 Firm No. 10194280 , •"�pARE Purchaser www.cD•txllc.com \.r.�.• N0. 6845 60- • — a 5 ^ �. ry W mNtuw com Z 0�,/^ ++ F- D oo:-..%EmoOI_ I A ♦+ a V .-A// imnmNZN E6�m ctn m am q`c c Qs ON oL '\ FO v arco` nvcm ma O u, C LCl. Q ?mo o mm^ ocm 0VOiL.� •,Q t0 m umo' cn- oDo.�p nan ' I (s) Q CI 7 d iEU° max 0 CI O 0�BSCJ ZS Li- el Q2- - 2 0 0 It _ 0y N O i 125 2 '4)0 18 100 0 060 .� 650 50�� 50 N-loci g 104 p" 100 ..1 .�f E.'.oFP1• _ 50 50 50 50 5 50 75 125 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 150 150 120 95 0 , .^) upi vii voi $ N Lre 0L00 n �^^jj'��aa-��1 m 1n c . ,� rn ,.50t 0 _r m -.v) ,o N OS' o. m NO 0 y,.;�0 O „r :-0 -N 0 0 150 150 r ---.oo Q o - o 'Of5 0 -' o o 0 4 - .1�{l{��+.]] o -'- 0 0 -r a - _ 4 o p q _ 9 q q 4 r soon n ' ]__ o r, U 7 N K N rQr1 rn 9 N - ^ 0 4. 0 < m c .'1 0 Q ROZ4� x 75 125 , 2 50 50 0 1 50 50_ '150 o- 120 95 _. 50 50 _ 119.76 75 65 60 50 50 50 50 0 100 1 cc / 150_ O O 0 N 0 N 0 l o o N r . o ^ , CO 1` CO CO _ _ „i - o N0 ,O 0 upi Q 6 p - :_,, 0 O O 'I o � - 150 150 ^ oo = o $ o =4 � _ id Q .c 4 - 4 4 4 Q s000- 4 Q 4 .N m < m �'r ^ M x i Q �zzE - - ; 100 100 50 50 50 50 150 150 120 75 65 60 50 50 5 3nN3AV sH3J1nH 150 70 50 50 100 -fit—-.T 100 0 50 50 7 50 OSL OSL 100 o, w� - U ^ o 80 I. 0 __ OSl o < o E1 `� NQ oN-: vdi _2.O (h �- MO ,iN o O O in O O O �R iso '9 c4 X4 ;4 o9 c9 � � "i 150 150 - --- m 2Om 30� ® �Q N _. ik1<9 m OL00- - - 120 .c `O 100 0 'chili47 0 ^ 7.Lf;E 100 50 50 100 100 150 c�-_ 050 50 50 50 50 50 050 100 vj o 50 50 0 EhQ 6000- ,so 0021 0 o O i O 8 o p N h N GG vi fj.i,E Vi Op_OO._ N^ ' Cf v •.R r> -1� m N- s ,-m 150 N 12O N R'r' O • '' it N V^ �-f N O C)0 O O O O O .. O -� 8 m s000 150_ 0 s000- o Q - ..4 o Q Q4 ' ' .<. -:rmq p - v o - 4 4 0. ¢$ ' 4 150 O7r:E o l,s.,: 0 o Qo Q N m m <r K '^ r m cc a a an 150 - - - - m toxo- L000- a 120 ^ 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 50 50 50 50 ' III 150 vZEE 150 0 3f1N3AV 2131S3H31S3M N in uo 120 50 50 0 500 50 I 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 Os 50 N OSL LL00-OSL 0 0 0 o vii N N in In gi �i o L000- 0 0 0cc _ m `r' m CO e s -000' 0 7O� OSL o 0 0 0 m _. o v ,.ern ,�.cn o m -i- cc s_ N m s 0 -o o ti ti o^ - w o. Q m 0 N 0 _ Cr,o V V O -1 U-,O ` O O c o 7 ?o 8 m LLOa r .0 50 oo' o o' 1 R ,c R 4 9 V� '''0 4 q o R 4 ' Y 4 a 8U.' OSL 120 220 _ _,uii, �2 m M Q ,� Q m Q vii vii ,o L�'^ 'lQ, v a L- 000- OSL ® ^ a N N - - 100 50 • • 50 OSL 6000- 0 o ZZOb-Q 0.o 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 050 50 n" E00a �i Lltti ° x 00- o o o 'n o o v1 220 r n r r- a .- to a 'n N ._,1` mo a' O 2 al 2000-150 v socia m 120 015050 050 .o a e Q m Q m o°¢ r ;q "4i <-- o 00 0 N O O p 4 m Q '� M p �� O < 150 VZt'E 8008 -__ Q oQ - N N - =' ^ r zvxoTea L000-150 ° Q o mo 100 50^I 50^I F50 50 LOOal50� c Btf; 150 120 50 50 50 50 50 50 OS 50 50 50 50 50 3f1N3AV 33NVM3S 9000-150 Q L L 0 0- 150 114 ss I 5on so iI so I soN .50 p '50 o sop 50p So sop so 100 50 so 50 50 N 2 v2000- vi LO u 150 'oL'0�' 15O or m N M ; cn01 ~ N0o , N 0 N E S m O r .,M caN OC -?0 -, 0 ,0 00 00- o ZLOan OZL OO T 4Q _ T - 9 4 150 ° ROE � 9 i DV <Lc94 Q 0 I- < < x''1 `on Q c ^ . 0000- ¢ 3`1J 150 .cvi .o N co 1 0 50 50 50 50 S: 1501''' -0010 OZL n 50 `� 50 50 50 W 50 �'0 17000- m 6000-150 0 8000- 0 50 50 050 050 0 50 50 0 o Y o ,� vii . SLSt' 1508 '^ 9LSE 8 x LSE 2 2 0 g, p 0 `' o;m^ Q �o r i. mo m o 8000-150 q: 120 2 a r. o _� ^ m_ 8 'n cam.,o $ q ?$ p .7 p -r oo -- -Z000-150� v 0'SE. 'Q' '4'—'-0009 '� Q ^ _O$ Q$ ¢74 r$ m ry n$ m < . h4 vi vii Q �4 omoQ rn P� 120 0 .- L000- 150 - - - - - - - Z 0 150 v h00a 15S. 2 -0020 S 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 OS OS OS 50 50 50 1332JLS N332i31/4 li i on 50 o N 5O' 0 170 "' 50 0 50 0ND 50 50- v150 '^50 500 50 _150 _ 150 N N N N oos m 0012 S N o M , ,-rN N 10E7- o _ �,,/r/� r q Y Z INSSZ'' 6 Q 4. ,... r ,1 ,,, ft_ R. 4 6C9 ' ,fir: SRP: l , . ., k t:, 4 i _ ,44,' ''''. ` s'4. y ]] a 4 "'re". K' `'v r AS,'sS , fix S , T `* r V iOW. 4404•7•A' C / (61: M♦ a F • il•k t ,r,orattamor { of >+ wl"1 ' ttt 40 Not . art"f y y 1141 � hi s fp • 9 7:7)Dick From: Dick Yehle <reyehle@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 8:08 PM To: Alfonso Acosta Subject: 6405 Rutgers Drainage Permit Alfonso, Please advise how this can be handled. In my opinion with regard to drainage at 