Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02111975 ZPC Minutes REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1975 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place convened in regular session, Tuesday, February 11, 19.75, 7:00 p.m., with the following members present: Chairman Hines, presiding: Members Bartholomew, Lipscomb and Weatherby. Notice of meeting had been posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall ~ three days prior to the scheduled meeting as required by HB3, Amending ~ 6252-17 V.C.S. Motion by Mr. Weatherby, seconded by Mr.. Lipscomb, that the Public Hearing ~ called for 7:00 p.m. on the application of Q Mrs. Paul Watts on the following property All of Lot 6 and East 15 ft. of Lot 7 Block 1 Kent Place Addition 3600 Block of Bellaire Boulevard and Messrs. E.A. and R.B. Mayor on the following property West 45 ft. of Lot 7, All of Lots 8 and 9 East 10 ft. of G.ot 10 Block 1 Kent Place Addition 3600 Block of Bellaire Boulevard to rezone for townhouses and/or clusterhouses, be opened. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Southwestern Argus on January 22, 1975 and that all property owners within 200 ft. of the property were mailed Notice of Public Hearing on January 22, 1975. The Chairman explained the procedure to be followed during the public hearing. The Chairman administered the Oath to all those desiring to speak during the Public Hearing. Mr. R.B. Mayor spoke on behalf of he and his father's application and also represented Mrs. Paul Watts. He briefly outlined the reasons for the request to re-zone and presented a letter to be incorporated into the minutes: 7 February 11, 1975 Page 2. February 11, 1975 Zoning and Planning Commission City of West University Place 3800 University Blvd. Houston, Texas 77005 Re: Application to rezone lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, and the East 10 ft. of Lot 10, Block 1, Kent Place Addition As the Zoning and Planning Commission is aware, the City of West University has previously rezoned all properties facing Bellaire Blvd. between Kirby and Mercer to permit their use for townhouses and/ or clusterhouses. At the time of such action, our properties were left zoned for single family residential use despite the fact that there could be no rational basis for treating our properties differently from other properties along Bellaire Blvd. We protested this unequal treatment at the Public Hearing held in June 1974. As we understood it, the reason. the City did not accord our properties equal treatment was because the Zoning Commission had recommended that our properties be rezoned as a park site, which recommendation was ultimately rejected by the City Commission. We adopt in support of our application all of the reasons previously given by this Commission and accepted by the city as the basis for the rezoning of other properties along Bellaire Blvd. They apply with equal force to our properties.. In addition, we respectfully suggest that favorable action on our applications is dictated in the interest of consistency and fairness and in order to rectify an existing situation which we believe is arbitrary and deprives us of our constitutional rights. We most earnestly request this Zoning Commission and the City Commission to correct this situation by acting favorably upon our applications. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard B. Mayor, on behalf of himself and other applicants, E.A. Mayor and Mrs. Paul S. Watts It was ascertained from Mr. Mayor that neither he nor Mrs. Watts have. definite plans for development at this time, but they felt the matter of the rezoning should be resolved now so that future plans might be made. Motion by Mr. Weatherby, seconded by Mr. Bartholomew, that the Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None February 11, 1975 Page 3. Members of the Zoning and Planning Commission discussed the applications for rezoning lots facing Bellaire Boulevard between Mercer St. and Poor Farm Ditch for clusterhouses and/or townhouses., reviewing their reasons for recommending these properties as a park site in their previous study, and the rejection of this recommendation by the City Commission. Motion by Mr. Weatherby, seconded by Mr. Lipscomb, that the application of Mrs. Paul S. Watts and Messrs. R.B. and E.A. Mayor to rezone All of Lot 6 and East 15 ft. of Lot 7 ~ West 45 ft. of Lot 7, All of Lots 8 & 9 ~ East 10 ft. of Lot 10 O ~ Block 1, Kent Place Addition Q 3600 Block Bellaire Boulevard for townhouses and/or clusterhouses, be approved. Voting Aye: Lipscomb Voting No: Bartholomew Weatherby Hines The Chairman advised the Zoning and Planning Commission should consider the following in preparing recommendations for the Final Report to be presented to the City Commission on the rezoning of the above properties: 1. Adopt same regulations as they appear in Ordinance No. 1025 Sub-Section A, Dwelling District No.l. 2. Make other recommendations concerning special .setbacks along Poor Farm Ditch, if they think they should vary from Ordinance No. 1025. 3. Other provisions for control of traffic access if they think it should vary from Ordinance No. 1025. 4. Other recommendations. It was the opinion of the members that setbacks and traffic control should be studied for possible recommendations other than those contained in Ordinance No. 1025. Mr. Bartholomew was appointed to draft recommendations for a Final Report to be presented at the next regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on March 11, 1975. