HomeMy WebLinkAbout01131983 ZPC Minutes (2)i2o
REGULAR MEETING
ZONING AND PLANNING CO*,^~IISSION
January 13,.1983
The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of Nest 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 present. Allen absent.
The secretary read the published notice of Public Hearing.
Motion by Mr. Abell, seconded by Mr. Norton that Public Hearing to consider
application number #82-10, submitted by Lois Ann Flynn to subdivide:
Lot 4, Block 14
6Uest University Place 1st.
6422 Brompton
into two (2) lots, eacr~ 50' X 200' each facing Brompton, be opened.
Voting Aye: Casey Voting No: 0
Bettler
Norton
Abell
The Chairman introduced himself and gave his address in the City followed
by other members who gave same.
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 17, 1982, explained the procedure to be followed and
administered the oath to those present and desiring to speak o;~ the
application #82-10,
The 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 N1r. 'vVade Kilpatrick, the attorney for Mrs. Flynn.
Mr. Kilpatrick of 1433 iNest Loop South, Suite 110, Houston, Texas, first
inquired if all technical aspects of application, specs and plat submitted
were in order. Mr. Casey replied affirmatively.
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 insanitional or otherwise, and this subdivision would create two (2)
lots, 10,000 sq. ft. each, 50' frontage. He also spoke of added tax base
of two (2) residences where one (1) now exists and unless there is a moratorium
on construction because of utilities, Mr. Flynn would be penalized by denial
of application #82-10.
0
0
121
Mr. Kilpatrick summed up his presentation by stating that in his opinion
the Statues is very clear, it is statutory mandatory, and no latitude once
the .City 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 had 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, which he stated was in favor of the
application #82-10, but he could not attend the meeting. He also stated
Mr. Sikes and he were interested because Mr. Sikes desires a similar sub-
division of property he owned in the future and he, Mr. Stewart, desired to
purchase part of said property.
The following correspondence was read into the minutes.
Q City of West University Place
(for presentation by h1r. Steward)
January 13, 1983
I have no objection to the division of Lot 4, Block 14, into two (2) lots,
each 50' frontage and 200 ft, depth. In fact, I desire such division.
Mr: Samuel J. Sikes, Jr.
6436 Brompton
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 sub-
divisions, cognizance of applicant of procedures, earlier division of lots,
responsibility of Commission in regard to best interests of the City, health,
welfare and safety of citizens, physical make-up of block, i.e, one other
100 ft, lot, most others .have frontage of 60 ft, to 80 ft.
Mr. Casey requested Mr. Perry, 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 which was
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 enforced and "grandfathered".
into existence.
Mr. Abell stated that whatever took place in previous divisions happened
30-40 years ago and he was not prepared to accept that as an indicator which
should be applied in 1983. He stated that time, attitudes and moods have
changed and that it did not really concern him tonight and what happened in the
1930's and 1940's.
122
Mr. Abell and Mr. Casey answered questions from Mr. Bettler concerning
utilities by stating it is a general concern. of the age all over the City
instead of specifically in this area.
_' Mr. Kilpatrick requested that Mr. Casey explain in the denial to his client,
<`~- Mrs. Flynn, the reason for Statue 974-A relating to the denial, and Mr. Casey ';
replied that would take more time because the information would come from
the City of West University Place Attorney, Mr. David Allums. Therefore: -
Motion by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Bettler, that Public Hearing be closed
Voting Aye: Casey Voting No: 0
Bettler
Abell
Norton
The meeting was recessed for ten minutes.
Meeting reconvened into regular session.
General Discussion
Mr. Casey stated that ,~e could see no new evidence presented at this hearing
which was not presented at the previous hearing; that the emphasis of
applicant was on the State Statute which he felt was open to interpretation
which is the purpose and responsibility of this Commission.
Mr. Casey reviewed reasons for previous denial of application for subdivision
as set forth in a 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 would be to tear
it down and rebuild. That if is is not feasible to rebuild, the quality of
the neighborhood might go do:~n. That two new houses might imporve the qualiiy
of the neighborhood.
bor. Casey stated that based on his knowledge of values, he felt that a 4,000
sq, ft. house could be build and be ecomonically feasible. Mr, Abell noted
a recent example at Buffalo and Pittsburg.
bor. Casey stated general plan of the Community has to be considered, i.e.,
health, safety, morals and general welfare of tree community in a safe and
orderly and healthful development.
Mr. Abell concurred and stated that in his mind, the general plan of the
City is not automatically 50 ft. and 100 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.
123
Mr. Norton stated .the presentation was 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 os spaceousness that comes about by subdividing large lots does
have an undesireable effect on the overall City and the immediate area. He
further stated that it is a proper plan as it is and unless there is a
compelling reason other than pure economic gain, then it is to be the best
interest of the City not to subdivide and that he had really not heard
anything which warranted granting the subdivision.
Mr. Bet tier 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 number #82-10
to subdivide:
Lot 4, Block 14
Q West University Place 1st.
.6422 Brompton
into two (2) lots, each 50' X 200', facing Brompton, be DENIED.
Voting Aye: Abell Voting No: Bettler
Casey
~, Norton
Mr. Casey attempted to end the Public Hearing by ascertaining 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.
Voting Aye: Casey Voting No: 0
Bettler
Norto:.
Abell
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 at 7:30 p.m.
Upon ~,.otion being made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chairman
cretaxy