Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06141979 ZPC MinutesA^l ': REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1979 C] Q Q The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place con- vened in regular session on Thursday, June 14, 1979, 7:30 p.m., with the fol- lowing mem-hers present: Chairman Casey, presiding; Members Farrell and La- Cook. Notice of meeting had been posted at the City Hall three days prior to the sche- duled meeting. Chairman Casey had the secretary read the Notice of Public Hearing and ascer- tained the date of publication in The Southwestern Argus as May 23, 1979 and letters mailed to property owners within 200 ft dated May. 23, 1979. Motion by Mr. Farrell, seconded by Mr. LaCook, the Public Hearing to consider application of Mrs:. John D. Lamar to subdivide Lot 5, Block 22 .West University Place 1st Addition 6320 Rutgers into two lots, each 50 ft. x 150 ft., each facing Rutgers, be opened. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Mr. John McDonald, nephew of the applicants, stated that his aunt had bought this property in .1919 or 1920 and had resided there since and that his mother had re- sided with her for several years, but due to their advanced age he had moved both ladies to Beaumont where he lives sothat he could better look after them.. He stated the sale of the property had been given to Mrs. Ruth Taxton and in dis- cussing the sale of the property they had concluded that it would be easier to sell if divided into two lots and that they could realize the best price for the owner. 1 Mr. Abell arrived at the meeting during Mr. McDonald's statement. Clara Alice Beaver, 6317 Rutgers, stated that she could really not think. of a good purpose for subdividing of the lot would do, but that in view of the finan- cial aspect involved for. the owner, she would favor the subdivision although it is .a beautiful lot with many beautiful trees on it. Bill Knowles, 6315 Westchester, stated he would favor the subdivision because 80% to 900 of the lots in West. University Place are 50 ft, x 150 ft. The following petition was presented by the applicants: "To the Honorable Zoning and Planning Commission the City of West University Place; Witness: We, the residents/homeowners in Section 1, Blocks 21, 22 and 23, West University Place, whose signature appear below, hereby state that we are not opposed to the. subdivision into two lots, according to the survey plat here attached, Lot 5, Block 22, Section 1, West University Place, which application is now pending and on file for subdivision scheduled to meet at date June 14, 1979,. as filed by Mrs. John D. Lamar, widow; and owner of Lot 5, Block 22, Sec. 1, West 2 University and being 6320 Rutgers; Signed: Dr. Major W. Bradshaw, 3219. University; John F. Preston, 3321 University Blvd.; E. D. Ainsworth, 6319 West- chester; J. D. Covington, 6323 Westchester; Dr. Janet M. Schreiber, 6327 West- chester; Joe J. Adams, 6331 Westchester;.William A Knowles, 6315 Westchester; Charles Ferguson, 3301 University; Marion Maton, 6325 Rutgers; Patsy Lankford, 6318 Rutgers; Marie Jones Beaty, 6333 Westchester.; (could not read name, 6328 Rutgers; Mrs. R. J. Blair, 6311. Westchester." The following ADDENDUM was also presented by the applicants: "I, W. E. Billups., et al, do hereby agree that in the event I/we become buyer of the north half of Lot 5, Block 22, Section 1. West University Place, in accordance with an APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION of the said Lot 5; filed by owner, Mrs. John D. Lamar; I/we will demolish the old residence presently located on the property and remove the debris on or before September 1, 1979, at my/our ex- pense. signed W. E. Billups, Carol S.Billups, signed at Houston, Texas, this 23rd day of May, 1979." Mrs. Thaxton replied to a question from Mr. Casey concerning contract on north one-half of property and she stated she had a contract for the north one-half- Mr. LaCook noted that the house as it now exists does not meet rear setback re- quirements as no residence can be in the rear 20 ft. of the property line. Robert Kendrick, 3127 Amherst, stated that he has a contract to buy the south one-half of the property if it is subdivided and that in the event it is not subdivided he has an alternate contract to purchase the entire lot and that he would like to see the lot maintained in its entirety. Mrs. Thaxton verified that the two contracts are on the property, but stated that she honored the first purchase contract in his request for the subdivi- sion and that if subdivided the property would sell for the same amount of money as if sold in its entirety. Dr. Billups, 6416-Rutgers, affirmed that his reputation for razing structures. was good and that the existing building would be town down by September which would not. interfere with building plans of Mr. Kendrick. since it was his under- - standing that he did not plan to start contruction until September. During questioning, Mr. Kendrick stated that if not subdivided he would build only on the south one-half, as at this time he had a family at home and his future. plans might include building a smaller house as now poposed on the north one-half and ask for a subdivision and sell the north one-half, but. that these plasn were in no way concrete. Mr. McDonald responded to questioning concerning the sale of the properties either as one or two lots by stating that monetarily it would make no difference as the same price would be gained in either instance, except that if left as one lot Mr. Kendrick would pay one-half of the purchase price now and, one-half in ninety days with interest accruing on the second half. Mr. LaCook stated he had visited the site and it was a very attractive neighbor- hood and inquired if anyone was in the audience who lived on one of the 100 ft. lots on the block. There was no one present who did. 3 C Q Q Ms. Jayne Davis, 4124 Southwester, asked what difference it would make-if it was .subdivided now or laver. Mr. Casey advised that there was no way to know if it would be subdivided in the future if it was denied now and they were to look at the facts now .and if the subdivision would be for the best interest of the city. Mrs. Beaver stated that in view of the fact that the owner would not be monetarily. denied, she would like to retract her former stand and state that .she thought it would be best to leave it as it is. Mr. Farrell stated that the money or contracts involved should have no bearing but whether or not it is a legal subdivision. Motion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Farrell, that Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None The meeting was recessed for ten minutes. Preliminary plans for the construction of townhouses on Lots I and 2, Block l Kent Place Addition Northwest corner of Sewanne F~ Bellaire 0 was present for consideration by Emmett Vickery, representative of owner, J. M. Romick. Mr. and Mrs. Gerect, prospective. purchasers, Michael J. Stapenhorst and Richard Robinson, architects, were present and answered .questions of the Commis- sion concerning plans. The Commission reviewed the plans and noted that the 5 ft. west setback could be allowed only if-there were no windows, calculation of unit size should be ex- clusive of garage, and guest parking. Motion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Abell, that inasmuch as-the preliminary plans for the construction of townhouses on Lots 1 ~ 2, Block 1 Kent Place-Addition [1 met the guidelines of the Zoning and Planning Commission and requirements of Ordinance No. 1025, they be approved as .submitted. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Chairman Casey advised the Commission that he and Mr. Dan Doughty, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, at the request of the City Commission had met with them in Workshop session and they had requested that the Zoning .and Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment given them recommendations to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clear up "gray" areas which have caused .many re- quests to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and definitions from the Zoning and Planning Commission after interpretations by the Inspection Department have denied permits, i.e., decks, porches, rear yard, open space, garage apartments and many others. A Workshop session was scheduled for June 28, 1979 immediately following a Public Hearing to be held by the Zoning and Planning Commission, to con- sider the above request and Chairman Doughty, Frank Billings, member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and W. E. Perry, Building Inspector, will be invited to attend. Mr. Sam Rosen, representing St. Andrews' Presbyterian Church, advised that the church desired to move an existing building from its present location on the east side of Rutgers St. to the west side of Rutgers St. onto property the church owns to be used as a Scout Hut; that only one room. would be used for Scout activities, a garage space would be used for storage of lawn and garden equipment and the other space for Scout equipment; and that the building would only have electricity wired to it and no other utilities. The City Commission had requested a recommendation from the Zoning and Planning Commission for their Workshop meeting on Monday, June 18, 1979. Members review the portion of the Code of -0rdinances pertaining to moving of structures. Motion by Mr. Farrell that the Zoning and Planning Commission recommend to the City Commission that they allow_St. Andrews' Presbyterian Church to move the building across Rutgers and make. it into a Scout Hut. Motion died for lack of a second. The ordinance was further discussed including interpretations of moving; within or into the city, would sanitary facilities be required, if allowed, would this set precedent for other requests and if literally enforced would it mean that even used building materials from one structure to another could not be used within the .city. Motion by Mr. Farrell, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that the Zoning and Planning Commission recommend to the City Commission that in anon-precedent setting fashion, St. Andrews' Presbyterian Church -e allowed to move the structure across Rutgers to be used as a Scout Hut: Voting Aye: Casey Farrell LaCook Voting No: Abell Chairman Casey was authorized to advise the City Commission of the above deci- sion by letter. Mr. Robert Kendrick presented plans to the Zoning and Planning Commission for the construction of anew house with a specific question concerning a porch extending across the entire width of the house, approximately 8 ft. into the front setback, and continuing across the drive way to the side setback. He requested an interpretation of this structure, maintaining of was a porch, or pone cochere. After a brief .discussion, Mr. Kendrick was advised that his request for an interpretation or variance from the Building Inspectors' decision should be 1 5 directed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He was also .advised that possibly when the aforementioned study of the Zoning ordinance is completed and amendments adopted, his problem might be cleared up, but in the mean- time his recourse was to the Zoning Board ofi-Adjustment. Discussion of subdivision application: Mr. LaCook stated that he did not believe that the lot should be subdivided as there are other 100 ft. wide lots of the same depth on the block and it is a very nice area and that he did not feel it was of a pressing nature at this time. Mr. Casey pointed out that there four 100 ft. lots in the area if both sides of the street were considered.. Mr. Farrell stated that he did not believe that the subdivision would do any harm to the neighborhood; that there are 12 lots 65 ft or less in width E[ on both sides of the street and that he could see no reason why the petition Q could not be honored; and that it would increase the city's tax base and could do no harm. Mr. Abell stated that he did not particularly object to the subdivision as far as effecting the immediate neighborhood, but that in looking at the city in general his opinion was that the possibility of having that much open area available was appealling and that he would tend to back away .from subdividing. this lot. Mr. Casey stated that he did not sense the owner cared one way or the other that usually an owner almost demands a subdivision because he maintains he could not sell to the hest advantage otherwise; and that the-only reason the subdivision came before the Commission was because the realtor was fulfilling the contract and the owner did not seem to think it very important. Mr. Casey and Mr. Farrell briefly discussed the reasons for the application being presented with Mr. Farrell stating he could not see how that conclusion could be reached and Mr. Casey reiterated that he felt that was the only rea- son for the application and that only one. person in the audience had spoken in favor of the subdivision and after hearing the statements concerning the purchase price had reversed her decision. Mr. Abell stated that he understood the owner's representative felt it did not make any difference one way or the other and that the petitioners were not opposed but did not object to it and that he had heard no real demand for it. Motion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Abell, that application to subdivide, Lot 5, Block 22 West University Place lst Addition into two lots, each 50 ft x 100" ft., each facing Rutgers., be denied. 6 Voting Aye: Abell Voting No: Farrell Casey LaCook Members reviewed the Report and Recommendations to the City Commission con- cerning rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1 Collegeview 3rd Addition 3800 block of Sunset The .Report as submitted was accepted for signature with corrections noted. Minutes of the special meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on May 22, 1979 were approved as submitted. With no further business to come before the Commission, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Chairman 1