6405 Rutgers, there is no current issue with drainage on or anywhere near the property and nothing is planned that will change the status quo, in fact removing the house and restoring the greenspace should improve the status quo. Thus, there is nothing to be gained by paying for a topographical survey. Thank you, Dick Yehle 713-213-4554 From: Dick Yehle <reyehle@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3:39 PM To: 'Lisa Ray' <Iray@westutx.gov> Cc:Alfonso Acosta (aacosta@westutx.gov) <aacosta@westutx.gov> Subject: RE: 6405 Rutgers- Resent Lisa, Thank you. Alfonso will be checking with you. My position is: • I am demolishing the original 1939 house at 6405 Rutgers and am converting the lot to greenspace. • I have lived next to the property at 6401 Rutgers for 22 years and can attest that there is no drainage issue between adjacent lots. • My plan is to simply remove the existing house, and then plant grass and a few shrubs. • There is no plan to regrade or change the elevation of the lot. • Being required to spend $500+ for an elevation survey is of no value to me, the City or any neighbors. I am happy to submit that no material changes will be made to the current drainage and request the drainage plan requirement be waived or certified as having been met. Regards, Dick Yehle 6401 Rutgers From: Lisa Ray<Iray@westutx.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 1,2021 10:34 AM To: Dick Yehle <reyehle@comcast.net> Subject: 6405 Rutgers Notes from plan review:The drainage plan needs to be on a topographical survey to verify that the final fill for elevation does not surpass the requirements. If you have additional questions you can contact the Building Official Alfonso Acosta or planreview@bbgcode.com. Lisa Ray Permit Technician City of West University Place 3826 Amherst, West University Place, TX 77005 Tel 713.662.5834 Fax 713.662.5304 ATTENTION PUBLIC OFFICIALS: This email,plus any attachments,may constitute a public record of the City of West University Place and may be subject to public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. A"reply to all of this e-mail could lead to violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Please reply only to the sender 2 Dick From: reyehle@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 11:46 AM Subject: 6405 Rutgers Demolition Problem Gerardo, I am having a problem with the process for demolishing the house on my property at 6405 Rutgers, a problem that is being compounded by a City code that does not seem applicable to my situation and is therefore costing me time and money. Having served on City Council, the ZPC and the ZBA, I am familiar with and endorse the objectives of City codes but am less familiar with how they are administered which is an area causing me what seems like an unnecessary problem for the limited scope of work I am attempting. The situation is that I bought the decrepit 1939 house at 6405 Rutgers next door to my home of 22 years at 6401 Rutgers and am in the process of demolishing it for greenspace. I see houses being demolished all over town and while the process seems simple, it has a surprising number of steps and many parties involved. A list of things I am addressing includes protecting trees, erecting construction fencing, cutting off utilities, completing the demolition itself and restoring the site, including repairing any damage to the City's sidewalks and curbs. In addition to the items on the list above is compliance with "drainage" requirements which is where my problem lies. To protect neighboring properties, City code reportedly requires the subject property to handle the water that falls on it and drain it to the street. I just discovered that to confirm compliance, the City requires a topographical survey before and after the work is done. I am told that such surveys cost around $500 each. That makes sense when a lot is being cleared for construction, because it is likely to be regraded and then filled with material when setting the new foundation. However, in my case I am simply removing the house and leaving the lot untouched except for replacing the house and driveway with grass and shrubbery. Living next-door I know there is no drainage issue today affecting my house, the house on the other side or the one