Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/2001 - Regular Minutes - Historic Preservation Committee MINUTES Historic Preservation Committee November 26, 2001 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lancaster, Gantt, Conlee, Richardson, Davis, Sanford MEMBERS ABSENT: Griffith, Sheffy and alternate member Allison. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Hitchcock, Senior Planner Battle. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order. Chairman Lancaster called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence request from meeting. Robert McGee and Randal Allison sent e-mails that they would not attend the meeting due to prior obligations. The Board did not vote on their absence. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear visitors. Mike Luther and Benito-Flores-Meath were in attendance for presentations. Mr. Luther handed the .__ Board 2 documents. The first document a background of College Park Subdivision. The second document being specific points relevant to the draft of the Unified Development Ordinance(attached). Mr. Flores-Meath handed the Committee his comments on the UDO (attached). Mr. Flores-Meath encouraged the Committee to make a motion or opinion on the UDO to help preserve the neighborhoods. Mr. Flores-Meath added that there is nothing in the UDO defining "historic". Mr. Flores-Meath asked the Committee to concentrate on what affects historic preservation and how it is defined. What are the problems, and based on the problems find solutions. The Committee discussed the documents handed out. Mr. Lancaster asked if the Committee would have another opportunity to have in put into the process of the UDO. Mr. Battle replied yes. Mr. Battle told the Committee to keep in mind that the UDO is a development ordinance and it consists mostly of things related to development standards. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Committee that he did not see why there could not be a Historic Preservation overlay district. Mr. Battle stated that the Committee has discussed this before as a Conservation District. Many of items discussed might fit into a conservation district and they have already been placed in the ordinance. Alexandria Davis asked for clarification on what the UDO is going to do. Mr. Battle replied the UDO will consist of the subdivision regulations, zoning ordinance, development standards, driveway access ordinances and drainage. These all deal with development. Everything that is existing would fall into a non-conforming status meaning that they do not conform with the new ordinances, but it was conforming when it was built. The property can remain non-conforming forever until it redevelops. The Committee addressed drainage and new construction as it impacts the older neighbors. Mr. Flores-Meath suggested that the Historic Preservation Overlay read: "this overlay is done to preserved older neighborhoods in the city as defined by City Council". Then let the City Council determine what the key points they want to preserve. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Continued discussions on the proposed Unified Development Ordinance and prepare report to the Planning& Zoning Commission at their meeting November 29, 2001. Alexandra Davis made the motion to endorse Mr. Luther's report with emphasis on parking, drainage& conservation district to the Planning & Zoning Commission as their comments pertaining to the UDO. Wendy Richardson seconded the motion. The Committee voted (6-0). Mr. Luther stated that as an observer, Lee Battle and the city have done a good job of presenting the items that need to be done. AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Future agenda items. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO 6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: 47(AA-44/%1 Bill Lancaster, Chairman ATTEST: ttl 411W '44 ei Deborah Grace, Sta Assistant For all its usefulness, the draft UDO will be legally eviscerated UNLESS some specific and clearly written definitions are included, especially Single-Family Detached Residence, and other crucially fundamental concepts. Protection for the older neighborhoods needs shoring up in matters involving parking, drainage, and related issues which hundreds of people; thousands of hours of personal , committee and City time, and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars have already been spent . . . and are yet . . unresolved in the draft details of this basically good document. The attached is only what one person who has been through all this for decades has seen that isn't right yet. Please listen carefully to those who come with more that must be tweaked and polished. We are doing the rules for the next fifty years here. Plus, we can do a better job yet, if we will simply abide by a slight variation of its own already written words. . . The fact that property may be utilized more profitably should something someone else may want be done, should not be considered grounds for doing i differently than it should be done. MIKE L UTH E R DRAWER CA * COLLEGE STATION, TX. 77841 November 26, 2001 The City of College Station Sabina Kuenzel Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 Dear Sabina: Thank you for instructions that UDO draft textual and concept issues should be addressed to yourself. The party to handle Administrative issues concerning it should be addressed is Glen Brown. At this point, the issues I have found on reading seem strictly textual and concept. I have studied the document. That doesn't mean I understand it all , grin! But I'm trying to! Attached are specific points relevant to the draft. Each person will have a different view of it based on personal experience and opinions. But from my hundreds of hours of experience in handling these Single Family Residence Neighborhood issues and years of committee work with dozens of people who share my views, more needs to be done to protect these older areas. A lot of needed work has been done in this draft UDO. A few areas are weak. Let's generalize three major issues held, as requested, then work them line by line. Remember, this UDO is the focus of years of work caused by poor planning! The three areas are weak, or I do not understand the document well enough to know they are really adequately covered. They are: 1 . ) Differentiation of true owner-occupied Single Family Residences and Converted Single Family Residences used for business purposes as rental units. That, with even better protection from the destruction of Single Family Residence neighborhoods as they were intended to exist. 