Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04141983 ZPC Minutes1 ; `~'~" ~'~~. ~ ~ . ~~~'J f(.~"`~ REGULAR MEETING ~ ~~~~~ ZONING ~ PLANNING CObiMISSION APRIL 14, 1983 ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * *_* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Zoning ~ Planning Commission of the City of West University Place convened in regular session, Thursday, April 14, 1983, 7:30 P.M., with the following members present: Chairman Kendrick, presiding; Members Bettler, Norton, and Taitte. Chairman Kendrick introduced himself and gave his address in the city, followed by other members; ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Meeting had been posted in the City Hall on April 11, 1983; Notice of Public Hearing published in T'he Houston Chronicle on March 26, 1983 and Notice to Property Owners mailed on March 28, 1983, as required by State Statutes. HEARING OF RESIDENTS: Mrs. Aeschenbacher was advised that no Public Hearing was held before passage of Ordinance #1206, and name was required, but that several meetings of the City Commission was held to discuss and draft same. Ron Tallafero was advised that he could obtain copies of the Fence Ordinance from the office of the Inspection Department. Upon motion-duly made, seconded and carried the Public Hearing on application #83-2 from Annie Ruth Tllompson and Mr. ~ Mrs. Alfred E. King to replat: Lots 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A and 9B ~ Block~26 ~ iVest University Place lst Addition was opened. Voting Aye: Bettler Voting No: None Kendrick Norton Taitte Chairman Kendrick explained the purpose of the public hearing was to hear citizen input to the proposed replatting, which include a street to be developed on pri- vate property by owners and dedicated back to City; to ascertain if all statutory requirements have been submitted; and review proposed street and utilities in order to make a recommendation to the City Commission. He further explained that ordinance#1206:was pass~ed by the City Commission in order to allow construction of street .on private nroperty. ~ . , In answer to question from Cliff Ownby, 3615 Pittsburg, Mr. Allums advised the ordinance would allow the procedure to be followed, either further along Virginia St.; or any other area in City having the required area and street frontage. Those in audience were in~ited to inspect the pronosed ~lans submitted to the , Commission.~ The pros*~ective nurchasers and developer.s o.f the pronerty, representing the property owners, explai-ned they-proposed to re~lat with .a street and full size lots as . ~ required by the Zoning Ordinance. The replatting "is made- necessary be.cause ~the ':_ portion of the s-treet -right-of-way, which was. left after ~the giving of ~an easement • to the Harris County;Flood Control District.many y.ears- ago, did not leave a.right- _ of-way large enough to .develop._a -street, therefore, a por-tion of tlie originally - platted lots would h~ave to~ be us~ed-~to-secur-e.~a_ street and~~acoe.ss to the ,properties. The deve.lopers will pay fo-r ~the str-eet :and all- utilities~ to_t}ie= project. ~_ _-, ~• ~ Mr. 0'Leary arriued at the meeting during Mr. Hirschfield's presentation. Mr. Hirschfield presented a plan previously submitted and an alternate plan using a cul-de-sac turn around at the north edge of the subject properties. The following letters were submitted from City officials concerning this proposed replatting: ~ ~iy_ 7 ~` ~ • , ZONING ~ PLANNING COi~IISSION PAGE 2. • APRIL 14, 1983 March 3, 1983 T0: Richard R. Rockenbaugh City Manager FROM: Patt Lilly Director of Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Development In accordance with Ordinance 1206, which provides for construction of a street on private property, I have received ari application for construction of a street for the proposed Virginia Street Development. Please find a copy of the applica- tion attached. The developer of the Virginia Street Project is Mr. Alan Hirschfield and as I understand the situation, holds an earnest money contract on property owned by those residents who submitted the application. Mr. Hirschfield has submitted to my office certified engineering drawings for the construction of a street and utilities. :These drawings have been reviewed by the Operations Department staff and subsequently approved. The drawings have now been forwarded on to Wayne Perry, Building Inspector, for his review, as per the ordinance. I assume that he will also schedule a meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission to discuss the proposed development. From T4r. Perry's office the drawings go to the Dir.ector of Public Safety's office for approval. " As far as I am concerned, my review and approval of the drawings, as prescribed by the ordinance, is now complete. Our next function will be to oversee the construc- tion of the street and utilities, if the development is approved. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to ask. xc: Lee Lockard, City Secretary Walt Snitkin, Director of Public Safety Wayne Perry, Building Inspector April 13, 1983 T0: Honorable Mayor and Honorable City Commissioners FROM: W.W. Snitkin, Director of Public Safety ~ ~tE: Construction of Virginia Street After receiving the proposed street construction plans and replatting of lots 7-A, 7-B, 8-A, 8-B, 9-A and 9-B, along Virginia Street, for construction of six (6) single family houses, I find that there is adequate street area. 'I`he proposed construction will afford adequate room for any safety equipment that might be re- quired in the area. ~ The houses will prove no hinderance to safety requirements. I would also recommend that a barrier be placed on the ditch side of the street to prevent, as much as possible, the possibility of a vehicle leaving the street and entering the drainage ditch area. ~ Sincerely, ~ W.W. Snitkin Director of Public Safety cc: City Manager City Attorney Building Inspector file ,~; ; ,, , • ~ Z~NING AND PAGE 3. APRIL 14, ~ I ~ U • ~ _ ~ PLANNING COI~I~SION 1983 April 13, 1983 T0: Honorable Mayor and Honorable City Commissioners FROM: Wayne E. Perry, Building Inspector RE: Proposed Construction - Virginia Street Consideration of replatting Lots: 7-A, 7-B, 8-A, 9-A, and 9-B, Block 26, West University Place lst. I have received drawings and specifications for private property street construction as provided under authority of Ordinance Number 1206, In my judgment, the proposal as submitted will meet or surpass the minimum square footage and street frontage as required by Zoning Ordinance Number 111. The front setback requirements will be met adequately on Lots 7-A, 8-A, and 8-B. 'I'he setbacks on Lots 9-A and 9-B, as proposed, and owing to the configuration of the front lot line, will not meet the mandated minimum twenty (20') foot setback requirements. As proposed the houses on Lots 9-A;and 9-B, would have a setback of ten (10!) feet from the replatted property line to the extended corner or cor.ners of the proposed house location. I would recommend that this proposal be accepted, as the front configuration of the lots would prevent an established, straight front property line. It would also prevent leaving an exceptionally large front yard, in the event that this street is extended, sometime in the future. I would also recommend and request that the front property line of lot 9-B, be ex- tended to the South property line in the same plane as the front property lines of Lots 7-A, 7-B, 8-A and 8-B. The street paving should also be required to extend to the property line, extended, along the South property line of Lot 9-B, to facilitate any future extension of the street. It would also be recommended that some type of barrier be.placed on the ditch side of the street to prevent, as much as possible, the possibility of a vehicle leaving the street and entering the drainage ditch area. Sincerely, Wayne E. Perry Building Inspector cc: Director of Public Safety City Manager City Attorney file The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed replatting: Tom Wiley, 6338 Mercer; Anna Ruth Thompson, 6422 Mercer; Alfred King, 3631 Duke; Daniel Smothers, 6534 Mercer; Jim Thorpe, 3779 Georgetown. Their reasons for favoring the proposal include increase in taxes to city, thereby maybe helping other residents in not receiving increased taxation; could only see developing property and constructing street which would be given back to City would improve the ~ity; a new sanitary sewer would be installed alleviating not adding to any sewer problems in adjacent lots. The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposed replatting: Steve Hubert, 6421 Mercer; Chris Pedersen, 6431 Mercer; Nichols Sherman, 6437 Mercer; Earl Johnson, 6508 Mercer; Mrs. Charles Van Wart, 6433 Mercer; W. Morrison-, 6425 Mercer; Mrs. Rowena Aeschbacher, 6434 Mercer; Carl Aeschbacher, 6434 Mercer; David P~filler, 3602 Corondo Court; Cliff Ownby, 3615 Pittsburg. .