Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02231987 ZPC Hearing•' i • • . _ ~~ . \ JOINT PUBLIC HEARING -~\ ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ~ -~ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1987 ~ ~~ 7:30 P.M. COMMUNITY BUILDING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AUDEN STREET AND RICE BLVD. Mayor Parks called to order the Joint Public Hearing before the City Council and the Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place at 7:30 P.M., February 23, 1987, in the Community Building located at Auden and Rice Boulevard. The following members of the City Council were present: Mayor Parks, presiding; Councilmembers Laura C. Higley, Beth Ann Bryan, C. Boone Schwartzel and J. B. Thompson. The following members of the Zoning and Planning Commission were present: Chairman Reid Wilson, Commissioners Charles N. Lusk, III, Buddy Bell, Robert Lindsey, Susan Rachlin, George Ruhlen and Stephen Munisteri who arrived at 7:45 P.M. Mayor Parks announced that the hearing had been called by City Ordinance Number 1278. The purpose of the hearing was to provide an opportunity for parties-in-interest and citizens to be heard in relation to a proposed comprehensive revision of the City's zoning ordinance and an updated zoning district map. Mayor Parks introduced the members of City Council. Mayor Parks further announced that copies of the proposed zoning • ordinance and the zoning district map were available to everyone present. Larger maps were at various places around the room. There was a.table in the rear of the room for those wishing to bring any typographical or grammatical errors to our attention. Red pens were available for that purpose. Also available were comment and question sheets for the use of anyone who might wish to submit a written comment or question. Copies of the amended Comprehensive Plan were available. City Council and Zoning and Planning Commission have incorporated many of the comments made during the Public Hearing held for that purpose on Februry 9, 1987. A television monitor was located in the Loggia area and the Senior Services Center to accommodate the overflow crowd. Those wishing to speak were required to fill out a card which was picked up in the aisle and brought to the City Manager. Each speaker was initially limited to 3 minutes until everyone wishing to speak had an opportunity to do so. If anyone had additional comments, there was offered an opportunity to continue after all had been heard for the initial 3-minute period. Mayor Parks invited Chairman Wilson to make introductory remarks. Chairman Wilson introduced the members of the Zoning and Planning Commission. Chairman Wilson stated that Ordinance Number 1278 required that notice . of this hearing be given both by publishing it in a local paper and by mailing t~ property owners as listed on the City's tax roll. Chairman Wilson asked if the publisher's affidavit and reports from City staff ~: ~ i`. Joint Public Hea~g, February 23, 1987 . • members, showing that the required notices were given, were available for inspection. The City Secretary responded that on the table were both a publisher's affidavit and reports from City staff inembers showing that the required notices were given. There was also an extra copy of Ordinance Number 1278 on the table. Chairman Wilson acknowledged the affidavit and reports and stated the documents were to become a part of the record of the Public Hearing. Mayor Parks introduced the proposed zoning ordinance and update of the zoning district map by relating that the present zoning ordinance was 50 years old. Early in the current administration of this City Council, the Zoning and Planning Correnission was asked to review the zoning ordinance. Later the City was asked to consider a rezoning to build a multi-story retirement home at the JMH #3 store location. Members of the Long Range Planning Committee, chaired by Louis Sklar, reviewed the zoning ordinance. One of their members, Mark Spradling, actually submitted the first draft of the zoning revisions to the Zoning and Planning Corr~nission. Mayor Parks described the existing and proposed maps and mentioned that if any errors were made in a particular area, the land use will revert to single family residential. That fact was defined as a protective provision stated in the proposed zoning ordinance. Mayor Parks turned • the microphone over to Chairman Wilson. ' Chairman Wilson addressed the audience. City Council and Zoning and Planning Commission requested the residents and parties-in-interest take a comprehensive view of the existing zoning ordinance. The last major revisions were in the townhouse districts. The need for the update of the map became apparent with the JMH rezoning request. Fortunately the City was protected from the proposed multi-level development. That particular rezoning request was withdrawn because of public protests. After that time, Zoning and Planning Commission studied the commercial areas. The Corr~nission drafted proposed amendments to the commercial zoning districts; held public hearings; incorporated citizen input from that public hearing in the proposed corrgnercial draft; and recommended the proposed ordinance to the City Council. City Council, by ordinance, adopted the commercial zoning revision which was brought forward, in its entirety, into the draft before us tonight. We have tried not to change anything. However, light, air and space requirements have been increased and the only way to accomplish that was to increase the setbacks. The Commission's goal was to generally update the zoning ordinance so that it would be defensible in the courts. Zoning ordinances from other cities were studied. At this time, Chairman Wilson reviewed the zoning map, as follows: ~ The City is zoned into two single family residential districts. The white area on the map is designated as SF1 district in which , '; Joint Public Hearing. February 23. 