Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12131979 ZPC Minutes30 REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND. PLANNING COMMISSION DECEt4BER 13, 1979 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place con- vened in regular session at the City Hall, Thursday, December 13, 1979, 7:30 p.m., with the following members present: Vice-Chairman Farrell, presiding; Members Abe11, LaCook and Norton. The Chairman ascertained that notice of meeting had been posted in the City Hall three days prior to the scheduled meeting. Mr, Farrell introduced self following by other members of the Commission. Motion by Mr. Abell, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that Public Hearing to consider application of Mr. and Mrs. Allen G. Weymouth and Mrs. Marie B. Paxson to subdivide Lot 4, Block 85 West University Place 2nd Addition into two lots, each 50 ft. x 150 ft., each fronting Sunset, be opened.' Voting Aye:. All Voting No: None The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that notice of public hearing had been published in The Suburbia-Reporter on November 28, 1979 and that notice to property owners. had been mailed on November 28, 1979 and administered each to those in the audience desiring to speak on the application. Mr. Weymouth stated that he had bout this lot from the Paxsons some nine to ten years ago; that Mr. Paxson has since died and Mrs. Paxson is 80 plus .years old; that he had paid taxes on this property since purchase with plans to build a residence on same and. that this is the year to build. He also stated that at the. time of purchase Mr. Paxson assured him that it was subdivided, but on approaching the Inspection Department concerning permit for construction he was advised that the lot had not been officially subdivided by the City of West University Place and that he desired to subdivide it at this time. He stated there is a house located on the corner in which Mrs. Paxson .still resides; that there are other houses in the area on fifty foot lots and he believes he can bring the house on the tax rolls on an equitable basis. It was ascertained. through questions from the Commission that Mr. Weymouth be- lieved when be bought the lot that it was a buildable sire and had no indication from the title company or the seller that it was not and that Mrs. Paxson had lived at this location for many years and that he owns fifty feet of a 100 ft. wide. lot with Mrs. Paxson owning the fifty feet on which .the house is located. The following communications were received in favor of the subdivision: "12-13-79. I have no objections. /s/ Forrest Daniell, 3611 Sunset." "I have no objection to the planned subdivision. Charles C. Shaver, Jr., 3506 Sunset. Mr. R. W. Wilson, 3509 Sunset, stated that he had no particular objection to the 31 [1 Q 0 subdivision as the general decorum of the area will not be upset in view of other lots having been subdivided and could not see how the application could be denied.. The following communication was received in opposition to the subdivision: "To the Zoning Commission Re: Subdivision of Lot 4, Block 85, West University Place 2nd Addition.. My name is Paul Lawrence.' I live next to the above Iot. Excuse this farm, but it is about 6:50 p.m., December 13; 1979. I-had planned to attend this hearing but due to personal matters of the most serious nature I will be unable to do so. I am the person. (and my family) most affected an perhaps my opinion is thereby biased. However, I feel that the following-matters must be considered:{1) If granted, the 350.0 block will be the only block west of Buffalo with houses so close together and the integrity of the street will be compromised. (2) Drive- ways are limited in the block and off-street parking (necessary in my case) will become even more crowded. (3) a garage on the front building line would be most unsightly. Although I have talked to Mr. 6eymouth and would be happy to have him as a neighbor, I oppose this application. I would be happy to attend any reconvened meeting to consider .this application. /s/Paul Lawrence" Mr. Bob Musemache stated that those things mentioned in the above letter in opposition to the subdivision in his opinion are not valid reasons not to sub- divide the lot and that he did not believe the subdivision would compromise the neighborhood. Mr. Wilson asked Mr. .Weymouth if he planned to design the house with a garage on the front. Mr. Weymouth stated that he did not know at this time as he had not started plans until he knew he could build on the lot. Mr. Wilson said he would not be in favor of having a garage on the front. Mr. Norton advised that the Commission cannot control the. design of a structure and can only make a decision on an application as to its meeting the requirements of a building site and if it is in the best interest of the city to subdivide or not to subdivide. A4otion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Norton, that public hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None ~.. The regular meeting was reconvened. Preliminary plans for the construction of townhouses were presented by Mr. Bob Musemache on 32 Lots 3, 4, 5, Block 1 Kent Place Addition 3500 Block of Bellaire Blvd. Mr. LaCook stated that. before the official presentation he would like to clear up two points; (1) is-there a townhouse development on Lot 2? and (2) was minimum lot size obtained on the lots including common property? Mr. Musemache stated that there is currently a townhouse development under construction on Lots. land 2, Kent Place Addition, adjacent to his lots and that some of the interior lots in his presentation did include common area in order to have the 2,000 sq. ft. minimum lots szze, and that this made some of the lots 2400 sq. ft. Mr. LaCook stated that there may have been one townhouse project where the mini- mum lot size included common area, but he was not sure of that, but that in taking an interpretive view of the ordinance .past Commissions had required that the 2,000 sw. ft. minimum lot size be exclusive of common property. Mr. Musemache stated that common practice in the construction of townhouses is that the common area is included in the building site; that legally the owner has bought the. common area and it is deeded to him. Commission members discussed with Mr. Musemache interpretation of ordinance con- cerning minimum lot size; options to obtain 2,000 sq. ft. minimum, exclusive of common area, i.e.,-curb cuts an Bellaire Boulevard, less units and wider lots, development of project in phases; guest parking spaces available to all units, and zero setback requirements adjacent to another townhouse project. Mr. Farrell stated that the minimum lot size requirement is subject to interpre- tation and that he is philisophically opposed to excluding the common property from the building site as it is common practice to .include it. Other members upheld exclusion of common property in building site on basis that intent is to create a less congested type of development, less density and adequate guest parking spaces, anc create a nice development which would be a benefit to the city. Motion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Norton, that preliminary plans for the. construction of townhouses on Lots 3, 4, 5, Block 1 Kent Place Addition not be approved as they did not meeting requirements of Ordinance No. 1025 as interpreted by Commission members. Voting Aye: Abell Voting No: Farrell LaCook Norton Members discussed the application for subdivision of Lot 4, Block 85, '+Vest University Place 2nd Addition, concerning number of 50 ft. lots in area, portions of larger lots having been sold off in the past, and benefit to the city.. Mr. Farrell stated that he had trouble understanding the objections of other 33 Q Q ~~ property owners and that he would be in favor of the subdivision as he sees thias as part of the progressiveness of West University Place into its new era. Mr. Norton stated that he has been generally opposed to subdivision unless there is something unique about the lot; that it is the burden of the appli- cant to insure this would be a benefit to the city as a whole; that the. pressure is here to subdivide every piece of land and that he would .hate to see every lot 50 ft. wide; that he had not .finally made a decision on this application which would seem to be a trade off on density or a new house and that a new house would probably not change-the character of the. street. ~.1 Mr. LaCook stated that to some extent he feels the same as Mr. Norton about subdivision, but that there are 50 ft. lots around it and he did not believe it-would be a detriment to the meighborhood if subdivision granted.. Mr. Abell stated that he is basically opposed to the subdivision as he had been on other applications; that it probably would not individually affect that. block; but he is opposed to the trend of having all 50 ft. wide lots through- out the city. After ascertaining from the secretary-that applicants had signed a waiver of the thirty day requirement pertaining to action on applications for subdivision the following action was taken: Motion by Mr. LaCook,-seconded by Mr. Norton, that application from Mr. and Mrs. Weymouth and Mrs. Marie Paxson to subdivide Lot 4, Block 85 West University Place 2nd Addition into two lots, each facing Sunset, be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on January 10, 1980 when all members would be present. Members briefly discussed Draft of letter to City Commission concerning use of accessory buildings and garage apartments and agreed to-take no official action until the next regular meeting of the Commission. The minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on November 8, 1979 were approved as presented. With no further business to come before the Commission, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ATTEST: Secretary ~~ . Chairman