to the rear. Furthermore, nothing in my plans should create a new problem, yet I am told that I must delay my demolition and spend $1,000 to confirm the drainage situation. I already have a major challenge getting the many tasks done quickly and this drainage requirement jeopardizes the entire schedule while adding a cost that is of no value to anyone except for City records. It is important for me to get the work done in 2021 so the property can qualify for a partial-homestead tax exemption in 2022. That exemption is worth about $4,000 per year. Thus, my point to you is that requiring a topographical survey is addressing a problem that does not and will not exist for a formality that will cost me about $5,000 without adding value. I have been working with the permit department and Alfonso Acosta but am not making any headway. Everyone is doingtheir in an expeditious and technically jobp correct manner, but I am under the impression that the Chief Building Official has degrees of authority for achieving the City's objectives that could be used to waive the technical requirement in this case. I am not asking to do anything that does not conform with the objectives of the City codes but am simply trying to get there in a speedy and economical fashion. Can you help me penetrate the bureaucracy to achieve my goal or otherwise give me guidance for how to move ahead quickly? I am available to meet with you at the property Monday morning, if that would help you understand the physical situation. Regards, Dick Yehle 713-213-4554 cc: Alfonso Acosta 2 Dick Yehle 7 C79 From: Dick Yehle <reyehle@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:27 AM To: Alfonso Acosta (aacosta@westutx.gov) Cc: Gerardo Barrera (gbarrera@westutx.gov); Dave Beach (DBeach@westutx.gov) Subject: 6405 Rutgers Demolition Permit Alfonso, With the process for demolishing 6405 Rutgers and converting the lot to greenspace in mind, I would like to suggest that PNC status and the concept of "low impact" certification should be afforded to the property. • PNC status is usually contemplated for buildings, but Section 12-102 of the Zoning Ordinance includes "a separately-existing building site" in the PNC provisions. • A "low impact" exception may be granted under Section 18-56 for small scale projects that will have no more than a minor impact upon neighboring property or drainage. I submit that both conditions apply to the land at 6405 Rutgers; a) PNC status because the property was developed in 1939 prior to the current drainage regulations being in place and has been maintained unchanged since then, b) "low impact" status because the land is being converted to greenspace with no change in elevation and an increase in the pervious area by virtue of having the house, garage and concrete driveway removed. Although removing a house may seem like a big project, in terms of the value of the land and the cost of demolition (less than $15,000), it is "small scale". Thus, demolition of the house and conversion to greenspace should qualify as a small scale, "low impact" project as contemplated in Section 18 of the Code of Ordinances. As such, granting approval for demolition subject to the above conditions would remove the requirement for a topographical survey since it would only be relevant to assess a drainage plan, a plan that is not required for a "low impact" project according to Section 18-56. I am available for further discussion of the matter and to tour the property. Regards, Dick Yehle 713-213-4554 cc: Gerardo Barrera Dave Beach 1 Dick From: Dick Yehle <reyehle@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 3:47 PM To: 'Gerardo Barrera' Subject: RE: 6405 Rutgers Topographical Survey and Drainage Plan Gerardo, Your comments are clear and helpful. If I wish to pursue relief through the BSC, when do I have to make application for their January 6th meeting and what is required? Dick Yehle From: Gerardo Barrera <GBarrera@westutx.gov> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 3:40 PM To: Dick Yehle <reyehle@comcast.net> Cc: Dave Beach <DBeach@westutx.gov> Subject: RE: 6405 Rutgers Topographical Survey and Drainage Plan Importance: High Dick, I wanted to provide you a response before the weekend in regard to the possibility of issuing a provisional