2. ) Lack of protection of old-time as-built parcels in the older neighborhoods for drainage woes, produced by folks who can change the water flow for everyone else around them at whim with no recourse at all for the misery. That, combined with unacceptable vehicle loads in streets. 3. ) A very narrow issue about protection for Amateur Radio antenna towers which is really, partly there, has NOT been a problem in College Station, but could become one, if the UDO goes forward into the future as written. First will come a pure text discussion for each of the above three areas. 1 Differentiation of true owner occupied Single Family Residences and Converted Single Family Residences used for business purposes as rental units. Let's start with the rental crush issue. In the interest of public safety, particularly in the two older Historic Areas for East Gate and Southside, a solid definition and registry of purely rental vs. owner-occupied properties still isn't in this UDO draft. You bet these Unit renters are important! But the issue, legally, is far more than just addressing their numbers as Units! Lee Battle stated at the last HPC meeting that College Station has perhaps 19,000 Rental Units or a 75% Rental Unit mix of all dwelling spaces. That is confusing, I believe, to just toss that out in relation to property and zoning issues. Part of that, I think, is that in College Station, some folks tend to look at Units of Occupancy as 'the' measure of how extensive 'control ' of an area has passed from what is still really Single Family Residential , to 'something else' , and what 'rights 'these Unit numbers should command. But what the UDO addresses, as I a layman understand it, is that it's property owners who count, not individual renters, despite how horribly important the cash throw they create is. I am not an attorney. But as a layman, I think counsel will agree that even the recent local Nagle District Court case argument settled out something VERY important as to whom had and has a say in what may or may not be visited as restrictions on property in the City. Yes, it was a Deed Restriction case, but still important here! As I understand what was settled out of this case, locally, the owners of property in an area are entitled to protection or restrictions, but the way the 'vote' is counted as to what is important, is a little different than many might believe. An owner may be only one individual , or a collection of them, as far as any amount of property in the area. It makes no difference how many individuals make up 'an owner, ' nor how much or how many lots or parcels in the area that 'owner' owns or controls! The smallest, poorest individual owner has no more, nor no less rights, than any other owner! Yes, a handful of 'owners' actually may own and 'control ' or develop a huge majority of the 19,000 odd Units of Rental Property here in College Station. But it is still the, at first what looks like might be the minority, the Single Family Residence owners in a Single Family Residence area, who actually are likely the majority, legally, counted so in the above manner, whom the City must protect! The information Lee has to provide to fairly show this in the Southside, is that Gonzales may have two houses but he only counts equally in importance with Mrs. Miller. The Parker interests may have four homes but they count no more nor less than Pat Cleer. The majority ownership, shown properly, isn't near as conclusively rental property slanted, as one might think. The correct count shown, Southside is still far more owner-occupied than one might first think, even though so divirse it's hard to organize. 2 This UDO draft has done an eloquent job, on the main, at doing that! I offer you two definitions which support that statement, taken from it: 1 . ) Page 11-13, Definitions, Person: "Every natural person, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, or other group which conducts activities regulated hereunder as a single entity, whether, same be a legal entity or not, venture, trust." 2. ) Page 3-22/23, Criteria for Approval of Variances: E(3): Profitability Not to Be Considered. "The fact that property may be utilized more profitably should a variance be granted may not be considered grounds for a variance. " Frankly, most 'owners' do an admirable job of protecting renters and at the same time, protecting the rights of other 'owners' in the older Single Family Residence areas. But some do not. So too, some are much further away from their property, geographically or figuratively, than others, and whose renters and use of property for purely profit purposes, create misery for what is still , under a proper definition, the majority of owners in the area. The owners who do not properly address safety issues are enough in number now, as many view it, that we have to organize the protective efforts for renters. We only create laws for what we cannot socially join together and control . The UDO is a beautiful example of why this is, sadly, necessary. I think you will find College Station has the largest percentage of rental units per dwelling units of any college town with no rental registration and safety control ordinance! We have the youngest average population in a city like this, I suspect! Most, likely, come here to rent a place to start learning how to move