Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05131982 ZPC Minutesi.'r 'S ~ • .~ REGULAR MEETING ~ ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~ May 13, 1982 . ~'~~ ~ ~ The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West convened in regular session at the City Hall, Thursday, 7:30 P,M, with the following members present: Chairman Members Abell and Norton. University Place May 13, 1982 Casey, presiding; The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that notice of ineeting had been posted in the City Hall three days prior to meeting; Notice of Public Hearing was publ~ished in The Houston Chronicle on April 27, 1982. Motion by Mr. Abell, Seconded by Mr. Norton, that Public Hearing to consider application docketed #82-2 from Mr. Buck Phillips to subdivide Lot 12, Block 39, WUP lst. 6645 Westchester into two lots. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Mr. Casey introduced himself and gave his address in the city followed by other members, administered an oath to those in the audience desiring to speak on the application and explained procedures to be followed during . the hearing. Mr. Phillips said he would like to present a p1an.,.First, I would like to show you that I purchased this property back in.1940 duriag World War II. • We made two purchases, Lot A and B which diirides~:ont,Cason. ?It-°was 50' x 100' and 100' x 100'. Now, I have owned it since that time and kept ' it in good repair and I have the copies of the deed for the original purchase. I was of the opinion probably the grandfather clause, since it~.hacl:_been divided it could be redivided-and I have here the original instruments of the purchase. At that time I was a pilot in World War II. My children are grown and I want to divide it~facing iVestchester which the other way divided on Cason. I would be very happy to discuss with anyone about any harm it might bring about in the neighborhood. I have always thought it would be an addition. This lot is the only one in that area that is undivided. I certainly would like to answer some of the criticism and talk after other people have had their say. I might be wrong about this, but I do not think I am as far as injuring the neighborhood. I know that this property is desirable property. I no longer reside there, i-iy interests are away from here. Mr. Casey than asked Mr. Phillips if he purchased the property in two tracts, ~ Lot A and B. Mr. Phillips said, "Yes he did. Mr. Casey asked Mr. Phillips ; if he.~~had a survey made at that time. ; Mr. Phillips replied, "No, but I have a copy of the purchase letters and • Mr. Wesley was a representative of mine, I was not here at that time. He purchased_the lots in our behalf at that time." ~ Mr. Casey asked if_the.two lots that Phillips purchased was what'now makes ~ up the total Lot 12, Block 39, 100' x 150'. I ` P,hillips replied, "Yes sir, that makes up the Lot 12a and 12B. It is on the t tax rolls. Most of the time we pay taxes or the school taxes on two separate ~ lots. Even the title company has picked that up that the lots have been \ combined. We changed it back then.," \ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ • Casey: Mr. Phillips, in your application, you mentioned a common drive to serve both lots. ~ Phillips: Yes sir, approximately about 3000 ft. of flagstone drive.and I intended to preserve the flagstone driveway and a common ,~~ driveway back on Cason. y' r~J~;t Casey: Before we hear from anyone else who wishes to speak~in.~ehalf of the '! ~ subdivision? Do any of the members have any questions to clarify the ~~ ~ ~ ~ resentation? ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~~ P „ '~~; , _ -. _; Members Abell and Mr:.Norton anst~ered, "No, not at this time". ~ ~,~y ,~ ~ Casey: Is there anyone who wishes to speak in behalf of the subdivision? ~ ~ ~ ~ You are Cynthia Porter and you are one of the potential purchasers of the ~J Cproposed subdivided property: . ~ The reason that we wish to subdivide this property is that we would like to build two homes on that lot making the property division 50' x 150' instead 100' x 150. We plan to build two single family homes which my fiance plan to live in one and our business partner and good friend will live in the other. These will be very nice homes in the neighborhood of 2700 to 3000 sq. ft. each. We have instructed our architect who is doing preliminary drawings . ~ now to design the outside so that it will blend and enhance the neighborhood. Casey: Is there anyone else who would like to speak out on behalf of the application. ?