Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-1984 Zoning and Planning Commission Meeting (2)MINTUES REGULAR MEETING ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1984 The regularly scheduled meeting was held in the City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. with those present listed as follows: Marcellus Bettler, Vice Chairman Jim Norton, Secretary Tish Tate, Member Mike O'Leary, Member David Allums, City Attorney ~.e Wayne Perry, Building Inspector The Vice Chai"rman opened the meeting. The opportunity for residents tQ speak or ask questions was given. There were none wishing to speak. The public hearing on the Request to subdivide the lot at 3506 Sunset, Docket Ttem No. 84-5 was opened. The Vice Chairman announced the opportunity for those lot owners within the noticed area who had not done so, to sign the for and against forms. The required oath was administered for those wishing to speak. The established procedures for the Public Hearing on Subdivision Requests were explained. Those against the subdivision were given the opportunity to speak. Those speaking against the subdivision were: Richard Mittoff, 3423 Sunset Stele Toomey, 6444 Rutgers Their comments are summarized as follows: Mr. Mittoff asked if dotes" for or against would be tabulated tonight at this Hearing, and was answered yes. It was stated that subdivisions should comply with the overall plan of the City which reasonably provided for a number of 100' wide lots within the City. It was stated that this subdivision request is inappropriate for this plan. The City should retain the 100' wide lots and should not allow them to all be divided into smaller lots. In other areas of the City where 50' wide lots predominate, these narrow lots might be more in keeping with the City plan in those areas. But, in the area of this subdivision request, the larger lots predominate, and this subdivision would be improper.. Problems associated with changing the character of the City. would result. Mr. Toomey stated that Sunset was a unique street, but disagreed with any implication that the overall quality concerns should be Limited to the 3500 block of Sunset. Damage to the City was pervasive and Mr. Toomey opposed this subdivision. Trees, grass, green space, relationships of houses to each other, street use, street parking congestion, drainage, sewers and overall spaciousness are all adversely impacted. Opposed to subdivision unless overall plan of City is changed. Those speaking in favor were Paul Monts, attorney representing the applicants and Betty Sellers, 3420 Albans. .Their comments are summarized as follows: Mr. Montes responded to the objections of those speaking against the request for subdivision. He stated that this was not a request to create a different West University Place or to change its character. There are numerous lots the size of those which will result from this subdivision. The applicants have lived here and plan to continue to live here in a new house. on one of the subdivided. lots. He stated their position which takes legal exception to this meeting on the basis that in this interpretation of the State Statute required action on the subdivision request within 30 days, or the request was granted by "default." He reviewed his interpretation of the. dates and the requirements in Ord. ~~1212. He contended that the time had passed and he now. requested-°'demands" that the Zoning and Planning Commission under the laws of the State, declare a defaulted subdivision. He further stated that he opposed what in his view were changes in the subdivision procedure whic were imposed on the applicants retroactively. Betty Sellers stated emphatically that she supported maintaining the City character and environment, as did the others. She made personal statement in support of the applicants and their interest and intentions to maintain the character and appeal of the City. She stated these applicants must not be denied what amounted to the use of their property since other lots have been subdiveded over the years into the same size lots as proposed in this application. She reviewed several past subdivisions which were granted in the vicinity. She stated strong support of the subdivision and urged approval. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Commission next evaluated the petitions for or against the proposed Subdivision. The results were: Total of 117 lots within the noticed area Total signed petitions: 95 For: 8 or 6.83% Against: 29 or 24.9% The results were then corrected as follows: Total signed petitions: 95 Richard Mittoff of 3423 Sunset Asked if there was only a total of 82 lots. Mike O'Leary answered that .the number 117 was correct. Mike O'Leary moved to close the Public Hearing. Second was by Jim Norton. All voted "aye" and the Public Hearing was closed. Mike O'Leary moved to grant preliminary approval condition upon the applicant obtaining the required 66 2/3% of the owners within the noticed area.