from childhood to responsible adults, and do! But few of them, frankly, have any real idea how to protect themselves from those rental owners who only are interested in profits and have safety problems. It would appear that solving this still belongs first couched in a sub- definition of Single Family Detached Home dwellings in this UDO. It would appear that it has to be UDO sanctioned and an ordinance in place with a frequent enough inspection system to guarantee young folks do not face health and safety problems, every time they come in and sign an agreement to rent. It was said, "Don't complain about how this looks unless you also bring in a solution." OK, here is a carefully thought out response the really hurt folks need. If the suggested wording is received well there will be no need to try to mobilize an uproar. Please answer my points; time is short! Second is the drainage issue in the older neighborhoods. That combined with unacceptable vehicle loads for streets which can't support the crush and which cannot be at all realistically improved. 3 Lack of protection of old time as-built parcels, in the older neighborhoods for drainage woes, produced by folks who can change the water flow for everyone else around them at whim with no recourse at all for the misery. That combined with unacceptable vehicle loads in streets. A great deal of effort has gone into study and identification of problems unique to older neighborhoods in College Station. This draft UDO finally recognizes that those emplaced prior to July 15, 1970, do in fact have to be protected, by City effort, somehow, in order to protect the true owner rights majority as defined in the first major issue above. That's wonderful ! But the drainage damage that can result for individual owners of nearby properties in the older areas caused by unmonitored and uncontrolled other property owner blockage of run-off, has not been 'solved' in this UDO, yet, as I see it. My personal opinion stems from my family's whole existence in the Southside area for my entire life of 62 years. A great deal has happened in the past in these neighborhoods which favors 'development' - 'redevelopment' , to be more accurate, at the expense of what was originally here, etched best into what could realistically be done on this land, at the original levels of the area. Sure, with enough money you can engineer your way out of even horribly un- civil such messes. But that kind of funding simply isn't available to cover what's thought to be 'nice', if we'd do 'this' or 'that' , Nor can it ever likely be put into place with all the old lot levels, prize trees, without completely destroying the investments and character of these Historic Areas. Mark Smith, as well as others at the City, have a complete copy of the private report I furnished with all the time-line data as to how this deal developed. As Mark told me, it will take a huge, very difficult and long running major capital funding project to perhaps even partially fix this, and the area simply cannot be curbed and guttered in any practical way for all these myriad of 1920's-level land parcels and established Historic homes levels. Thus it simply is not fair to individually do something to cure one's own perspective of water, water everywhere and nowhere for it off 'my property' to run, at the expense of anyone else! Nor is it fair to attempt to build a fortress wall around your property for any other purpose and ignore what damage you will do to many others around you who have no common solution for area-wide drainage. If you block, curb, or privately raise your parcel 's basic land level to attempt to elevate your situation above all else in these neighborhoods, for any reason, whatsoever; you are a bad neighbor. And again, because we can't seem to socially fix this, we must ordinate solutions. These NC areas, pre-1970's founded, absolutely must have a Zero Rise philosophy for basic land use and levels, as well as total fence control to at least insure no fence can change the drainage flow under it without very careful full study to prove it cannot harm other land use up or down stream. 4 The major street profile for pre-1970 neighborhoods is really frozen backwards in time now, regardless of how it was paved into place. We have no current solution to the horrible vehicle crush which comes, on average, from houses converted from owner-occupied use to purely profit-driven rental units. Some argue an owner can also create a situation with four permanent vehicles at a Single Family Residence and four more on the street overnight! But correctly surveying this from 12:00 AM to 6:00 AM night after night shows that allegation isn't a useful answer. It is a diversionary excuse for not having the guts to do the real job which can be done. The problems are not created by owner-occupied properties; they are created by rental homes, with few exceptions. Rental units statistically throw vehicle presence beyond their frontline borders - often on BOTH sides of the streets around them! Ask Fire Chief David Giordano, Jon Mies, or dozens of the owners who have fought this issue out. On most 22 foot-wide pavement streets in these old areas, there really is no room to get fire/ambulance service RELIABLY to any address in the late night hours around many of the rental unit addresses! The cars get left on the streets as visitors flock in and/or the owners and they leave for wherever, until when and if they ever arrive back to stay overnight and on until they leave next morning. Two cars per bedroom sometimes happens. Ann Hazen is adamant, "We HAVE to solve the safety problem on Welsh! It is impossible to get a fire truck down it at night! Make it No Parking on one side of ALL these streets there!" Please note CAREFULLY that throwing cars off ONE side of all streets isn't a useful solution. As protested to the City by dozens of property owners, those entitled to property protection, forcing the same number of cars into half the