HomeMy WebLinkAbout02091971 ZPC Minutes (2),~~ r
REGULAR MEETING _
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY ~ 1975
The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place
convened in regular session at the City Hall, Tuesday, February 9, 1971,
7:30 p.m., with the following members present: Temporary Chairman E. Gene
Hines, presiding:. Members M. C. Caldwell and Roland E. Dahlin.
Dr. and Mrs. Morris E. Lej~ow, 3$05 Nox"'th Braeswood Boulevard, Houston, Texas
7702 , Owner of
Lot 2, Block 35
~p Colonial Terrace Addition
'~ and
V Lot 1
V Fairhaven Addition
appeared before the Zoning and Planning Commission and requested permission
to build a pharmacy into a proposed office building to be constructed at this
location. Dr. Lepow explained the pharmacy would only be approximately
1000 sq. ft. and would be an integral part of the building and the .operation
of the medical offices, and that there would be no delivery from the pharmacy.
It was explained to Dr. Lepow that this appeared to be in violation of Ordinance
no. 902 which zoned this property for Professional and Business Oft ice Buildings
and .the Zoning and Planning Commission desired to obtain an opinion from the
City Attorney before considering this matter further.
Mr. Milton Schwartz, Attorney, was present and requested a copy of this opinion
from the City Attorney.
Mr. G. B. Gudger, 3503 Plum Street, Owner of
East 50.ft. of Lot 3, Block 62
West University Place 2nd Addition
3503 Plumb
appeared before the Commission and requested consideration for sub-dividing
this property into two (2) lots, one to face Sewanee St. consisting of less
than 5,000 sq. ft. and the lot on which the present residence exists to face
Plumb Street as originally dedicated.
Mr. Gudger was advised that since this lot was only b0~ x 150'; it could not
be divided into two lots which would meet the minimum requirements of Zoning
Ordinance no. 111 requiring that all lots contain a minimum. of 5,000 sq. ft.
and also requiring that all lots be 50' in width. The Chairman stated he had
no knowledge of any exception which had ever been made to this requirement
and it was the direction of the Commission that this sub-division could not
be considered.
Mr. R. E. (Buddy) Clemons, representative of W. A. Horne Company, Realtors,
Owner of
Lots c and 6, Block `L
Bissonnet Place Addition
SW corner of Wesleyan and Bissonnet
~`C'
appeared before the Commission to further discuss rezoning of the above
property, particular for a Service Center which would include some type of
drive-in food market in the lower portion and offices above.
After questioning ~:nd discussion Mr. Clemons was advised that at this time `
the Commission could not see rezoning only this area as this could possibly
constitute "spot" zoning which they wished to avoid. He was also told that
the Commission was aware that this was a "problem" lot because of its peculiar
shape and that there were several other lots. which were also considered
"problem" in the City and they hoped at some future time to study the entire
picture and help clarify some of the problems and give, relief to owners.
Mrs. Bee Wri ht, representing Mr. L. L. Lovelace, 614j N. 19th Ave., Phoenix,
Arizona 501 , Owner of
West 3C~-z ft. of East ~ of Lot 12, Block 9
West University 1st Addition
2900 Block of Carnegie
appeared before the Zoning and Planning Commission with a request for the
Commission to consider making an exception of this lot where the zoning ordin-
ance required 5,000 sq. ft. minimum for the construction of a single family
dwelling.
Mrs.Wright was advised that since the lot was only 32~ ft. x 100' even if this
exception was made it would be quite difficult to build on this siz;e lot and
meet required set backs and "open" space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Wright said she had believed this lot was 150' deep and that this new in-
formation would certainly make a difference in what .could be accomplished on
this property.
The Commission advised that unless subsequent findings as to how this small
lc~t had come about should have some bearing, they could not at this time make
an exception of this requirement.
Dr. Edward C. M. Chen, ltOLt6 Durness, Houston, Texas 77025, Owner of
Lot 1, Block 57
West University Place 2nd Addition
3323 Georgetown
appeared before the Commission with a request for the Commission to consider
sub-dividing this lot into three (3) lots-one 50 x 100 fronting on ltiestchester,
and two (2) 50 x 100' fronting on Georgetown.
Dr. Chen was advised that the Zoning and Planning Commission would not be
inclined to consider this request favorably, because of the population density
involved and that there were very few lots in the area so sub-divided. Dr. Chen
stated he would be agreeable to sub-divide into two {2) lots 50 x 150, each
fronting on Georgetown. He also inquired as to the procedure for sub-division
which was outlined for hi:n by Mr. Hines.
Dr. James E. Butler, 2639 Pemberton, Owner of
West 150 feet of each of lots one{1)
and two (2), Block 20
West University Place lst Addition
,, NE corner of Brompton and Duke
1
appeared before the Commission to request permission to return these lots to
their original sub-division as described above, and being two lots each 100 x 150',
each fronting on Brompton It was explained that by action of the City Commission
on March 25, 1963 and by request of the owner at that time, these lots had been
sub-divided into two (2) lots-one 57~ x 150 and one llt2`-~ x 150, each fronting
on Brompon.
L
Motion w~s made by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Dahlin, that these lots be
returned to their original sub-division described as
West 150 feet of each of lots one and
Two, Block 20
West. University Place 1st Addition
~ sub ect to presentation b Dr. Butler of a curve ors lat showin the sub-
~ J 3r y P g
~ division as it was when he purchased same (being two lots, one 5 T~ x 150 and
°"7 one ].1~2`-~ x 150 ~ , each fronting on Brompton) , and also showing on s~.d plat how
tV he desired it to be sub-divided, with proper certifications from the surveyor
and certifications to be signed by the Chairman of the Zoning and Planning
Commission. Motion carried.
With no further business to come before the Commission at this time, upon motion
duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned.
1
Attest:
A/'_ ~~/'
Secretary
r
C airman
;l