The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01131983 ZPC Minutes~ :~ . ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~/ u REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING CONII~IISSION JANUARY 13, 1983 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of ~Vest University Place convened in regular session, Thursday, January 13, 1983, 7:30 p.m, with the following members present: Chairman Casey, presiding; Members Abell, Bettler and Norton. The secretary read the published notice of Public Hearing. Motion by Mr~. Abell, seconded by Mr. Norton that public hearing to consider app;~ication from Lois Ann Flynn to subdivide: Application 82-10. Lot 4, Block 14 • West University Place 1st. Addition 6422 Brompton into two lots, each SO ft, x 200 ft, each facing Brompton, be opened. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None The Chairman introduced himself and gave his address in the City • followed by other members. Mr. Casey ascertained from the secretary that notice of public hearing was published in the Houston Chronicle on December 28, 1982. Notice to property owners mailed December.l7, 1982, explained the procedure to be followed and administered the oath to those present desiring to speak on the application. • T'he Chairman pointed out this is a re-hearing on the subject subdivision and invited the applicant to make his presentation. Dick Flynn, 3306 Georgetown, stated he represented his mother who~is the applicant,. Lois A. Flynn, and would at this time turn the presentation over to Wade Kilpatrick, the attorney for Mrs. Flynn. Mr. Kilpatrick (1433 West Loop South, Suite 110, Houston, Texas 77017) first inquired if all technical aspects of application, specs,and plat submitted were in order. Mr. Casey replied affermatively. Mr. Kilpatrick continued, stating State Statutes set forth criteria as to when an application should be approved, i.e, meeting general requirements of city streets, access, utilities, etc.... and conforming with street frontage and lot size. He stated this application met all these requirements, and~submitted plat showing other lots on the block smaller than 100 feet frontage (unsanational or otherwise) and this subdivision would create two lots, 10,000 sq. ft.'each SO ft, frontage. He also • spoke of added tax base of two residences where one now exists and unless there is a moratorium on construction because of utilities, Mr. Flynn would be penalized by denial of application #82-10. Mr. Kilpatrick summed up his presentation by stating that the Statutes is ~ very clear, it is statutory mandatory, and no latitude.:once.the.Cit'y.;~has• established a plan, adopted ordinances, made decisions~in past and once it has allowed replating it cannot arbitrarily select one and say we want to stop today unless there is a compelling reason. Rick Steward, 6432 Brompton spoke in favor of the application and stated he and his wife has moved here because of the character and desirability of the City and he felt what Mr. Flynn wanted to do would continue to revitalize the City and bring in younger people. He also submitted a letter from Samuel Sikes, 6436 Brompton, ~ahich he stated was in favor of the application but that he could not attend the meeting. He also stated Mr. ~ Sikes and he were interested because Mr. Sikes desires a similar subdivision of property he owned in the future and he (Mr. Stewart) desired to purchase part of said property. ~ -a ~ ~ • Zoning and Planning Cor.unission January 13, 1983 Page 2 The following correspondence was read into the minutes. "City of West University Place (for presentation by Mr. Stewart, Jan. 13, 83). ~ I have no objection to the division of Lot 4, Block 14 into two lots, each 50 ft. frontage ai~d 200 ft. depth. In fact, I desire such division. Samuel J. Sikes, Jr. ". In'answer to a question from Mr. Norton concerning the reason for the request to subdivide, Mr:.Flynn stated it was purely economical; that the price paid for the property would in no way justify remodeling the existing house or build another as the lot now stands; that the property was bought in July, 1982 for the express purpose of development. Members and applicants held a general discussion on requirements of ~ subdivision, cognizance of applicant of procedures, earlier divi:sion of lots, responsibility of Commission in regard to best interests of the City, health, welfare ~, safety of citizens;s physical make up of block, i.e., one other 100 ft: lot, must others have frontage of 60 ft, to 80 ft. • Mr. Casey requested Mr. Per.ry, Building Inspector, to check records on dates of construction of houses in the 6400 block of Brompton. In checking these records it was indicated that except for 6432 Brompton constructed in 1946, other properties mentioned were constructed during a period of 