parking space is no answer! Worse, on each corner one house will have *NO* street parking! It is unfair to ask those who do have parking left on remaining for-parking fronts, to give theirs up for someone else, if as often happens, that owner doesn't cause the mess! Ed Hard, as much as he wanted the cheap deal to use the current Historic Sign poles for double duty, was forced to agree that one-side blanket-removal was wrong! Jon Mies recently said, "What I want is to remove ALL the vehicles from these streets, not from Midnight to 6:00, but from 10:30 to 6:00 AM." That matches noise control timing. It is either this or registration for only the number of vehicles which fit safely in front of only the house which hosts their permits! Of course rental unit owners are opposed to any of this! Jim Callaway noted, "I may not be able to fix the problem, but I can fix the symptom! " You bet! This UDO is *VERY close to doing that, as written. It *COULD* do it with a few carefully chosen words in places. Few rental owners act on their own to expand off-street parking although some do! First demark rental homes; off-street parking must be provided for them by owners at normal inspection time. Prohibit parking on narrow streets nightly or as needed by ENFORCED ordinance! All pay equally, streets are clean, everyone's safe. Thirdly, I address a very vertical problem we don't have now, but could! 5 A very narrow issue about protection for Amateur Radio antenna towers which is really, partly there, has NOT been a problem in College Station, but could become one if the UDO goes forward into the future as written. Because I am a long time NARTE-certified licensed Telecommunications Engineer, with extensive experience in the Amateur Radio discipline as well , I see sections of this UDO which are at potential odds with current and likely future Federal Law. The Amateur Radio community is MUCH more important than many believe in real times of Emergency. As an example, for almost the entire first two days after the Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City, most critically needed Fire and Rescue communications were, in fact, handled by Amateurs! The whole official communications net came down with that building. Steve Beachy has done a good job of developing trunking systems for handling City Communications, along with many others. But we are moving into very different times post September 11 , 2001 . We must learn to think much more favorably about volunteer communications services, for backup. A similar service by Amateur Radio operators was, indeed, furnished in New York, but duplicative official channels were present there, fortunately. No small city can cover total loss economically, so begin to focus on that now. Also, recent massive failures of Internet and many telephone circuits, reveal a serious alternative for disaster services for these crucial channels is also needed and being planned for these people. A city that runs on communications simply cannot afford to run out! Hopefully, College Station will never need this, but under this UDO draft, the needed freedom to develop and maintain the required higher antenna towers for the Amateur Radio crew, many of which are already well placed, could well not continue. Yes, Sabina, you folks *DID* remember the Amateur Radio operators! Yes, Sabina, there has never been a tower issue for this group here in College Station before! But what is in the draft of this UDO is likely really not enough to keep the antenna tools in place for them to do what they really have to do, when it comes time to 'pay' for why they, too, hold Public Safety Service licenses! These folks have to go up with towers of reasonable height well beyond 35 feet, as needed, and reasonably change equipment on them, just to be able to offer that service they must do when called upon! Essentially, if something comes down and doesn't get off the property when it does, nor become involved in the higher voltage utility service lines if it does, these folks will be free to continue their important work. They are, on the main, a horribly safety conscious group. There's never, to my knowledge, ever been even a significant incident in this regard here, even at customary heights for the relatively few that are already up in the 100-125 foot range. Now, attached, page by page, line by line, here are the problems and suggested text changes on how to make it better. Please do not shoot the messenger! 6 , SinCir • Mike Luther UDOcmtOl .wst Attached: Points made list cc: Glen Brown Mark Smith David Giordano Jon Mies Steve Beachy The HPC, Bill Lancaster - Chair 7 Line-by-Line Comments on the Public Draft UDO Release Page Notation 2-1 2-8 5(f) Blank Item 3-2 F(1 ) Blank Item 3-3 2(b) Greater than 200 foot notice in the NG-WPC-00 *and* NC areas is really needed. Part of the real reason for this in the NC areas is that under the draft UDO proposal , people seriously at risk for drainage damages in these pre-1970 areas must be noticed of proposed property use which will affect them with the as-un-provided-for still-allowed run-off and elevation damnation of water back on them. Often a party more than 200 feet away can be damaged and never know it will happen. 3-5 A(2) The way this is really worded is that all none-principal residences require Development Permits! That's WONDERFUL because it means that all RENTAL property, not your primary residence, must have a full Development Permit. Leave it just as it is written, but there will be one more change needed to bind this together later on in this critique. In the NC areas it is particularly important because of the provision of; 4(a) makes it absolutely required that flooding and erosion damage must be considered for; 4(c) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. . To CLEARLY gain what we have been asking for in the to-be NC low-level areas, we need to change the wording of 4(c) to: "The danger that materials and water may be swept onto or backed up onto other lands to the injury of others." Then in respect to A(2) above, we add the wording to the end of that provision so that it continues on: ", and is not in any NC designated area of the UDO." 8 3-15 We can gain NC area protection by site plans required in the NC areas. That's really what we have been asking for all along to protect them, as well . We can get that protection by adding the wording to: 3(A)(1 ) " . . . other than single-family, duplex or town home residential development in non-NC designated areas of the UDO, a site plan shall be approved. . ." 