1987 • ~ any kind of exterior construction material may be used. The blue • area is designated as SF2 district in which 51~ of the exterior is required to be brick, brick veneer or stone. Both of these districts are identical under the old and new ordinance. The following Townhouse Districts as shown on the map were enacted by ordinances in 1973: _' Bellaire Townhouse District 1 Kirby Drive Townhouse District 2 Browning Townhouse District 3 Weslayan Townhouse District 4 Bissonnet Townhouse Oistrict 5 Ruskin Townhouse District 6 Mercer Townhouse District 7 The General Townhouse District on Bissonnet was enacted in 1966. All of these districts were brought forward. • The Commercial District is the same office district on Beliaire which was enacted in 1968. The JMH#3 corrmercial area, the Downtown, the commercial on Kirby and Bissonnet have been designated as such since 1937. Any area in the City not zoned cor~nercial, townhouse, or another particular zoning, revert to single family. Single family residential should always be the City's dominant character. This joint public hearing held before Zoning and Planning Commission and City Council was called by Ordinance Number 1278 for the purpose to provide an opportunity for parties in interest and citizens to be heard in relation to the proposed comprehensive revision of the City's zoning ordinance and an updated zoning district map.. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to each property owner listed on the City's tax roll and published in the paper, all in accordance with Ordinance Number 1278. The documents certifying compliance with the notice requirements of Ordinance Number 1278 will become part of the official record of this Public Hearing. ~ After this Public Hearing. the Zoning and Planning Commission will have meetings, open to the public. weekly on Thursday nights. We anticipate making changes to the ordinance as needed. After the • revision is completed, the Commission will submit a report and make a recommendation to the City Council. It will be on the City 3 ~ Joint Public He~g, February 23, 1987 . ~ Council agenda for two meetings and two readings. At this time, Chairman Wilson opened the floor for questions and comments. R. E. Thornton, 3929 Milton, wanted to know if the residential areas were really protected from commercial development. Also, he noticed commercial restrictions against . mirrored walls. Mr. Thornton wanted to know if the restriction applied to mirrored windows. Dixie Weldon, 3834 University Blvd., referred to the Comprehensive Plan, Article 2.01 General Polices, subparagraph (a) and the reference to the existing residential neighborhoods and residences should be "enhanced". Mrs. Weldon wanted to know if the word enhanced meant increased in value to raise taxes. Senior citizens can not keep up with constant improvements to their homes. Will the senior citizen houses be condemned. Mayor Parks responded that it was not the intention of the Comprehensive Plan or the City Council. Mrs. Weldon requested a light at the intersection of University Blvd. and Edloe. Also, Section 3.02 of the Comprehensive Plan addressed Peripheral Development. Mrs. Weldon suggested that area be patrolled in an effort to keep any unlawful element out of the City. • Richard Popham, 5321 Sewanee, addressed Special Screens, page 38, and suggested the same language be included in residential zoning districts since schools and municipal buildings may be allowed in single family districts. Those structures are likely to use loading docks or waste storage areas. Dorothy Rieger, 6516 Brompton, stated she approved of the setback requirements with the exception for big lots. She felt it was not fair to have to sacrifice open area to a neighbor because a person owns a large lot. Also, Mrs. Rieger asked for consideration be given to the small lots to not allow two-story garages. The Side Lot Setback Schedule Exception, page 1: the side street (corner lot) - she did not understand the distance from the street. It seemed hazardous. Joan McCay, 3029 Carnegie, commended the Zoning and Planning Commission for their work on the ordinance. However, she thought the ordinance lacked a citation and strong fine clauses for enforcement purposes. Page 8(4) Signs: signs should be placed back inside the property line. Page 19, Article 10: add noise limitation Page 20, Parking Page 26, PNC: when does it apply? at Page 31 and Page 33. Home occupation; ~ clarification Page 3, Schedule PDD-TH1: questioned sale of the property? you mean residents - needs drainage facility 4 = Joint Public He~g, February 23, 1987 • ~ Councilmember Schwartzel responded that drainage was addressed separately and not included in the zoning ordinance. Courtyard: should address pervious material requirement Defi.nition of pervious material: something that contains water Art Hirdler, 6416 Cort~nunity, brought a list of proposed amendments which included grammatical corrections. He requested permission to pass the list to the City Council and Zoning and Planning Commission and to the audience at random. Permission was granted. Mr. Hirdler