HomeMy WebLinkAbout04081982 ZPC Minutes.,
_;
~~ ~~
1 ~" ~
~
~ i
REGULAR I~ETING
ZONING AND PLANNING COI~IISSION
April 8, 1982
~
The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of.West University Place convened
~.;
in regular session at the City Hall, Thursday, April 8, 1982, 7:30 P.M., with the"
following members present: Chairman Casey, presiding: Members Abell, Allen ~ .:
-~larma~. ;r2~v , • ,- -
Casey: Basically, we have two applications for subdivisions that have been
submitted to us by two property owners. Have these property owners signed
waivers as far as the thirty day requirement is concerned so that we
can schedule this for our next meeting: The meeting which will be
held May 13th. .
No problem. ~" -
, ~.:. -^ ~;
"' ~., ._ , ,.-,
The only item that is.pending is the proposed Virg~ i Street ~
. development. Is this correct: '~~ :-:' ' -- - `, -
, C-~~d ~ ~ ~ .~~~ ~, ~ - F ~ ~~~~~~~ _~,,
Yes sir. /~( ~ ]~{~(}., ~/)~ ~ ~~ r~ , ~
~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~V ~ ~~c~~ /1yi~i1~'~`~ ~~; ~ ~ ~t .
Casey: I think that the logical thing to~ is to fin~ ut~ if Jim Norton~`~`"`~-t~ ~~ ,
,
and John Allen have any questions from those of us who were present °~ _``~~ ~~`-~
at the meeting pertaining to the Virginia Street development. ~~` '~~!~-~"'
presume that you have seen the minutes. ~,~,~~d_;t ~ L-=,, ,-' ';
~(" ~~ J
~~
C,~„yOL1 COL1 ~ d }7P ltay'o- , .
~ Casey: Did everyone get a-copy of the letter from Pat Lilly"pertaining to
his changes: Pat Lilly, Director of Operations, who submitted •
an opinion on the first set of plans and also has submitted a letter
on the second plans and drawings. Letter dated 24th of March.
Norton: What was the provision for the sewer line? I saw the provision for the ~
water line but I did not see any provision for the sewer line.
~ Perry: The sewer and electric power line comes down the center easement here.~
Norton:~So,. they are to the back of the property, the gas lines are to:.the back:
Perry: Yes, they are accessable. On Mercer street the water line runs out here
in the curb so~they have to bring water back to i"t. .
• Norton: Well, he was only proposing to bring it liring it from there and we ~
'`~ would bring it to here. That was his proposal.
Perry: What they were looking at was putting a fire hydrant on this-corner but
at the present time, back up here on the northeast corner on Duke and
Mercer is the closest fire hydrant and they would have well over 700 ft. run
to get to the closest house.
Norton: What it means is that unless the city runs it there or he pays for it, it
is a problem: ~ '
Perry: It would be a problem with the houses down there getting adequate water.
Abell: It looks like he has agreed in his new proposal to do that if whatever
~portion costs is deemed appropriate by the City in the proposal of 3/T7/82.
Norton: In his 3/17/ 82 response - page 1 summary of responses.
Abell: Point 3 that deals with the hydrants - provided the developer will pay
for that portion and the 6';' line . Same way on that 2" water line.
Norton: Are all of those lots vacant? ~
Abell: No, the corner is not. The lot 7A has a homeowner facing on Duke.
u
~
-~ • i
~
.,
Norton: There is only a 20; setback.
Perry: He is proposing to deed 20' off the front of those lots to the City
to give adequate road right-a-way. The lots are 130' deep and.if he
deeds 20' off of them it will get them down to 110' and unless someone
has a violent objection, I do not think that the setback would be a problem.
The lot depth determines your setback - From lots up to 110' have a
minimum~ requirement of 20''. Lots from 110' to 125' have a minimum
setback of 25'. Then over that they have a minimum requirement of 30'.
If he deeded off 20' to the City it would bring him down to 110'.
In fact, 110.25' with 20' setback and on that 110' lot,.I do not think
it would be a problem.
Abell: Wayne, would that 20' be limited to this area right here or could someone
in another part of the city in similar circumstances then request they be
allowed a 20' setback.
~h~: Most of the lots are laid out so that.they are all 115' or 125', most
are 150'.
Perry: Back there on the west side most of the lots are 100' and have generally
20' setbacks. On Lake Street, 100' - they are 20' setacks. Your lot
depth determines the setback.
~~~ My feeling on this.~hat I do not think there is enough to benefit
the City and it out weighs the general crowding and loss of spaciousness
and future maintenance and power lines for the benefit of six people, just
' so this man can buy an economic endeavor. I am all for enterprise, but
I think for this man to come in here and develop this group of townhouses
crammed into minimum size lots in an area where there are only 10 others
this small in the whole district city, I really do not think it is to the
city's advantage to allow it.
Now, I think if the City wanted for whatever overall strategy reasons
wanted to run Virginia Street through for the benefit for the city and
for all the property down in that area, that is another question to consider.
I do not think that for one man to be able to do a six block maintenance
street - I think it is detriment to that area and crowding the area.
Casey: John - Frankly I agree, I do~not think that he has substantially complied
with the suggestions that were made initially. :I~~r.eal~ly;.do_not think~:that
it is a benefit to the city for him to put all of these additional homes
in there. Traffic, sewer lines, convenience, criteria that we could go
forward with this.
Abell: I do not understand' why you think it would.be a.crowding_condition.
We are talking about lots here that are larger than 50' x 110'; not much
granted, but they are larger than many current lots in the city. I do
not understand the crowding concept. I can understand it if he was trying
to cut it down into lots that were smaller than our present minimum size
requirements or maybe wanting to pack townhouses or something of this nature.
Frankly, I do not see it as a crowding condition. As a development of lots
which I think the person has them should be able to develop them. I do
not see it as a crowding condition. If that is the case,. then certainly
. the number of townhouses projects would certainly have to:be regarded
as a crowding conditions.
Allen: I regard the townhouse projects~:.developed in West University Place
developed on the outskirts of West University Place bordering on the
significantly traffic areas such as Bissonnet, Holcome and Kirby.and
I.think to be totally resistant to that type of development would
probably, lega-ly be detrimental in terms in having it rezoned as a result
of changed conditions and also providing some sort of buffer zone to those areas.
Casey: Let me ask a question if I may, would you feel more comfortable if there
were two lots combined? 100' x 110'?
•
I
:~ ~
~
Norton: That would delay my
still question the
street situation in
city should not get
developments.
1
L
~
i
crowding to the minimum size lot problem but I would
development of a little uncleave as it were a partial
what is really a through street. I think the
itself in a position of making these little spot
Abell: Jim, my feelings on it and I have.said it at the last meeting, I think
that this is the first part of quite a bit more deuelopment that will
take place in what I refer to as the Virginia right-a-way area in years to
come.
Allen: That is exactly what I am opposing.
Casey: I am hearing Jim Abell say these. lots were platted this way as there
was a right-a-way there. These property owners have a right and a moral
right to build on theix property.It is not their fault that part of the
street - the original Virginia right-a-way was taken in by the County
Flood Control of Poor Farm Ditch. You are concerned about a continuation
of that, however, I am not sure any other right-a-way that is available
in this city that has not been developed.
Abell: Yes, I think that this is basically what my view is, I do not personally
' have that objection. I do not see it as a crowded situation. I`~still see
it as a beginning.of a complete development and I am not convinced that
this is bad if it is done.in the ri.ght way for Virginia Street.
Norton: It is at a point now; where it is not that simple. What has happened
is in the many- years of West University Place and its wisdom in
whatever reason it has chosen to not develop that street, it has been
known not be developed at all. Especially the person who is acquiring
or has acquired these lots. Now there are people down there who have
taken this as it is and built certain ways. It is going to take some
real disruptions to run this street through.
Abell: I do not know what ten years is going to bring in these peoples feelings
in this area or property owners or the city in general but I believe
the pressure is going to continue to mount to development in lots that
are available for development and I think that we could help to see
that it is done in the right fashion and some standards are set forth now
before the issue is forced.
Norton: That has been my point on many occasions. 1Ve should not be creating
and encouraging an absolute minimum size lot development to the city
because what happens is if you hold the setbacks required for the single
family which I hope this will never change, then you are going to have
an excess of townhouses right there. No one will build a house
small enough to be in proportion to that lot.. They are going to fill
every available inch, and that is happening all over the town. The city
was platted a certain way and it is that way now. I do not think the
city should undertake this maintenance just for the convenience of this
gentlemen for this street.
If the city wants to open a dedicated public street and most cities do but
they do not do portions of streets and they do not do these just for one
man with six lots. To run that stxeet through will disrupt people
unnessarily. You will haue to destroy homes in order to build in
these terms and conditions and mapping and you will have to condemn
property.
Abell: Well,. I agree with you Jim, if I could have my preference for the next
15 years there would never a street down there. I went down there and
it is a_nz~c:e tranquil area. Nice for a park area. I believe that
there is going to be a tremendous pressure for this sort of thinking
along that area and I am not sure that it can be resisted forever, but
I would rather see it if is coming and i firmly believe that it be done
right to start with so we wil~l not have a mess down there and the
standard be set on the original.