3-18 3(8)(B) Provides that a blanket 20% deviation from any numeric standard is Administratively fine. A 20% deviation from ANY numeric standard which is auto-approved by the Administrator has the same effect of lowering the entire standard by 20% over time due to intellectual corruption. It needs to start at 10%, not 20%. 3-29 F: Insert text is missing. 3-32 3.14(A) Provides for Subdivision Plat Review which is VERY clearly stated to be needed "for any purpose" into two or more parcels. But does this also include INFILL division of one lot into two or more lots? Absent of a clear definition of a PARCEL in the the definitions section, it likely means dividing even one lot as such, push come to shove in litigation. An average reader needs a better definition of what he or she could do with a single lot, as related to Plat Review, one would think. 4-4 4.6(B) It is true that antenna arrays use by amateur radio operators are purported to be exempted in a later section. But height restrictions for the area are *NOT* cleared for them by exemption elsewhere. Thus virtually all of their much needed and very necessary emergency service functions are destroyed unless it is clear that height in the area and spacing for them laterally between each other is also waived. 4-8 NC areas were left out of the definition! There is no definition at all in this critical section for the newly created NC category. This MUST be done! 9 5-2 Permitted Use Chart, Single Family Detached field. There is no NOUN in the phrase at all, thus it does not at all define what a "Single Family Detached" is! The net effect of that will be that everything in the document referring to "Single Family Detached", can be struck down as "Void for Vagueness." Add the word "Home" to the phrase, or perhaps "Residence", in that field. It will take one more line for the entire chart to cover that word's addition but if a Manufactured Home can do that to get in the word "Park", surely we can do this! 5-6 Household Living Chart, Detached Single Family (?) Missing "Detached Single Family", what (?) word again! As well the entire chart is confusing. By simply separating the nouns in the names of the thing with nothing but semi-colons, it actually can be construed that *ANY* of these uses can be permitted by right in a "Detached Single Family" whatever, for example! Split this chart into DEFINED use for each, carefully worded so that it MATCHES the Permitted Use Chart phrasing on page 5-2 so as to remove the vague references. 5-7 Group Living Chart. This wording jumble has a horrible back reference to the page 5-2 Permitted Use Chart phrasing where it specifies that Group Homes are permitted by right in all Single Family neighborhoods! That is EXACTLY the opposite of what all the furor has been about in re the destruction of and infill operations for pure profit are all about which are destroying these Single Family Neighborhoods, especially in what will now be the NC area. Under this draft of the proposed UDO, A Group Home, has the clear permission by right, in all RE, R8 and R5 neighborhoods, of hosting Group Living. But Group Living is talked about! If this is not clarified, the entire NC concept, and Neighborhood Preservation efforts for over thirty years may be for nothing. 5-24 2. Telecommunications Facilities Chart. The entire amateur radio group has been left out of the exceptions here, although the attempt has been made to do the exemption later! It is necessary here to get them in here as they are absolutely and specifically not covered, in, ". . devices, equipment, machinery, structures, or supporting elements necessary to produce non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation within the range of frequencies from 100Khz to 300Ghz and operating as a discrete unit to produce a signal or message." 10 They are, technically, licensed as part of the Public Safety rules, Federally, and actually do have protected Federal Rights as such in PRB-1 . The addition of the following to the Exceptions column in the chart, at the bottom of current text, should suffice: "Antennas for use by Amateur Radio operators, RACES operators or for use with Military Affiliate Radio Service operations by duly licensed operators under Federal Communications Commission Part 97 or similar rules are not included in this category." The footnote in this case for "* These uses may be subject to additional regulations", in this case, might ought to reference: 1 . ) The Position Statement publication by the American Radio Relay League, and now Texas Law mandating at least the control of The current FCC PRB-1 mandate and, 2. ) Basically provide that any such tower than can structurally fail in a normal falling mode totally within a given land parcel and without contacting Primary Utility Service faciliess, is generally exempt from these restrictions. Those that do not automatically meet those tests may require special approval by the Development Engineer. 5-32 5.3. Specific Use Standards. The dimensions were left out. 5-41 2(d). Noise Noise levels were *NOT* specified as to whether they are to be peak referenced, "A" weighted, or "C" weighted. Technically, the entire UDO is couched in following a "most restrictive" option if any choice exists. But, these well known and understood professional categories would constitute an easy way to void this one for vagueness. The PEAK category is applicable. The issue can be clarified by adding the following words: ", such levels to be determined by un-weighted peak values." 