reque5ted to return later to discuss the amendments. Richard Carlson, 3926 Marquette, asked what changes had been made to the old ordinance and requested a copy of the old ordinance. Chairman Wilson responded that there were no significant changes but because the current zoning ordinance had not been updated for so long, the format is different in the proposed ordinance. All the concepts are the same with the exception of side setbacks. The other regulations, now considered standard, were not in our old ordinance. Mr. Carlson was advised the old ordinance was available at City Hall. • Sterling Minor, 4112 Coleridge, a member of Zoning Board of Adjustment, requested consideration be given to setbacks on corner lots. He thought the reference to rear lot, side lot line was. confusing. Mr. Minor suggested "corner lot" be addressed on page - 6 of the ordinance and that a better definition of "established building line" be provided. Nancy Bell, 3730 Nottingham, asked for clarification of side setbacks. If someone has purchased a wide lot, they should not be penalized because they have a larger house. Mrs. Bell thought setbacks should be equal. Also, on page 6, building site and adjace~t lots: how will they be treated if individually platted? Commissioner Lindsey responded that if the lots are on the zoning map platted separately, they are individual lots. Jim McPhail, 3221 Amherst, minister of West University Methodist Church, thought that on Page 4, Article 7, Residential Districts (iii) churches should be listed. Churches provi e c~v~ c services. The Methodist Chruch is landlocked. There may be some time in the future that the church may want to expand their grounds. Joy DeLaveaga, 3317 Robinhood, wanted to thank the Zoning and Planning Cornnission for the new ordinance. It is something the City needed and I want to thank them for doing such a good ~ob. • Diane Dahlem, 6120 Lake, thought the Zoning and Planning Commission had done a superb job. She had a question concerning 5 ~ .- Joint Public Hea~g, February 23, 1987 • . the purpose of having two single family districts. She felt that requiring 51X brick in one area would split the City into two groups. Mrs. Dahlem also had a question concerning prior non- conformities. She and her husband have a structure not completed and will not be completed within the 180 days allowed under Section 12-102 (b). Also, the 5 foot setback requirement presented a problem for them. Mrs. J. H. Barry, 3035 Nottingham, said she had lived in West University Place since 1940. She thought the new ordinance would change a City of Homes to a City of Townhouses. She wanted no more townhouses. Mrs. Barry also requested a noise ordinance. Whitt Johnson, 3216 Nottingham, felt change was inevitable. Each time there was a change, it seemed to him to reflect the interpretation of the one who wrote the change. Who is going to interpret the zoning ordinance on a day-to-day basis? Mr. Johnson felt that an ordinance was no stronger than the ability to enforce it. Also, he thought Article 12, Prior Non-Conformities was difficult to understand and ambiguous. Gene Hines, 3748 Rice Blvd., thought Zoning and Planning had done a fine job. His question was generally on the map concerning the parking area north of the Cellar poor. He thought consideration should be given to creating a category of "Parking Only" areas. On Page 6. Building Sites, the deviation to a ~ minimum depth of 110 feet was unwise. On Page 7, Trees: Mr. Hines thought this section went beyond the issue of zoning. It would be an imposition on the citizen to appear before the Zoning Board of Adjustment concerning trees. Emergency situations needed to be addressed. A request for "expert testimony" requires me to spend money for the expert's testimony. Page 8, Driveway placement, (ii and iii): Mr. Hines thought to be unnecessary. Does Page 8, Signs, preclude the use of seasonal greetings, and if so, who will enforce it. If it is to be allowed, it should be specifically addressed. Fifty-one percent brick requirement should be done away with. Page 17, Building Materials, who decides what is equal grade and quality? R. D. Walker, 6008 Kirby Drive, lives in the Kirby Drive Townhouse. What can develop on a 50 foot lot? Mr. Walker did not understand the setback requirement on his lot. Chairman Wilson stated that the restrictions in the Townhouse District on Kirby Qrive have existed since 1973. The restrictions were carried forward and were considered to be reasonable. Frank Billings, 3123 Sunset, expressed his concern about prior non-corformities whether there was enough protection on side setbacks for those who have lived here 40 years. Mr. Billings did • not understand the special exception provision. A special exception is established by ordinance. If a person meets those 6 ..,. Joint Public Hea~ng~ February 23. 