~~ , _ • ~ ~ ~ ZONING AND PLANNING CONII~fISSION PAGE 4. APRIL 14, 1983 ~ Their reasons.for opposing said development include: traffic and parking problems; sanitary sewer problems already existing; could be a precedent for anyone to come in and develop similarly; increased density; detriment to quality of life in West University Place by decreasing lot sizes; increased cost to City, i.e., sewer cost (City lines,would have to be expanded), police protection, and inspections;. environmental impact, i.e., birds and wildlife now inhabiting area around Poor Farm Ditch; eventual extension down entire Virginia Street•right-of-way. The following letters were submitted in.opposition to said development: April 12, 1983 To whom it may concern: Re: Extension of Duke St. at Mercer I am a property owner at 6333 Mercer and am very much against this project for the following reasons: 1) There a great many children living on A9ercer and with traffic as heavy as it is now and as fast as the cars go their lives are endangered. With the additional traffic this.would agrivate the problem (a great many people use Mercer as a short cut from Greenway Plaza) 2) T'here is a stop sign at Mercer and Duke which a great many people ignore completely. Some only give it a token slow-down. 3) The sewage problem would become intense as would the water drainage when we have rains. 4) It would not enhance the value of anyone's property, only bring on more problems. i There a great many other reasons for this not to be done and, I am sure other people will bring them out. Thank you for your attention, I am, Sincerely, Mrs. Claudia A1. Bonvillian April 12, 1983 6437 Mercer Ho,uston, TX 77005 City of~West University Zoning F~-Planning Commission Dear Sirs: My wife Kathryn and I oppose the construction of dwellings and a road parallel to Mercer along the drainage ditch. The lack of access directly to University would force all of the traffic onto Mercer: I am unable to attend the Zoning meeting on 4/14/83, but wish my views to be kriown. I~whole-heartedly advocate delaying any approval until the residents of Mercer between Holcombe and University can review the impact. . Nicholas H. Sherman ~ .~~%". ~ ° . +' ry ~ ~ ZONING F~ PLANNING COI~II~IISSION PAGE 5. ~ APRIL 14, 1983 April 14, 1983 6424 Mercer City Planning and Zoning Commission City of West University Place Sirs: We have been asked to comment on the proposed replatting of six lots between 3631 Duke and 6422 Mercer for placing a street along the Poor Farm Ditch and construc- tion of single family dwellings along the street. We are opposed to the proposed replatting and development for these reasons: 1) More paved street area and construction will result in increased runoff and decreased absorption of rainwater. Since no proposal has been ad- vanced to increase capacity of Mercer Street storm sewers, this must make flooding more likely. 2) More population in this area will decrease the quality of environment for the current residents. Factors contributing to.this loss include: ~ more vehicular traffic -- Mercer is already a through street~from Bissonnet to Bellaire. Some of us ride bicycles and more have young children who do. We need no increased competition from automobile traffic. reduced privacy -- We bought.our property partly because it afforded us a quiet refuge with a place where there were no immediate neighbors. We have not been offered compensation for this loss. ~ environmental impact =- At this time, the land along the ditch has an abundance of bird life. We have counted four different species of wood- peckers in our backyard, along with cedar waxwings and even meadowlarks. Clearing of this area would surely result in abandonment by our feathered friends, a very unhappy outcome from our point of view. Donna Marks Scott Marks April 14, 1983 T0: The Zoning $ Planning Commission Holding Session at City Hall Dear Sirs: ~ In my opinion, the proposed replatting of deep lots between Mercer and Poor Farm Ditch to form additional lots absolutely should not be done. 1fi ese lots are very desirable properties as they are and are potential sites for large homes. To subdivide them to increase building dens.ity would set a precedent which threatens our way of-life here in West University. Detrimental effects of overcrowding can be seen all over Houston - We don't need it here - Don'~~t Do It. David A. Miller 3602 Corondo Ct. 667-9697 • ~r. ~^~~, . ~ ZONING ~ PLANNING COI~II~IISSION ~ PAGE 6. APRIL 14, 1983 Mrs. Lyle R. Sheppard. 