Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05161983 ZPC Minutesl~ ~ - ~ ~ . ~. ~' ~~~ ~ Jy ~' ~ ~ ~ R~ . ~ ` `\ 'V t SPECIAL MEETING ZONING ~, PLANNING COAR~7ISSION MAY 16, 1983 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of 4~est University Place, Texas convened in special session at the City Hall on Monday, May 16, 1983, with the following members present: Chairman Kendrick, presiding; D4embers Bettler, 0'Leary, and Taitte. Notice of Meeting was posted in the City Hall on Friday, May 13, 1983. Copy letter from Daniel Trachtenberg to the City Attorney reviewing the history of the proposal to construct a private street and replat certain lots in the 6400 block of Virginia Street and stating that his clients (Mr. F~ Mrs. Alfred King and Mrs. Annie Ruth Thompson), "have not been treated fair or equitably, and something must be done to stop the arbitrary way that this project has been treated from the very beginning and to make things right." Chairman Kendrick stated that the City Attorney had suggested that a decision con- cerning above be held in abeyance for a maximum of sixty (60j days in order to give applicants ample time to secure all required documentation, including a title com- mittment policy. He also presented the following letter from Alan Hirschfield, developer and prospective purchaser of said property: 17 May 1983 P~lr. Robert Kendrick Chairman, City Planning Commission 3800 University City of West University Place 77005 RE: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ON LOTS 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A and 9B Dear Sir: Please hold our application in abeyance for sixty (60) days pending our clarifi- cation of title. If we have not resolved this issue within this time period we would like to withdraw our application. lfiank you for your help and patience in dealing with this application. Yours sincerely, Alan Edwin Hirschfield. Mrs. Taitte stated she felt the letter from Mr. Trachtenberg was peeved in tone as if the attorney felt that the City of West University Place has been doing his clients a disservice and it is her impression that is not what the City of {Vest University Place has been doing and she would like to take exceptions to the tone of the letter. The general feeling among other members was in agreement with Mrs. Taitte statement. Motion by Mrs. Taitte that in view of the fact that the Commission has probably;spent a minimum of ten (10) hours, and probably a great deal more than that, going over this one matter for one group of interested citizens, that the sixty (60) day abeyance be put into effect but if all of the requirements suggested by the City Attorney have not been met at the end of sixty (60) days from today that this particular matter not be brought before this Commission again for one (1) year from that time because this Commission had already devoted an inordinate amount of its meeting time to this one matter and has a great deal of other business to attend to. hlr. Norton arrived at the meeting at this time and was briefed on matters having taken place in the meeting. Discussion included procedure, effecting motion, detriment to new applicant, if any, meetings devoted on this issue alone, and Nir. 0'Leary suggested the following be added to Mrs. Taitte's motion: ~ ~J „^~ ~ ~-. .. . ~ r . i ~ ZONING ~ PLANNING CONINIISSION PAGE 2. MAY 16, 1983 , Provided, however, that should a majority of the Commission determine that extra- ordinary circumstances have arisen justifying reconsideration of this matter, by any individual proposing the matter, the matter being Virginia Street, then the =. matter shall be re-opened within such twelve month period. - Voting Aye: Bettler Voting No: None Kendrick Norton 0'Leary , Taitte The Commission members continued their consideration of a report and recommendation to the City Commission concerning the rezoning of certain areas in the 2600 and 2700 blocks of Wroxton Road. Rules of Procedure were discussed for possible change. . Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned. • , , . ' ' ' • Daniel S. Trachtenberg . Attorne~~ at Law May 16, 1983 • ,T`ity of West University Place ~ . Attn. : D~avid Alltun.s , , , ~ ~ City Attorney 3800 University Blvd. Houston, Ztexas 77005 RE: Application on behalf of Mr. and N~s. Alfred King and Mrs. Annie Rith Thcsrg~son, private road on Virginia Street, abandoned right--flf-way . Dear David: I am in receipt of your letter to me dated May 5, 1983, and I thank you for your suggestions and offer of assistanoe. As you can imagine, my clients are extremely disturbed by the course of events that have occurred to this date. I have taken the li.berty of briefly swrmarizing the history of this situation as a kind of prelimina,~v aid to whatever action they may pursue, be it a d~eclaratory judc~rent, and/or mandarrnis suit, and/or damage action: ~ , n. !~+~-. and !~s. K~ng gLC-_L~er? t..~=~' l~s Lb±;;n~-? ~9~5 ~„~ ioso ~,^d Mrs. Tt~sc~n inherited her lots in 1975 frc~n her m~ther, who had purchased them in 1965. B. At the time my clients aa3uired their property, the Virginia Street right-of~vay ran behind these lots, and apparently it was originally intended that these lots wr~uld have access by that street if the City ever used it as a street since it pravided the only access to these lots exoept by crossing other lots al~g Duke Street or r]exoer Street. 