- The motion died for lack of a second. Latisha Taitte moved to deny the application. Jim Norton. Voting "aye" were 3 members; Mike The motion carried, the application was denied Action Taken Forms would be issued promptly. The next Agenda item was the Subdivision Reque Patrick and Alice Johnson. The motion was seconded by O'Leary voted "nay." and it was stated that ~t ~~84-7, 6343 Rutgers by The Public Hearing was opened and the oath administered to those wishing to speak. Those wishing to speak against the application spoke: Paul Handel, 6342 Rutgers: He was opposed to the subdivision. Increased density and increased congestion were cited as results of this subdivision. He stated adverse impact on the city character. Mr. Billups, 6420 Buffalo Speedway: She opposed the Subdivision, and cited flooding at Buffalo Speedway/Duke/ Rutgers area, increased drainage problems, increased density of housing as reasons. She stated how economics and appeal of the City combined to promote very large houses, which would be forced into the resulting smaller lots. Doug McNabb 6412 Rutgers: He opposed the Subdivision and cited deterioration in the general unique quality of life-of the City: additional cars, sewers, and drainage problems and lost green space. Steve Toomey, 6342 Rutgers: He spoke against the application by citing that there were. 100' wide lots spread all around. He urged that the City character and environment must be maintained. He listed adverse inpact on traffic, street safety, and loss of green space and general spaciousness for the whole city.. He stated that neighbors were opposed to the subdivision and there was a ground swell against changes to the City's traffic, safety, general welfare, privacy, and sewer and drainage systems. He advised that although he had been a resident of the City for 8 years, he found he was not listed on the tax roll. He stated that several other owners within the noticed area were erroneously not listed on the tax rolls. He was pointing this out in case it surfaced during the evaluation of the for and against petition signatures. He also advised of the opposition of his neighbor, General Bradshaw. Those in favor of the .Subdivision spoke: Jack O'Malley, 6404 Westchester: He cited his history in Houston and the City dating back to 1925 in the city of Houst ( he had lived in West University Place a long time). He referred to traffic being impacted by the traffic tikets being-given in the patrolling of Buffalo Speedway, and the~cut-through traffic on adjacent streets to avoid Buffalo Speedway. Regarding greenery, he advised that West University Place was once a swamp, and that many trees are dead or diseased. He emphasized private property rights and rights to profit from ownership. He mentioned the. tax income for the City. The next speaker was Alice Hinds Johnson, applicant. She was formerly a resident of West University Place and now resides in Fort Worth. She expressed care for West University Place and explained her husband's transfer out of town. They plan to move back to the City and. by subdividing and selling the other half, they can pay off the house and move back to West University Place Later. She said an architect was retained who said the house was-not suiicable renovation. She pointed out that merely the large 100' wide lot would not necessarily stop the lot coverage by large houses being built. She urges that the "code" be used. to retain green space rather than the prevention of subdivisions. Consideration should be on a case by case basis. There being no others wishing to speak, the for and against petitions were tabulated. The results were: Total lots in the Noticed Area: 119 Against: 66 or 55.46% For: 6 or 5.44% Mike O'Leary moved to close the Public Hearing with second by Jim Norton. All voted "aye." Mike O'Leary moved to grant preliminary approval conditional on obtaining the 66 2/3% for signatures petitions forms from those within the noticed area within a 45 day period. The motion died for lack of a second. Jim Norton moved to deny the application .based on adverse affects on the general welfare and orderly development of the City. Tish Tate seconded the motion. Three (3) members voted "aye" with Mike O'Leary voting "nay". The motion carried 3 to 1 to deny the application. Member Tish Tate transmitted a petition which had been handed her by citizens in the neighborhood which opposed the subidivision previously granted in the Belmont area "and wanted it rescinded. Since it was not on the agenda, it could not be considered until some future meeting. Mike O'Leary moved to adjourn the meeting with second by Jim Norton. All voted "'aye." The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Chairman ATTEST: Secretary