6522 Mercer Arlington, TX 77005 Carl Aescheacher 6434 Mercer Houston, TX 77005 I am unalterably opposed to any plan to develop any part of the land surrounding and including The Poor Farm Ditch as a street. Mrs. Lyle R. Sheppard 6522 Mercer Arlington, TX 77005 April 12, 1983 Since we will be unable to attend the Zoning and Planning Commission meeting Thursday evening, we would like for you to present our objection to the proposed replatting ~ of the six lots, between 3031 Duke and 6422 Mercer, since we do not feel we need additional traffic on Mercer, and too, it will make it easier for the same situation to happen on other dead-end streets off Mercer. Thank you, Martin and Clarinda Black 3612 Carnegie The Zoning and Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 p.m. this Thursday (April 14) at City Hall to consider the proposed replatting of six lots between 3631 Duke and 6422 Mercer. If this is approved, a street will be cut from Duke parallel to Mercer along the drainage ditch and ending in a cul de sac opposite the last lot. Single family dwellings will be -built on the back half of these lots facing the ditch. The city, as required by law, notified only those property owners within 200 feet of the proposed action. We believe all residents on D4ercer from University to Bellaire and the associated dead-end streets are potentially affected by this proposal for the following reasons: Mercer will serve as the primary access to this new street. 'I'his action sets a precedent whic}~ can 'iir€luence=the handling ~o~--thi~s same situation for other blocks on Mercer. i Some objections to this replatting are that it will increase traffic on our already busy street, that it will increase the density of the population in the area, and that it will complicate~our sewage and drainage systems. Whether you are for or against this action, please attend Thursday evening and make your views known. If you cannot attend, please give you written opinion (pro or con) to one of those listed below, and we shall make sure it is presented. Carl and Vreni Aeschbacher 6434 Mercer ~ Michael and Chris.Pedersen 6431 Mercer Wes and Barbara Morris • 6425 Mercer Scott and Donna Marks 6424 Mercer Mrs. Charles Van Wart 6433 Mercer .r" `. . ,~ • , • ~ '~ ~ ZONING $ PLANNING COi~A~IISSION ~ PAGE 7 APRIL 14, 1983 April 13, 1983 Planning and Zoning Committee City of West University Place Dear Sirs: We are concerned that allowing a new street to be constructed adjacent to the drainage ditch will increase run-off and consequently create more flooding problems for those downstream. Have any studies been done that estimate the increased danger of flood- ing? We citizens depend upon your judgment to defend the property rights of the exist- ing residents of West University Place. " We strongly protest actions such as this which may operate to our detriment but to the gain of speculators. Sincerely, Arlo and Cathy Van Denover 3614 Corondo Court ~ I~iotion by Mr. 0'Leary, seconded by Mr. Bettler, that Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No:~ None The meeting recessed for ten minutes. Chairman Kendrick asked that Public Hearing be re-opened in order to place title records into the proceedings. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried Public Hearing was re-.opened. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Title record was submitted but only showed title to existing lots not the abandoned street right-of-way. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried the Public Hearing was closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Members of the Commission reviewed the two submitted plats, including cul-de-sac radius, utilities, parking, submittal of all documents and information as required by statutes and city. .~After lengthy.•di-scussion, the meeting was.recessed until ~ Tuesday, April 19, 1983, so that members could have more time to review alternate proposal submitted at this meeting for determination of all rec{uirements. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried the meeting adjourned. CJ