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission were presented for consideration and approved as submitted. Ordinance No. 1032 amending Ordinance No. 111 to amend the definition of "Family" and Ordinance No. 1033 amending Ordinance No. 111 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Block 93, West University Place 2nd Addition (Atkins property), were presented to the Commission for their information.. i February 11, 1975 Page 4. Information from the~City Attorney advising. the oral arguments in the case of Doy D. Myers vs. West University Place Zoning and Planning Commission would be at 9:00 a.m., February 13, 1975, was presented to the Commission for their information.. The Chairman asked that the secretary ask that the City Attorney advise the Commission the verdict on this hearing. Motion by Mr. Bartholomew, seconded by Mr. Weatherby, that the meeting recess until 7:58 p.m. Mr. Dahlin came to the meeting during the recess. Motion by Mr. Bartholomew, seconded by Mr. Dahlin, that the Public Hearing called for 8:00 p.m. on the application of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company on the following property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 25 Collegeview 1st Addition 4000 81ock Ruskin Street. and also on Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 25 Collegeview 1st Addition 4000 Block of Ruskin including in the hearing by the Zoning & Planning Commission to rezone for parking, be opened. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Southwestern Argus on January 22, 1975 and that all.. property owners within 200 ft. of the property were mailed Notice of Public Hearing on January 22, 1975. The Chairman .explained the procedure to be followed during the public hearing. The Chairman administered the Oath to all those desiring to speak during the public hearing. In speaking for his application Mr. Bill Knight, District Manager of Mo-hawk exchange, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, stated that both the city and the telephone company were aware that there is a parking problem and that it has existed for a -long time; that the city has had to place numerous "No Parking" signs because of the number of cars parked on the street; that several methods had been used with telephone. company employees to try to help the situation, including a sticker system; that if allowed to use the two lots for parking that the entire facility, inE~uding the existing parking lot would be redone and would be a beautiful addition to the community; that he realized it would not be a complete. answer to the problem, but that it would take a great number of the cars off the street. February 11, 1975 Page 5. The following information was received from questioning by members of the e ast count there were 67 Zoning and Planning Commission: That at the l . cars on the street and the two lots would provide 35 additional spaces; they park on the streets closest to the building; to his knowledge no persons other than telephone company employees and visitors to the building park in the existing lot; that he hoped, if allowed to use the two other lots, permission would be granted for ingress and/or egress on Ruskin and Academy; that he could not give an accurate count of maximum number of d" employees; and that the telephone company had investigated other properties ~ on adjoining blocks to purchase for parking and even looked into a lease ~ situation for use of the medical center at Academy and Bellaire, but that purchase prices were too high to be feasible. Q The following information was received from questioning by Mrs. J.M. Israel, owner of 4003 Ruskin, Mr. and Mrs. Horace J. Hicks, 4028 Ruskin, Mr. Pat Harris, 3030 Tangley, Mrs. Jackie Patterson, 3616 Amherst, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Goldman, 4032 Ruskin: that a second deck on the existing facility had not been considered because of cost and also this is prohibited by city ordinance; that lots may still. be used for single family dwelling and/or townhouses; Mr. Knight knows of no plans for adding additional equipment or personnel at this location; that a few (16) will be transferred soon to start another exchange; that there would be no increase in personnel by an increase in accounts, such as, development of townhouse districts in West University Place; that his office force serves only residential accounts and are housed in the building fronting on Academy Street, whereas, the equipment building fronts on Bellaire Boulevard; that owners on the north side of Ruskin had been contacted about selling their property but none had sold at this time; that it is premature to say if houses purchased on north side would be considered for parking; that there are training programs in the building most of the time. Mr. Arthur Goldman, 4032 Ruskin, spoke for rezoning the lots for the telephone company and stated that unfortunately this would not be enough to take all the cars off the street, but that it would help. He also stated that the Zoning and Planning Commission had been remiss in not rezoning enough property to handle the off street parking when the existing facility was allowed. Mr. Hines advised Mr. Goldman that at the hearing the Commission was advised by the were requesting would. be adequate to take and that at this time the Zoning and Plan inclusion of the remainder of the lots in to Weslayan. time of the previous public telephone company that what they all of the cars off the street Wing Commission