permit allowing the demolition of the structure only at 6405 Rutgers without fulfilling the additional requirements per code (i.e. Sec.18- 54, Sec.18-56). While sections of the code may be open to interpretation, other sections are clear on the requirements that are being enforced. We as City staff must ensure we enforce the rules fairly to the benefit of residents of West University Place. Our goal is to assist all property owners with their individual projects without compromising the integrity of our responsibilities. This value is not always favorably received, however we do our best to go above and beyond assisting our residents, even when it means providing an answer they may not want to hear. Unfortunately a permit for demolition cannot be issued without having met the requirements as stated in the City's code of ordinances. We also certainly do not want to compromise our professional integrity as municipal employees. We certainly reviewed the Code thoroughly in-house to explore the possibility of some sort of relief but the requirements are firm for this type of activity. I appreciate your sense of honesty and your honest feedback regarding the interpretation of the code. We can petition the Building and Standards Commission to re-evaluate the requirements at a future time but I know this offers little comfort to your frustration and current situation. I know this is not the answer you were hoping for, but we would request this from all property owners in West U for similar work. Once we receive all the requirements necessary, staff can certainly expedite the permit. Let us know if you have any questions or require further assistance. Have a great weekend. 1 Sincerely, Gerardo Barrera Public Works Director City of West University Place 3826 Amherst. West University Place, TX 77005 Tel 713-662-5845 Fax 713.662 5369 ATTENTION PUBLIC OFFICIALS: This email,plus any attachments,may constitute a public record of the City of West University Place and may be subject to public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. 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: Dick Yehle <reyehle@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, December 09, 2021 11:00 PM To: Gerardo Barrera <GBarrera@westutx.gov> Cc: Dave Beach <DBeach@westutx.gov> Subject: 6405 Rutgers Topographical Survey and Drainage Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Gerardo, Thank you for your response to my inquiry about the demolition of 6405 Rutgers. While I do not agree with your conclusion, I appreciate the thoroughness of your explanation of the City's position. It was much more helpful than the polite stonewall offered by Alfonso on Wednesday. Getting a topographical survey at this late date will probably compromise my ability to get the work done this year, which I am trying to accelerate for tax reasons. Any help you can offer to allow the process to proceed unabated will be appreciated. Once the utility work is completed, if the City would issue a demolition permit prior to the topographical survey being obtained, I am prepared to go ahead with demolition and suspend any site remediation actions while the survey issue is resolved next year by either getting the survey(s) and confirming a drainage plan or by prevailing with an appeal to the BSC. As I have repeatedly promised, I am not going to change the current level of the soil, despite undertaking a demolition process that may be disturb an estimated 40% of the building site. My goal is to keep the elevation the same as that of neighboring properties as it is today. Since there is no current drainage problem and I will not be changing the site elevation, I still don't feel a topographical survey and consequent drainage plan is relevant. I see such surveys confirming the elevation as only being useful for changing the status quo in ways that may create 2 a burden for neighboring properties. It troubles me that executing a drainage plan at my cost may only be beneficial for allowing the City to demonstrate that it has enforced its ordinances and then being able to sidestep any involvement about new drainage issues between neighbors that the plan may cause. I think the City should consider different ways to address issues such as mine. Regards, Dick Yehle cc: Dave Beach 3