6-2 6.2(A). Residential Dimensional Standards. The rule for minimum yards does not publish for what the stated dimension covers! Yes, it likely is front width! But SAY so! after on in the definitions it looks like depth! If it is width say: "Minimum Yards (Width) 6-5 2(b) Exceptions to Height Limits. To the extent that the Amateur Radio Service licensed and controlled by the Federal Communications Commission is expressly exempted earlier, which it appears would be the correct way to handle it, there is still a problem in this wording for other antennas! 11 Already at many locations throughout the City there are what are known as MMDS TV directional antennas in service, many of which are on 30 to 50 foot masts which are mounted on top of building roof structures as well ! These will likely be also supplemented in the future by Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) data ~-- services for what will eventually be even more important than conventional TV service. The is a key safety issue, aside from the point that lightning hit problems really do exist for the ones which are not hard ground mounted poles. Any such structure in 2(b) should not be able to fail in a 'normal ' lateral falling failure mode so that any portion of it crosses the property line of the parcel on which it is built, for safety of either neighboring lots, or Primary Power Service mains. This comment is not really an issue for Secondary Power Service Loop for the parcel itself, but only the Primary Distribution System. Wording ought to be added here to 2(b) that says: "or chimney flues, which do not reach a height from which a lateral collapse from its building support level could normally reach beyond a lot boundary line, cross a Primary Power Service line; or" 6-7 4(b). Residential Fences. As stated by the current Director of Public Works for the City, "The single largest problem in the older areas that needs to be licensed and controlled is Privacy Fences." These older areas are already completely frozen as to lot elevation as currently developed and run-off, as well as very, very difficult to change now for any core civil engineering improvements as their now NC designated area definition has finally recognized in the draft UDO. There is *N0* readily available solution for any down stream resident to handle any excess runoff cast by a fenced diversion which can cause this unilaterally many homesites downstream from uncaring developers. As well there is no readily available solution for an upstream resident to provide for water which privacy fencing which is ground level blocked for runoff, can divert backward under the current codes. Fences in the new "NC" area designations must address this drainage issue and will not do so, as practice and even City Staff will support, unless all such property fences in them come up for review in this respect. These areas and other residents' damages in them can't be controlled unless the following wording is added to the section 4(b), ", except in the NC designated areas of the UDO, where any fence will be required to not change the drainage pattern between properties as built." 12 6-16 2(b). Carries the same problem set forth in Paragraph 4(b) of page 6-5, and requires similar treatment. 2(d). The word "Cellular" needs to be replaced to provide both for that service as well as a myriad of data services that will be even more important as well in the near future. More appropriate wording: "Cellular or Data Service towers . . ." 6-26 F. Special Restriction for Gasoline Service Stations. This major heading needs a completely new added Numeric header item to cover a serious public safety concern. The issue is actually covered later on in the document, but needs to be specific here in that the problem is most evident here. The major new stations we see have very intense driveway and canopy lighting, which is good. However, by design, there is a queer placement of independent parking lot pole lighting which creates a serious hazard for not all but some drivers! Not all , but some of these apron illuminaries have a provision for casting the light beam not directly downward from the head, but outward laterally as well . If these type fixtures are permitted to be installed so that the forward throw of the light pattern projects outward into vehicle traffic approaching it, a significant portion of drivers may be disoriented by that glare. The issue is one of both relative night-blindness which is present in many older drivers and to a serious extent in some younger ones. It, as well , can be exacerbated by what is seen in other light-induced attention lapse we often see in another world, the aviation community! It is the same thing as flicker-fusion effect where a brief flash of light at the wrong moment or in repeated eye-movement wobble, briefly drives the brain alpha and other rhythms into a momentary trance-state! A perfect example of this wrong light position is the apron light which partially shines directly into the eyes of a driver exiting South off Highway 6 as he or she rounds that little bend and approaches the Exxon station at University Drive. At some point, the light play at that intersection, will in all likelihood, be very causal to a vehicle or vehicle vs. pedestrian accident at that intersection. Likely, the involved driver may not even realize what really caused the issue. We need to add a new item 5(a) to this section. "No driveway apron light shall be permitted to cast any portion of the direct beam into any oncoming vehicle path for a service road adjacent to that light." 13 7-7 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Chart (continued from 7-6). I have no question about the de-minimus requirement for TWO (2) off-street parking spaces required for a Single Family Residence, (If, grin, that the definition of what a Single Family Detached 'whatever' is matches it! ) - provided; That a Single Family Residence is one in which it is a Primary Residence and is owner-occupied, and, If the there a move to enable the definition of a Group Home in the RE, R8 and R5 zonal areas to include those which are not Primary Residences and owner occupied, or, There is a change in definition of what a Single Family Residence, (If, grin, that the definition of what a Single Family Detached 'whatever' is that matches it! ) becomes, So that one which is *NOT* a Primary Residence or is *NOT* owner occupied requires ONE (1 ) space per Unit per Bedroom. As Jim Callaway so thoughtfully stated, "I may not be able to fix the Problem, but I can cure the Symptom" All it takes to gain control of the first half of the parking problems is to do two things with this chart. Add a second line in the chart field for Single Family Residence below it in the same field and add the words: "Primary Residence - Owner Occupied" then add a second field underneath it which contains the following: Use Unit Spaces Per Unit "Non-Primary residence - BR 1 .0 or Non-Owner Occupied As well , in view of the furor over parking and street safety which still rages on, the issuance of and draft of a new UDO with this chart, of all charts, WITHOUT the following that is present on virtually all other charts: "* These specifications may be subject to additional regulations. " and the upper legally required asterisk mark, is at best intellectually dishonest, as to what is presented the Public! 14 7-16 D(1 )(e) Driveway Access Location and Design Policy. Maximum setback for fences near driveway exits should not be left solely to the Design Engineer. Part of the reason is that virtually no bicycle traffic obeys any traffic stop signs and many do not even pay any attention to lane side nor exiting vehicles from driveways. Their heads are typically down to pump much of the time. Of curious additional safety hazard suddenly appearing now with Cellular Phone time cheaper than a copper line circuit, for average use is the fact that: A significant number of bicycle riders are also talking on a Cellular Phone while they are peddling the bike! (From observed statistics in my private survey, the issue is far more of a problem with female riders! ) The NC areas now do not have any realistic way to cure or otherwise change any driveway/street corner location controlled or otherwise! A substantial number of near-miss backing out of Single Family Residence (or rental use of it un-related adults) has resulted in near misses for bike riders whom do not obey stop signs, nor really pay attention to side-entrance vehicle movements. Many of the older NC streets are just as bad as to sight line distances, considering that one vehicle is backing into the street from driveways, as are the corners! What is the difference in feeling like you have to have 20 foot sight line distances for corners, and not the same thing for driveway sight lines? Adding a SPECIFIC MINIMUM privacy fence ending setback point at a driveway or properly line face on the street in the NC areas that the Administrative Development Engineer has to face in them would be far safer as D(1 )(e) ending: "unless in the NC areas where the end of any fence must be set back a minimum of 20 feet from any driveway curb and 45 feet from the curb at intersections of streets. The unobstructed vertical field of vision must be between 2'6" and 9 feet of height." Taken directly from Page 7-41 C(7) . . . . ; ) 7-24 7.3 (A general alloclade! ) Statement of Purpose by Council gives both Administrator and Boards defined purpose and intent! But where is that for the NC section of the UDO? This would also give Courts much better foundation for any litigation which arose. 7-46 7.7(3)(a)(2) Exception to Stormwater Management The exemption for Homeowner Principal Residences of in this section is clouded as to serious damage to other residents in the NC areas 15 as in Section on fences thus we should modify this by adding the following just before the end of it: ", except for these properties in the NC area designations, and" 7-51 Under (B) Special Provisions, which starts on 7-49 and continues on to page 7-51 we need to add one more new section J. as follows: J. In the NC areas covered by the UDO, no Infill development of and kind will be permitted which shall create a new general property rise level for any lot which increases the base elevation of that site above what is already present on it. In essence, these areas shall be generally also considered as Zero Rise land level cases. 7-53 7. Zero-Rise Floodway Provisions. [Editor's Note: to be inserted following staff discussion.] Comment: Here is specifically where relief and stability for Historic Area (NC) parcels may be protected as well as the language suggested above. 7-57 7.10(A)(3). Site Lighting Design Requirements. Mounting. Add the following words to remove approach blindness: . . . that the cone of light does not cross any property line of the site and specifically that it does not project into the eyes of approaching pedestrian nor vehicle traffic of any kind." 7-58 B(2). Entrances and Exits in Nonresidential and Multifamily Projects. Here again is the glare blindness problem which can be solved by adding the text: ", those lights which shall not directly shine into the eyes of any approaching pedestrian or vehicle operator." 7-61 7.12(B) Safeguard Controls. Needs three words added to cover Domestic Animal Waste control: hair, feathers, domestic animal wastes, or have .. . " 8-16 H(e). Utility Easements. Fencing of Utility Easements needs to have an added phrase to indicate that such an easement may not be fenced so as to obstruct the flow of any drainage water at the sentence end as in: 16 ". . of the easement and do not in any way obstruct the natural normal flow of runoff water from any upstream property." 