1936 to April 1937 before adoption of Zoning Ordinance, July, 1937. That some divisions as they now appear are not as originally platted and appears to have been divided before Zoning Ordinance was en£orced and "grandfathered" into existence. N1r. Abell~stated that whatever took place in previous divisions happened 30 or 40 years ago and he was not prepared to accept that as an indicator which should be applied in 1983: that times, attitudes and moods have changed and that it did not really.concern.him tonight what happened in the 1930's and early 1940's. Mr. Abell and Mr. Casey answered questions from T4r. Bettler concerning utilities by stating it is a general concern of the age all over the City instead of specifically in this area. Motion by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Bettler, that public hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All , Voting No: None The meeting was recessed for ten minutes. . Meeting convened into Mr. Casey stated that hearing which was not emphasis of applicant to interpretation whi ~ Commission. regular session. he could see no new evidence presented at this presented at the previous hearing; that the was on the State Statute which he felt was open ~h is the purpose and responsibility of this Mr. Casey reviewed reasons for previous denial of application for sub- division as set forth in letter dated December _1, 1982_ to Mr. Wade Kilpatrick, and stated further that 1) this criteria has been applied previously and unless application is really a replotting, the Commission has not granted subdivisions; Mr. Bettler stated he could see the problem with the old laws; that it looks in good shape but that he can see the only thing to improve it is to tear it down and rebuild; that if i~ it is not feasible to rebuild the quality of the neighborhood might go down; :_. .. • that two new houses might improve the quality of the neighborhood. _~-.--- . . ~ ~ ~ oning and Pl~nning Commission ~ January 13, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Casey stated that based on his knowledge of values he felt that a 4,000 sq. ft. house could be built'..and be economically feasible. Mr. Abell noted a recent example at~Buffalo and Pittsburg. Mr. Casey stated general plan of the community has to be considered, i.e. health, safety, morals.arid general welfare of the community in a safe orderly and healthful development. Mr. Abell concured.'.and~._stated.that in his mind, the general plan of the City is not automatically 50 ft. and 100 ft. - 200 ft, lots throughout the City, and that the general plan of the City as it has existed for sometime is a mixture; that there are a number of large lots left and it is important to preserve those as it is essential to the overall character of the city and certainly viable as far as being able to sell, buy, build on them, or whatever. Mr. Norton stated the presentation were good but he felt that in the province of the Commissions responsibilities, as he understands them, that decisions have to be made on these requests - subdividing large lots - and make the best decisions for the total benefit of the City, and that he really feels the loss of spaceousness that-.comes about by • subdividing large lots does have an undesireaY~.le effect on the overall City and the immediate area. He further stated that it is a proper plan as is and unless there is a compelling reason, other than pure economic gain, that it is to the best interest of the City not to subdivide and that he had really not heard anything which warranted granting the subdiv.ision. Mr. Bettler pointed out no opposition at this hearing although some was presented at the previous hearing. Motion by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Abell, that Application #82-10 to subdivide: Lot 4, Block 14 tiVest University Place lst. Addition 6422 Brompton into two lots, each 50 ft. x 200 ft. facing Brompton, be denied. Voting Aye: Abell Voting No: Bettler Casey Norton Mr. Casey attempted to.ascertain from Mr. Kilpatrick if he agreed all legal requirements had been met in conjunction with this application filed December 14, 1982. Mr. Kilpatrick would not so stipulate and advised ~ a suit would be filed in District Court on Application made October 21, 1982 as being approved because no action was taken on said application within 30 days of receipt. _ Minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on December 2, 1982 were approved as submitted. Because of the length of the public hearing it was decided that the other agenda items concerning recommendations to rezone certain properties in the 2600 - 2700 block of Wroxton be tabled and considered at a special meeting on Thursday, January 20, 1983, 7:30 p.m. Upon motion being made and,.seconded, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ~