Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03011990 ZPC Minutes. . ~. ` • • • SPECIAL MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE DATE: MARCH 1, 1990 7:30 P.M. The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place, Texas convened in special-session in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 3800 University Boulevard, City of West University Place, Texas on March 1, 1990. Members present were: Reid C. Wilson Chairman and Secretary Frank Billings Parliamentarian Bonnie T. Holmes George Ruhlen Vice Chairman Frank Stivison Others in attendance were: Wayne James • Notice of University Pla~ the day of the Perry Chief Building Official L. Dougherty City Attorney meeting was posted in the City Hall of West ~e, Texas at least seventy-two (72) hours preceding meeting as required by law. A quorum was declared and the meeting convened. 1. Hearing of Residents: No residents were present. 2. Adoption of Minutes: The Minutes for the November, December, January and February meeting were reviewed and unanimously adopted on.motion by Commissioner Ruhlen and seconded by Commissioner Holmes. 3 . Zoninct Matters : Review of Technical Corrections - The Commission unanimously approved, with minor amendments noted by Jim Dougherty the technical corrections no. 6, 7, 8 and 10 each on motion by Commissioner Ruhlen and seconded by Commissioner Holmes. Technical Correction No. 4- Corner Lots. This technical correction regarding corner lots was discussed extensively together • -1- RCW/WUP00520.d1g • • • with a review of Section 16-102 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission determined that a greater issue relates to whether all corner lots, whether subdivided in the original plat or not, should have greater side street.setbacks. Conceptually, the side street setback limits as set forth in Section 16-102 makes sense for any corner lot. On the other hand, the concern being addressed by the corner lot amendment and Section 16-102 is subdivided corner lots where the orientation of the building on the subdivided corner lot is to a street other than which would be the front street of the originally platted lot. Under that situation the increased side setback is necessary to protect adjacent property owners whose houses face the original platted front street. The Commission requested Jim Dougherty to draft two alternatives as follows: l. A universal change to Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance which would apply to all corner lots which would provide a building setback from the side street line of 10 feet for all building sites with less than 60 feet in width, 15 feet for building sites with 60 or more but less than 70 feet in width, 20 feet for building sites with 70 feet or more but less than 80 feet and the same setback distance as would be required if the side street line were the front street line if 80 feet or more (same as current Section • 16-102). 2. The second alternative would be th~ same as the first except it would apply only to subdivided corner lots where the desired front street line is different from the front street line ~ of the originally platted lot. Under both proposals, the Zoning Board of Adjustment would be taken out of the loop and the owner of the corner lot would have certainty as to setback. The current definition of front street line would continue to be the narrow portion of the corner lot, as it currently exists. Therefore, under the definition, most "key" lots subdivided out of larger corner lots have a front street line which is the side street to the original platted lot. The Commission agreed to contemplate these two alternatives and to address the issue further at their next meeting. Technical Correction No. 6- Lot Realignment. Substantial discussion was had concerning the desired ability of lot owners to increase the width of their lot whenever possible but retaining reasonable restrictions. Conceptually, the Commission believes that the owners of a 50 foot lot and an adjoining 50+ foot lot should be able to realign their lot lines so that each lot has a frontage greater than 50 feet. Currently, this is not allowed • unless the lot giving up width ends up with at least 60 feet in -2- RCW/WUP00520.d1g ~ _ . , ~ ' • ~ • • width after the realignment. The current provision is intended to prevent wide lots from becoming narrow lots with the 60 foot width being considered a"reasonable" lot width considering the size of new house construction in West University Place. The Commission requested Jim Dougherty draft several alternative paragraphs to be considered at the next meeting including (i) a provision which would allow lots to "flip flop" their widths so that a 50 foot and a 55 foot lot could swap 5 feet thereby resulting in a 55 foot and 50 lot in reverse order, (ii) a provision allowing any lot with more than 50 feet in frontage to sell off excess frontage to either adjoining lot owner without restrictions, (iii) a provision that would allow adjoining lots to "equalize" their frontage such that a 55 lot and a 50 foot lot could become two 52.5 foot lots but also that the lot with the additional frontage could give up any amount up to 50% of the differential (in the foregoing example, up to 2.5 feet). The Commission also discussed the concept of whether two lots, one of which is a corner lot could be reoriented from facing one street to another street. The example of the 50x100 lots which face Wesleyan north of Riley was brought up. Owners of some of these lots have requested that they be reoriented to face the original side street (i.e. Riley, Ruskin, Villanova, etc.). • The Commission agreed to address these issues at the next meeting. Additional Technical Corrections. These issues will be discussed at the next meeting: 1. The request by the Zoning Board of Adjustment that there be a specific definition for driveway, including a width limitation of approximately 10-1/2 feet. 2. The request of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to address setback issues for lots along the west side of Community Drive north of Bissonnet, where 40 feet of the 116 foot depth of these lots is contained within an exclusive (no structures, patios, decks, swing sets, furniture,.trees, etc.) Exxon Pipeline easement. Due to the 116 foot depth of the lots, front setback can be interpreted to be 25 feet, leaving a 50x40 foot building envelope. Within that building envelope there must be a 10 foot setback since front loading garages are necessary. Any patio must be located in the building envelope. There has been interest to construct new homes on these properties but the restrictive building conditions have discouraged it. The recommendation was to allow one or more of the following: ~ (a) reduced front setback of between 15 and 20 feet, (b) reduced -3- RCW/WUP00520.d1g . ;z:: . , ~- ~ ~ • • side setback of 3 feet, and (c) reduced setback for front garage of 5 feet. 3. Subdivision Issues: No Subdivision Issues were discussed. 4. Review of Zoning Ordinance: No Zoning Ordinance matters were discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 o'clock p.m. Please note the next meeting will be held Thursday, March 8, 1990 in the City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. _ . • -4- RCW/WUP00520.d1g