1987 • • requirements, those people can come before Zoning Board of Adjustment? Chairman Wilson stated the special exception clause provided some flexibility in the ordinance itself, rather than arbitrary, there was provided a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mayor Parks recommended Zoning Board of Adjustment and Zoning and Planning Commission meet together to discuss enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. Billings expressed concerns about the side setback lines and felt they penalized the owners of larger lots. Also, Mr. Billings thought "qualified tree" needed to be modified. He thought the requirement that 60% of the front yard must be unoccupied was confusing. John L. Maneval, 2723 Centenary, found problems with the SF2 district. There would be loss of value not being able to build 44 foot wide. He suggested a comparison 7-100 (e) (i), (iii) to 5 foot gap in the Townhouse District. Lots on Comnunity have a 30 foot pipeline easement in the rear yards. Mr. Maneval suggested to defind Building Site to exclude pipeline easement. Chairman Wilson agreed Zoning and Planning Commission would review that section. ~ Suzanne Street, 3106 Robinhood, thought garage apartments - should be zoned out before the 20 years provided in the proposed ordinance. Paul Oaigle, 4203 S. Judson, stated he was against a City of brick monoliths. People are concerned because of side setbacks which helps create a town of inega townhouses. The personality in the design of existing homes are proportionate with the lot size. Article 7(e) (3) requires at least 40 percent of each building site must be open area. Is the requirement the same for a single story house as a two story? Might consider less setbacks for single story houses. On Page 25, Section 11-102, Variances: those residents within the 200 foot notice requirements would benefit if they received a copy of the site plan along with the notice. Helen Gorman, 6545 Westchester, thought front garages took too much space. She thought driveways should go all the way to the back. Ms. Gorman thought a two-story house should have more open space. Lawrence Dickerson, 4116 Coleridge, bought a larger lot. He was against the 25 foot height for other structure and suggested 20 height requirement. See Section 24 (6) and Section 26. ~ H. M. Jones, 3502 Cason, against monoliths and liked the differences in the housing construction. Mr. Jones was against 7 ..,.. Joint Public Hea~g, February 23. 1987 • • the 51~ brick requirement because of the availability of new building materials such as ceramic coated steel. Why not mirrored glass in commercial district construction? Commissioner Lusk responded that mirrored glass generates heat onto adjacent property owners. Diane Dahlem, 6120 Lake, asked why gravel was not considered pervious material and thought the definition on Page 35 needed to be rewritten. Peter Elsiks, 2909 Bissonnet, does not consider a townhouse a necessary evil. He lives in a townhouse and considers it his home. The Townhouse Sections transition feature require an 8 foot fence or wall. His townhouse complex has such a fence. Now the fence needs repairing and the townhouse residents are required to repair it for the benefit of the residents behind the townhouse. He feels like a second class citizen. Who is responsible for putting up the fence? Clara Alice Beaver, 6421 Sewanee, stated that West University Place is not River Oaks. Our City is not exclusive, but inclusive. Should government perpetuate 51~ exterior brick requirement? Fire considerations can be addressed other ways. The zoning ordinance should include other materials. • Tom Nichols, 2725 Centenary, was in favor of the 5 foot setback. He liked the qualified tree requirement. Can there be a provision to trade off an increase in setback for an increase of height to allow for creative architectural development? Gerald Pfeffer, 5819 Annapolis, was against the 5 foot setback. He thought the increased side setback destroyed architectural creativity. Oriveway requirement needed to be modified for corner lots. Off-street parking requirement makes owner pave most of his yard. Art Whitmer, 6709 Westchester, thought that wider setbacks will hurt property values. Tree restriction will hurt property values. Chairman Wilson advised that the restriction on taking down trees refers to only trees in the front yard. Cletus J. Wark, 6714 Rutgers, asked if existing garage apartments were being zoned out. Janet Marclay, 3902 Amherst, wanted to know under what conditions she could construct a garage apartment. Joan McCay, 3029 Carnegie, asked if the projection prohibition ~ applied to the second story and if the second story could extend out over a setback line. 8 J • ~.,~~ Joint Public He~ng. February 23, 1987 • ~ Art Hirdler, requested his written coRUnents previously submitted during the Public Hearing be considered. Chairman Reid Wilson stated that the written comments submitted by Mr. Hirdler would become part of the official record of the Public Hearing. Chairman Wilson stated that the Tom Northrup Report was submitted to become part of the offic"ial record of the Public Hearing. With no persons wishing to make further comments or questions, motion was made by Councilmember Schwart2el, seconded by Councilmember Higley, that the Public Hearing be adjourned. that all of the staff reports, tapes, maps, written comments and questions received, the report submitted by Northup and Associates and all material considered at the hearing be made a part of the record of this hearing. Councilmembers Voting Aye: Mayor Parks, Councilmembers Higley, Bryan, Schwartzel, Thompson Councilmembers Voting No: None Councilmembers Absent: None Motion was then made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Commissioner Lusk, that the Public Hearing be adjourned, that • all of the staff reports, tapes, maps, written comments and questions received, the report submitted by Northup and Associates and all material considered at the hearing be made a part of the record of this hearing. CorrIIni ssi oners Voti ng Aye : CorrQnissioners Voting No: Commissioners Absent: Chairman Wilson, Corr~nissioners Lusk, Bell, Lindsey, Munisteri, Rachlin, Ruhlen None None • 9