8-17 K. Drainage. Needs to have the declared alley added to the term "street inlets" as well in the first line of the paragraph as per: " as calculated, alley and street inlets for a ten-year rain, . . ." 8-27 d. Fencing in Easements. Has the same problem as on Page 8-16 above and is cured: ". . of the easement and do not in any way obstruct the natural normal flow of runoff water from any upstream property." 11-3 Antenna (2). The definition of a Directional Antenna as a ("Panel" Antenna) is technically very incorrect. It may be corrected by adding the two word phrase "Panel or Beam" in the cited word play and should be done to eliminate future incompatibility problems with what is very like to be Federal Preemption into all of this as part of upcoming re-work of Federal Communications Commission rules. 11-8 Drainage Facility: Somehow needs to include the older defined "alley" which also must handle drainage in the older areas. Might be written as a following phrase: "culverts, and alleys and/or easements of record for areas defined on or before July 15, 1970, in the City, etc." 11-11 Home Occupation: This definition is missing all following data after the full colon in the text. What is it? Where is it? Again, there will be *NO* significant improvement in getting vehicles off the streets in the older areas which are associated with rental property until owners are forced to do so. It will take too long to get this done in any realistic time frame by waiting until property is sold to enforce new off- street parking spaces. Thus, pull ALL parking off City streets in the 22 foot streets in the NC areas at night from 12:00 Midnight, to 6:00 AM in the morning, or follow Jon Mies' suggestion to start it at 10:30 PM. The area will only hold so much. You can't register it realistically, nor fairly burden everyone equally with the required safety measures, in any other way. If someone wants a vehicle at a particular property overnight on these streets, they will have to own enough property to properly hold it, one way or another. You have to be reasonable about visitors, but safety also counts. 17 November 26, 2001 Comments about the draft UDO I have read the proposed suggestions made by Mike Luther, and support them 100% -they are reasonable and practical. Rather than repeat them, I will only bring up items not previously covered in his presentation. Page 3.10- Require a Certificate of Occupancy be issued for single family residential units on a periodic basis, say, once a year. Alternatively, consider requiring business/rental uses of single family residential as a conditional use permit. Or, define it as an acceptable use, but require a city permit. Page 3.18-Any deviations/variances approved by the Administrator/staff must require a letter notifying the property owners within 200 feet, so they have proper notice to appeal any such approval. Ditto for amending plats approved by staff. There are many times that a person living in the vicinity might know more than staff about the repercussions and be able to provide useful information, or worse, might suffer from such decisions and needs to know in plenty of time. This is not the same as the traditional required legal notice, but a good idea nonetheless. Page 5.7-Question: Are there any known "group homes"within College Station, or are you using that definition as applied to single family residential units used for non-homeowner occupational rentals? Page 5.24-A distinction might need to be made between commercial vs. non-commercial use. Page 5.33-Various items: Section 2a1 - I assume that direct-to-home includes traditional TV antennas, FM/AM antennas, microwave "cable TV" antennas, right? Section 2a2- Parabolic satellite TV antennas should be allowed up to 12 feet in diameter. The most common C-band TVRO antenna is 10 feet in diameter-and 2 meters would not cover it. There is no mention about 1)weather radar and aircraft radar dishes, 2) space radio telescopes, both amateur, educational, and professional, 3) cable TV"dish farms", and 4) commercial vs. non-commercial uses. Page 5.40- Rooming/Boarding house-except for the length of the lease period, isn't that what the rentals are? I'm hoping that is what you intended. Page 5.41 - Noise levels must include measurements of low frequencies, which carry a long distance. Page 5.42- Limiting dishes to 2 meters is unrealistic. The most common size satellite dish for C-band in the Texas footprint is 10 feet (Ku band is much smaller) - I should know, I have one in my back yard. The limit should be 12 feet, which would be needed for people using horizon-to-horizon mounts to capture Far East and European satellite TV channels (remember our large international population). Page 6.10, section D3- Building features, such as those defined on page 6.3, section C3, should not cross the zero lot line. Otherwise you might have a situation where an air conditioner for one home is on the property of another. Page 7.27-Would a flag with College Station's [tree] logo be allowed?What about A&M Corp flags, fraternity/sorority banners, or the various military standards and banners? Consider the very large international population of our City-would I be able to display a Mexican flag? How would you handle a foreign consular office, should one ever open here? Thank you,.. 77 Ib? Beltito Flores-Meath 901 Val Verde Drive College Station, TX 77845-5125 Deborah Grace HPC Meeting Nov 26 Page 1 From: "Robert McGee"<bobmac62©mail.tca.net> To: "Deborah Grace"<dgrace©ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 11/26/01 9:04AM Subject: HPC Meeting Nov 26 Deborah, Due to a prior commitment, I will be unable to attend this evenings meeting. Robert McGee Deborah Grace- Re: HPC Meeting 11-26-01 Page 1 From: Randal Allison <rallison©mail.tca.net> To: Deborah Grace <DGRACE©ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 11/26/01 4:44PM Subject: Re: HPC Meeting 11-26-01 Due to a prior family obligation, I will be unable to attend this meeting. Thanks, Randal Allison Randal S. Allison, Ph.D. http://pages.tca.net/rallison