~I am Robert Kendrick, I live at 6324 Rutgers. ~ Since this is a combined commission of both Zoning and Planning under what authority are you.looking at the subdivision? Casey: T'he best way I can answer that is that I am speaking for myself and maybe the other members from the authority that the City Commission has given us. Kendrick: The City Commission has given you the authority then to do whatever the law allows you do. Casey::Yes sir, that is basically correct. Norton: I believe that the State Statue allows the cities to set up City Zoning and Planning commissions and requires that they review subdivisions. Kendrick: It specifically requires that the Planning Commission review the subdivisions and the Zoning Commis.sion to review zoning and there are certain things which you do,.zoning represents certain things.that you do for planning. • It is basically my contention that over the years that the two have melted together to the point to where you are having public hearings on subdivisions iof property and when the statue of grace specifically states public hearings are _~ ifor zoning and rezoning, The subdivision.of property has to do only with the ~submission of a plat in which the City Planning Commission has 30 days to respond. Casey: As far as planning is concerned it is my understanding that we have the ^. authority to act in that capacity. The people involved who have applied for this subdivision have waived their 30 day obligation to hear the matter within 30 days. As far as zoning is~concerned the way that is handled in this city is that we will make a recommendation to the City Commission and City Commission if it so desires can then_call a joint hearing where the City Commission and Zoning $ Planning~Connnissioii=meet and discuss rezoning matters. If you want to break it out and say where will serve two purposes, that is fine. But, if you want to say it is planning,i:tihat is fine and that is what we are doing tonight. We are not rezoning certainly because we are not determining the use of the property but the property is still zoned for single family dwellings. r~ ~ Jy 1s ~ . . • y Kendrick: The Zoning Ordiance which we are working understates what size lots can be. One is a average width of min. 50' and the other is a.min, area of 5000 sq, ft. I can see no iight or reason that the city has to disallow anybody to subdivide any piece of property and as long as that piece of property will end up at least the min, required by the law. Casey : Okay, in other words, you came here tonight to say you are in favor the subdivision. ', Kendrick: Yes, that is correct. ~_ ~ Casey: Are there any questions from the members? ~ `~. Mr. Abell and Mr. Norton answered, "No,. not at this time." Casey: Mr. Phillips,.I understand that you purchased this property in 1945? Do you reside there now? I believe that when I drove by and looked at your property and noted that there were Real Estate signs advertising the property for sale. Are you requesting this subdivision to facilitate the sale of this property? Phillips: Yes sir. . Casey: The Commission would like to now hear from all those who are opposed to this application for subdivision. Mr. Sciulli:Home owner 6642 Westchester. Mr. Sciulli stated that he was not in favor of the subdivision for the following reasons: Heavy rains in this corner of the block rise up over the street curbs and threaten the front door entrances of existing homes. He felt that any additional concrete pouring or blocking of the surface structure for natural reasons would only increase danger and disaster to the existing homes on this block's corner. Also, disruption of the neighborhood's historical and established setting of home fronts and tree structures. Casey: Anyone else wish to speak out against the subdivision? Jim McDaniels: ~ I live at 3323 Cason. In terms of the water flow, adding structure will only add to the problems of water flow that we already have with the property, especially the townhouses that have been built. T`he character and tone ~~ the neighborhood; I do not believe the subdivision will enhance the character of the neighborhood. I have here a document signed by the surrounding neighbors opposed to this subdivision. • Mr. Casey accepted