had initiated the the 4000 Block of Ruskin east Mr. Goldman said that he would object to the remainder of the lots being re= zoned for parking unless they were for the specific use of the telephone company. He said he recalled the City Attorney saying at the previous public hearing that it was the obligation of the city to furnish a public utility adequate parking and if not available, the city could condemn property for that purpose. He reiterated that if the city was going to have off street parking to get enough so that this would not have to be done again and again. February 14, 1975 Page 6. Mrs. Miriam Israel stated that she had always been opposed to allowing any of the lots for parking, but that she had given up on that.. She observed that from Mr. Knight's statements allowing these two lots would only get about one-half of the cars off the street and that allowing an exit on Ruskin would only compound the traffic problem especially with cars parked on the north side of Ruskin when cars attempted to turn into Ruskin from Weslayan. Mr. Hines pointed out that possibly not all of the cars parked on the street belonged to telephone company employees that they could be from the Corrigan Center, visitors, etc. Mrs. Israel stated that the two lots adjacent to the telephone company lots (lots 7 and 8) belonged to Corrigan Properties and when asked by Mr. Hines if she knew of any plans of Corrigan properties for the lots she said she was told by an employee of Fed-Mart that they were removing the fence at the back of the lots and having telephone poles moved in anticipation of building a loading dock at the rear of Fed-Mart on the alley and extending onto the lots. Mrs. Hicks said she would like to go on record as to objecting against the parking of trucks on the lots or to a loading dock on same. Mr. Hines advised that to the best of his knowledge there is a utility easement at the rear of the lots owned by the Corrigan Properties and this would :prohibit any structure being built crossing the easement. Mr. Goldman: Objects to rezoning additional four lots for parking for anyone except the telephone company. He stated that the telephone company had maintained their existing facility in an excellent manner and he did not think Corrigan Properties would do so. He also objected to any truck parking on any of the lots. Mr. Hicks; Objects to other four lots being rezoned for parking unless for telephone company. Mrs. Israel: Stated that if all the lots were not rezoned for parking that property owners such as herself would be discriminated against and denied the benefit of financial gain the same as the telephone company; that it would be arbitrary and dicriminatory to rezone only the telephone company lots for parking. Clara Alice Beaver, 6317 Rutgers: Said that Mr. Knight had been very nice and open concerning the affairs of the telephone company, but that she could not conceive of a public utility which serves the people trying to take away their homes. Jackie Patterson: Stated she was opposed to the telephone company extending their parking lot into the two lots and also opposed to the balance of the lots being rezoned for parking. [] d" O C.~ Q February 14, 1975 Page 7. Mr. Hicks: Said he was opposed to piece meal zoning that goes on and on and questioned why the telephone company did not go ahead and buy everything on both sides of the street as money was no consideration and get the whole. thing over at one time. - Mr. Knight made a final statement and stated that the telephone company did not plan to buy the Corrigan property and that the statement made by Mr. Hicks that money was no consideration was simply not true; that they are in business and costs have to be considered; that he was not asking for a special favor that he made official application and paid the fee for consideration of the request for parking; that the general feeling appeared to be that they wanted him to buy more property and that if he did he would again hear many of the same objections; that he felt not allowing a Ruskin exit would create more of a traffic jam; that both he and the city have a problem and that he has a temporary solution; that it will not solve the whole problem but make a start in that direction; that he does not take away people's homes; that he buys only from willing sellers; that he did not think he is asking for anything that is not to the mutual interest of all and that he thought the time is long past due for taking the first step. Motion by Mr. Bartholomew, seconded by Mr. Lipscomb, that the Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None After discussion of the various phases of the rezoning for parking application, Mr. Knight was asked if he would furnish. the Zoning and Planning Commission at his earliest convenience the following information: 1. Maximum number of people on premises 2. If possible, how many drive cars 3. How many spaces in current parking lot? 4. How many would be gained by the addition of the two lots? 5. Square feet in bu ilding. u The Zoning and Planning Commission also desired information from the Police Chief and Fire Chief and asked that the secretary request the City Manager to arrange for them to meet with the Commission on Tuesday, February 25, at 7:00 p.m., at a special meeting, with any information pertinent to their depart- ments in the consideration for rezoning all lots under consideration for parking. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at (10:20 p.m. ATTEST `~ ~ Secretar,~ < ~ ~~- , airman