~
:
~ ~ i
~
Casey: They could raise money like they did for the Wood Johnson Park.
Who knows what they could do for this area. To me, that would have an
effect on my decision. Is the city going to do something about that
right-a-way in a different or are they not. If they are, then I certainly
would rather see the land and the area facilitated in that way rather
than have houses•built on it.
In a situation where we::~are making a recommendation, it is more
important that you represent your own views.
Norton: T'here is one other point. T'here is a question. John Ea~~rel1^.sa~d that he
would be for it~if there was a proper terminus.
Well, I submit that the only proer terminus'is to drive in the last
man's driveway and back out.
Culdasac or a"T", you are going to disrupt this last lot if you are going
to do that. ~ ~
There is not room physically to do~that. That is to further tie up that
last lot and make it even smaller. In fact, it may make it illegal. T'he
other thing is that it is so narrow•and so crammed that you do not have
anywhere for your guests to park. It is not like one of our regular
streets. It is going to end up like being a~ townhouse type front end
loading design.• The 20' in back - the unfortunate people who live behind
them. All of their guests are going to have to park down on Duke St.
'I'hese are the kind of impacts that happen. This is what makes the city
less desirable. At least we have something we can hold on to. We should
be very careful about disrupting property owners. Once done you cannot undo.
Casey: Someone make a motion. - •
Allen: Are we going to wait for John Farrell's opinion.
Casey: I gave it to you. -
Norton: The problem that I have wi~th it Mr. Chairman is, it is an opinion
based on what cennot be done with what we.have~before us. You cannot have
a proper turnaround the way it is right now. •
Casey: Basically, Mr. F.arrell said was to go on and do what we wanted to do.
We did put in records his comments. I think that we should go ahead and pursue this.
Norton: I move that this proposal for some of the reasons that I have stated
previously not to be recorim~ended as being executed as presented here.
Casey: Any further discussion?
Abell: Yes, I would like to comment on this. The way it is worded I would
probably have to vote against it the.~way it is worded because there are
things that he has proposed and we are voting on his latest proposal-as being
the final word. No, I do not agree wit~h the 25' street. I agree on the 27'
minimum. I think the turna'round should be tied down - I do not agree with
either method that he has on the drawing. One being on Duke St. and the
other being a combination of the two driveways on 9A and 9B. Maybe there is no
o.ther way to do it. If that is the case, so be it then,.No. I do not agree.
Casey: What I am hearing that there-is a motion to recommend not to permit
this development based on his comments and based on your comments.
Abell: The way the motion read to me was that the vote was that we either
vote yes or no on the proposal as we see it. The most recent, I assume
it would be based on his recent drawings and this letter proposing revisions
dated March ~17th from the Developer.
Norton: Let me withdraw the motion, Mr. Chairman.
Casey: Would you like for the Chairman to prepare a letter to the City
Commission that expresses this body's disapproval.of the proposal?
Abell: If I felt like there was a reasonable effort being made to develop
that Park then I would think that would have a definite influence.
• Norton: The problem is that a lot of people would like the idea in a general idea
fashion but there are some problems economically on how to pay for it and
whether the city can approach it at this time.
Casey: Is this subject matter at least scheduled for the City Commission Meeting
on Monday.
:..,
:~
L
Casey
Casey: The will entertain a motion to make a recommendation to the
City Commission that the plans as submitted not be developed
and our preference would be a strong revitalization of
Independence Part. However, should i~•.lie.'the intention•: of~ -~~_.
the City not to develop that park we would be happy to look
at any alternative developments for this property.
Norton: I think we should just write a simple letter on this submission
to this board saying we considered and looked at it.~.:,:.
Casey:
;~ ; Norton:
e. ~•.
t.
. ~
~
If you want a letter and restate it and move that.
Mr. Chairman, I will volunteer to bring the letter and copies
for all~members to you and we can jointly reach a letter
and release it to them.
Do you want to do that or do you want Mr. Norton to write it with me:
Allen: The letter would actually reflect all that we have talked about
tonight written in that we disapprove based on various points
and disagreements enumberated in the meeting.
Casey: Mrs. Richardson, if you will find out what kind deadline
Mr. Heyward has on his earnest money contract.and that will
help me determine if we need to call a special meeting.
Casey: We are all in agreement for Mr. Norton to draft a letter.
I will now entertain ~he motion to.~~.approve the minutes of the
last meeting.
The March llth and also the workshop meeting of March 25th.
Norton: I make a motion we adjourn.
, Meeting was adjourned 9:00 P.M.
L~