the document. Mr. Casey asked the secretary for the correspondence in reference to the subdivision. Casey read the correspondence to;;the audience. THe correspondence is from the following: Bsssie Wendt; J. N. Hunt; Joseph Sciulli; Mr, and Mrs. Paul D. Jones; also a petition signed by A4r. and Mrs. P. E. Martin; Mr, and Mrs. F. H. White; Mrs. Bessie Wendt; A4r. Jim McDaniels. Casey: Mr. Phillips, do you request a final comment? Phillips: Yes sir, I have lived there a number of years. I have two catch basins installed on this property. I have never had a flood problem or any water in the house. Mr. Casey asked Mr. Perry to ask.Mr. Lilli to check those storm sewers. • e ;~ : ~ . . ~ ~- Casey: Do any of the members have any questions at this time? ~ Norton: It is your belief that you bought the lot separately back in 1946? . Phillips: Yes, I did buy the lot separately and I have the letters authorizing the purchase and I have the deed. Norton: And they were deeded separately? At what point were they combined? Phillips: They were combined as.the garage has a front on Westchester so.off the back lot we made a den and made a drivew.ay entrance back there on Cason. Casey: This is very pertinent because if the lots were in effect, two lots and the house is built on.twolots and.once the house is destroyed there is nothing to prevent those two being utilized as being two separate lots. In effect if the house is removed you have two lots.- one lot faces . Westchester and one lo.t.faces Cason. Your preference is to face the two~lots on Westchester, and you are trying to preserve the Arizona , f lagstone.. ~ Casey: If no.one else wishes to speak in behalf of this subdivision, I entertain.a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Abell made the motion. Norton Seconded. Brief Intermission • Motion by Mr. Abell to begin meeting. Seconded by Mr. Norton that Public Hearing.to consider application #82-3 from Eugene Cook to subdivide: Lot 6, Block 32, WUP lst. 6506 Rutgers into two lots. Voting: Aye t~oting No: None Mr. Casey introduced himself and gave his address in the city followed by other members, administered an oath to those in the audience desiring to_,speak on the application and explained procedures to be followed during the hearing. Eugene Cook: For the record I am Eugene Cook. I live at 8906 Ferris. S't. Ho. Tx. The property which we bought about a month ago at 6506 Rutgers 100' x 150'. We propose replating into two lots 50' x 100' each. We propose to relocate an existing home which we designate as an investment piece of property, the resulting inside lot. We propose to build a 3200 sq, ft. family home the remaining lot. Mr. Cook stated that of the surroundi.ng lots, two-thirds or more have 50 ft. frontages, and that he had reviewed commission minutes for the past ten years and found that past commissions have ~ demonstrated a rather consistent willingness to divide lots down to ." 50 feet. In addition, he cited sections of Texas statutes which he contends oblige the Commission to find in favor of his proposal since it meets both minimum frontage square.foot standards. Citing loss of open space, additional stress on sanitary sewers additional water run off which contributes to street and lot flooding, an antipathy for additional rent property in the neighborhood, about a dozen citizens urged the commission to reject Cook's request. Mr. and Mrs. Gene Silver - 6510 Rutgers; Mr. Harlan Doak -3315 Pittsburg; Lynn Slutger - 6437 Rutgers; Mr. Jackson - 6513 Rutgers; Gary Codgers- 6519 Rutgers; Phylis Doak - 3315 Pittsburg; Bill Slutzer- 6437 Rutgers; Merrith Belke- 6514 Tugers.; Elizabeth Rolls-6511 Rutgers; Richard Elderman-6532 Rutgers. ~ .:~ . i w ~ s Many of the objecting speakers said that their own lots haue 50 foot fronts but that they do not want any more of the smaller lots in the area. They stressed that the Cook family would be welcome neighbors, but urged them to build a single home on the property. Final item of business: . Townhome developers T. H. McGregor and Bob Beamon inquired regarding rezoning of lots in the College Courts adda~.tfi:on;:, , Mr. Casey adeived the developers to file application for public hearing with the Building Inspector's office. Mr. Casey , Abell, Norton agreed to delay their decision until May 20th, 1982 7:30 P.M, at another regular Zon~ing and Planning hieeting. Meeting adjourned 10:30 P.M. , ~