320 Executive Plaza W'est 4635 Southwest Freeway Houston, Texas 77027 713/629-0670 .• ~ T . City of West University Place May 16, 1983 Page 2 • C. In F~ruary, 1982, iny clients were presented with an Earnest Money Contract fran Jim Heyward and Bratten Servioes, Inc. to purchase their lots, continges~t upon the develapers being able to obtain public access to the lots, utilities, and drainage for the project. D. I~. Heyw-ard prnceeded to make application to the City of West University Plaoe, indicating a desire to ~t six single family hcanes on the lots in acoordance with the existing zaning ordinance, and to use the Virginia Street right-of~ray so that these hcanes wo~uld have acoess to Duke Street. A pexmit was sought for this private road. / L E. There was opposition fro~n so~e of the local residents, as w+ell as frcen certain me~ers of the City Cca~n~ission. N~r~eraus meetings were held, Mr. Heyward was asked to change his proposals in variaus ways on rnurierous occasions and delays were oonstantly experienoed. See, for example, the letter of March 17, 1982, to the City Co~rmissioners, with the proposed revisions su~enitt~ed by N~. Heyward. Niy clients also wrote letters to the City Ca~nissioners to answer the various objections of residents in the area. Many of the ccarg~laints of area residents bordered on the friv~lous, such as the effect on birds of having these six single faQnily residences constructed. Nevertheless, both the legitimate and the illogical, frivolous objections were ans~ae.red in rnnnerous letters and meetings with the City, and muGh effort was made to satisfy changes req~ired by the variaus City ac~riinistrators. F. It seems a~arent that the City was faced with three alternatives. One was to decline to open Virginia Street and turn down try clients' request. A second was to aooept the application and to open the str~t. The third a1tP*-n~tive ~t sccneone ap~arently came up with was to abandon the Virginia Street right-of-way. As you kr~aa, on July 26, 1982, the latter course of actian was adapted by virtue of Ordinance No. 1193. At the time this ordinance was passed, iny clients attended a meeting at which you r~nded that they seek caunsel and file a claim to the abandQned property as the abutting lan~wr~ers, who wauld have the highest and best claim to the 20-foot strip of propert.y bordering their lots. Along about this t~me, on Sept~nber 23, 1983, Jim Heyward wrote tA iny clients as follows : . . City of West University Plaoe May 16, 1983 Page 3 • "This letter is to bring you up to date with our attenPt to develc~e Virginia Street. I t~lked with David All~ns (City attorney) and Jerry Jackson (City Catmissioner) this week. My assessment of the situation is that we have better than a 50/50 c.~~ance of approval fran the City. The Qoa~missioners are to meet in a closed workshop mee~ing probably within a week to decide a ccnirse of action. They will prabably direct David Allwns to write an ordina~zce for a private road or turn us doHm flat." It was arounn this time that 3 taas hired by my clients, nat only to file a notioe of claim of the~ 20-foot strip, but by writing a letter dated Septesttber 28, ~1982, and sent to each of the Co~missioners of the City ar~d~ ~ the Mayor. A c~opy is attached. Again, we were simply t.iying to clarify the reasons why the devela~nent should have been allc~wed to progress, and asking for sare type of re.gly as to the City's intentions. G. However, on Sept~ber 28, 1982, my clients were mailed a letter fran Id~fus StariTey, the then Mayor, stating that my clients' request"for a permit oo~ld not be issued sinoe there were no provisions for a private road application, and stating that it would take an additional five to six weeks for an answer. I never received any response to my letter. H. Apparently frustrated, Mr. Heyward backed out of the oontract with my clients. I believe subsequently an ordinarice passed by the City setting forth the steps to follow in construction of a street on private prc~perty, mainly requiring oca~q~lianoe with locatioaz, construction, and safety specifications established and approved by the City. I. In De~er of 1982, a new Earnest Nbney Cflntract was entered into by my clients with Allen Hirschfield and flnrique Ferreyros, develc~pers interested in putting single family residenoes on the propexty. 2~ey pr~oceeded at considerable expe~se to draw plans and specifications, and in oca~lianoe with the ordinance passed by the City, to apply for construction of the street on the abandoned right-of-~aay of Virginia Street, apparently going through the Director of Public Works, the City Building Inspector, ar~d the Zcning and Pl~nning ~mission with their surveys, plan.s, specificatians and whatever else was required. r... + ' ~ , ~ . • ~ ~ •. City of West University Plaoe May 16, 1983 Page 4 J. Bec.ause of t1~e rnmierous steps they had to go through, there were requests for extensians of the Earnest Nbney Contract with my clients, which were granted. ~ March 18, 1983, I called yau to find aut why there seemed to be continual delays by the City and to see if you wauld tell me what was transpiring. Your reply to me was that the City had r~ot delayed an~~thing, and that it was si~ly a function of getting all the plans approved according tA the ordinanoe that allows a private street to be aonstructed. You said that as far as you oo~uld see, Mr. Hisschfield and Ferreyros had cleared al~ their hurdies ex~pt oz~, to b~ resolved in early April. That was to go before the Zcx~ing and Planning Gcs~mission and s~ilxr~t a replat of the existing lots. This was to be their last.step. Yau aclmawledged to me that they had st~Yxnitted elabor~te plans and had spent a considerable amount of tirne and mr~ney on them. Your last ocam~s~t to me was that it was a11 going accard.ing to the way the ordinarx_~e prescribed and yau thought"~.everything was on tract. ~ K. I left t~ie, oountry on a trip on April 10, 1983, thinking ev~ing was srboth. Hvwever, at the April 14th hearing before ~ the Zoning and Planning Ccx~nissi~, for the first time ever, ~~ clients were informed that they had to show they had good title to the 20-foot strip of property, or their entire application would be turned dawn. They were asked either to get a title ocBr~any to issue a title policy, or to have an attorney write a legal opinion. I have many questions about this position and require~nent. Was it kr~wn before the City Cca~ndssion wted to abandon the Virginia Street right-of~ray? If so, then it wcx.ild have been a vexy consciaus atterrg~t to stop the project. If it was not la~own then, and really wasn't disc.-avered until April of this year, then sc~neone was extr~nely riegligent. If the positian had been made }Q~an to my clients, they wauld r~ot have gone to the great ex~en.se and effort th.at t~y put forth, r~r •,~uld the develapers have exp~nc3ed the rroney, time and work that tl~ey put into the project. In essense, it is all a perfect exatc~le of "CATC~I-22", i~y wasn't the legal issue raised when the City v~rnreyed the ather 30 to 35 feet to Harris ~unty Flood Control? If the City could in fact do that, why can't it acoept a oonveyanoe fr~n my clients after the road is built and rededicated? L. Prior to my return to I~ouston, my clients were highly pressured to oare up with an attorney' s apinion or the entire application would be denied. After discussions with you a~ Ntr. McRendrick, ~~• ' • ' . ~ ~ lI . • City of West University Place May 16, 1983 Page 5 I hurriedly produced a letter on April 25, 1983, and personally took it to the meeting that night, thinking that you wvuld be there to review it ar~ let me b~aw whether it would be acoeptable. You were unable to m3ke the meet-;*~. F~owever, Mr. McKendrick said that tl~~.y would postpone the decision ar~d su~enit my letter to you for yaur approval. M, I spoke to you on April 29, 1983, at which time you t~old me that you had not been given a oapy of my proposed letter, h~aever, you . ._ agreed to review it and let me }Q~w the follawing Nbnday. This ~ delay, un}Qiowingly to you, placed additional pressure between the .~clevelaper and my clients, vis a vis their Earnest Nbney Contract. ., N:' ~I then received a letter frcen you dated May 5, 1983, in which yau explained that iny letter did not assure title in my clients, and that since there was no title policy oorrmitinent, you were . reoca~rending that we seek a declaratory judc~r~e.nt action to resolve the title problesn, and you would rec~nd that the -• Zoning and Plaruiing . C~mission hold my clients' application in ~ abeyance. I assimied t1~at they wnuld follvw yaur advioe, and I would have time to co~-sider what would be i.nvolved in a declaratory judc~nent action and any other alternatives we might have. 0. ~ the evening of April 12, 1983, Mrs. Thc~npson, along with Reva ~ae, a real est~te agent, fortunately deci~d that they would attend the meeting that evening of the Zoning and P1aruLing Catmission, at. which time the ~xs of that oatmission aru~unced that t1~~ey were going to deny the application in its entisety, which wo~ild be in direct contravention of the advioe you had rrientioned you w~ere to give them in your May 5th letter to me. At the time that I write this letter, I have no canception of what is going to transpire. It is my underst~rrding that there is a meeting tonight of ttbe Zariing and Planning Catmission. It is my hvpe that they will hold the application in abeyanoe. As I mentioned to you, we have approached Statewide Title ~any, and they feel they can assist us in insuring title to the praperty. I iraast reiterate, in view of the past history of this situation, my clients have not been treated fairly or equ.itably, and sanething ~st be done to stop the arbitraYy way that this project has been treated fran the vesy beginning and to m~ke things right. Otheiwise, my client.s are . ',~' ' ' ~ . ;. ~~ ~ ,. _ •.-; ~ City of West University Plaoe Nhy 16, 1983 Page 6 abviously, with the exoeption of one of the 6 lots involved, being deprived ~- of access to their prc}perty withaut due process of law. Sinoerely, ~~f" s ; /~~ ~.-.__ - ~ ~--___=__Z il ~ -~~__,/ - =-. _._~an Zrachtenberg /~ DrI':bjl , ~_- cc : Mr . and Mrs . Alfred Ki.ng cc: Mrs. Annie Ruth Thcympsan cc: City Zoning & Planning Cca~mission cc: John V. Wheat, Stat~ride Title Ca~any r