The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05081979 ZPC Minutes~9 REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION. MAY 8, 1979 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place con- vened in regular session on Tuesday, May 8, 1979, 7:30 p.m., with the fol- lowing members present: Chairman Norton, presiding; Members Casey and LaCook. The Chairman ascertained .from the secretary that proper notice of meeting had been posted at the City Hall three days prior to the scheduled meeting. Motion by Mr. Casey, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that Public Hearing to consider the redrawing of lot lines on Lots 1 F, 3, Block 7 Virginia Court Addition Southeast corner of Rice and Charlotte to meet setback requirements without removing an existing dwelling or part thereof. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Mr. Norton introduced himself and other members of the Commission explained pro- cedure to be followed, administered an oath to those in attendance desiring to be heard during the Public Hearing and ascertained from the secretary that pub- lication of Public Hearing had been published in The Southwestern Argus on April 18, 1979 and letters to interested property owners mailed on April 18, 1979. Mr. David Gibbs, 3659 Meadowlake, realtor, and prospective purchaser of the property (the owenr is Mrs. Nancy Stokes who was present) presented a survey plot plan showing the proposed redrawing of lot lines to go around the exist- ing house and establish a three foot side setback as required by the zoning ordinance and meeting other .requirements such as from setback, fifty foot frontage and 5,000 sq. ft. After questioning from Mr. LaCook and discussion with Mr. Gibbs, it was ascer- tained that the lots were originally dedicated to face Charlotte St., but when the existing. house was constructed it was oriented on Rice Boulevard. Mr. Gibbs said that he planned to remodel the house whereby it would be oriented towards Charlotte St. He submitted a sketch of the house with plans for a fence on Rice with a walkway from the Charlotte St. side to the Rice Blvd. entrance. Other information elicited during questioning from the Commission members was that there is a curb cut on the Rice Blvd. side and a driveway where there was at one time an existing garage but only a storage building.. at this .time, that his plans were to remodel the house and add a garage in the original place and con- struct a single family house on the interior lot (Lot 3), that both the remodel- ed house and lot and the newly constructed house and lot would be for sale. The following persons asked questions of the applicant and Commission members: Tom Beard, 5919 Fordham; Dallas Purdy, 6126 Charlotte, Stewart Purdy, 6126 Charlotte; Joan McCay, 3029 Carnegie; which elicaited the following information: Present owner has owned the property since 1963 and bought it as one piece of property; that it is not economically feasible to remodel the house and leave as is for sale as one piece of property on the large lot; that in the opinion of Mr. Gibbs its highest and best use is to have a single family residence on each single lot; that in accordance with.. Guy Jackson, 2717 Centenary, architect, the remodeling of the existing house and construction of new house would be in keeping with the neighborhood; that Mrs. Stokes has not found a willing buyer to develop and leave as one entity at a price she will accept; that there is an increased pressure for higher density in the inner city (according to Mr. Gibbs); that looking at the properties from Charlotte St. it would appear. that they were full width fifty ft. lots; effect of approval on future requests; and that the. smallest distance between property lines of the interior lot would be 46 ft. ~ During the questioning period, at certain points, members of the Commission ad- ~j wised the audience that architectural design could not be controlled; that eco- ~ nomics could not be .considered in making a decision;. that the application was ~'~ not for an actual subdivision as the two lots now exist, but for a redrawing of the lot lines so that setbacks could be achieved without removal of the exist- Q ing building or any part thereof; that alternatives are (1) to leave as is (2) re- move existing house and build on bath lots or (3) approve the application sub- mitted. The following spoke in opposition to the application: Mr. Tom Beard, 5919 Fordham: Stated that it appeared to him that the applicant does not have a clear idea of what he wants to do with the property; that one house would be setting on 46 ft. where others are setting on 50 ft.; that the existing house was made for that piece. of property; that the owner knew when she boughty it where the house set: that it seems like it could be fixed up, as .people have fixed up homes on other. larger lots in the city; that the jogged lines would mess up the yard and that the existing house would look odd; that the total consideration here is economic; that the house would be too tight and there is nothing unusual to warrant the change. Dallas Purdy, 6126 Charlotte: Stated that she is aesthetically opposed; that it would be real "squinchy" and that the neighborhood would have to .:bear the brunt of the change; that there are certain standards you expect in West University Place and these standards should be maintained. Bill Davis, 6111 Charlotte; Stated that he lives directly next door and would be the most effected and that he was not really opposed to the change.:. Stewart Purdy: Stated that he did not greatly like the drive aspect for the interior lot; that the whole concept of the new house would be a compromise and that the city had a tradition of non-compromise and he would like this to be upheld. It was determined after a question from Mr. LaCook that the gables on the exist- ing house run east and west. Mrs. Purdy suggested that if not approved and the house was allowed to continue to deteriorate, the house could be condemned and owners forced to bring it into compliance. Mr. Norton advised that the Commission has no power of condemnation-and could not consider that as an alternative. L~ a~ l~ ,' Mr. LaCook stated that he wanted to emphasize that even if this application is approved, .there is no assurance that the house would be remodeled, that it might set like that for years.. Motion by Mr. Casey, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None The meeting recessed for ten minutes. The Commission was advised that agenda item #2 had been withdrawn. Mr. Jerry Parish, architect, spoke in behalf of his client, Jim Harris, pro- spective purchaser and developer of Lot 1, Block 1, Collegeview 3rd Addition, that the Commission consider in their recommendations not restricting entranceway only to Bissonnet and to consider some parking on the 172 ft. fronting Sunset. The Commission members agreed to defer any further consideration: of recommen- dations to the City Commission concerning rezoning of Lot i, Block 1, College- fiew 3rd Addition until Organizational meeting on Monday, May 14,-1979, at which time a Special Meeting would be called to proceed with the report and recommendation. Mr. Casey stated that in the plans submitted, the front of the existing house would still be on-the side and to consider otherwise would be violating .the spirit of the ordinance; that he could not see this proposal as a viable alternative; that other alternatives are available; and that he cannot see where it can help the situation or the city as a whole to change it. Mr. Norton stated that this is an awfully tight situation on the side; that there are six large. lots within two blocks which are developed with only one structure and this would remove what in effect is one of the large lots; that he is really opposed to gerrymandering a 46 ft. lot on the side; that even if two houses are built there it would comprise a problem to decrease lot to 46 ft.; that he does not feel this is the sort of tract that was intended by the plat- ting of the city and the zoning ordinance; that the condition of the existing structure is not germaine; and that the house was designed to occupy the two large lots and it cannot be used as two lots at this time. Mr. LaCook stated that he is not really opposed to it; that if they rejected this type of platting they could still take off the three or four feet on the side of the house and this may look worse; that he wondered if you are better remodeling the house or are you really going to solve the problem by doing this. Mr. Norton stated that he thought the basic design direction can be achieved by remodeling the house and removing part of it to meet the setback require- ments; that he thought it will best benefit the city to maintain the standard lot and it can stand on its merit; that he would not want to encourage odd shaped lots just to achieve .5,000 sq. ft.; and that he can see no benefit to the city and. actually can see a slight detriment. The Commission. discussed the determination of average width of 50 ft. lots. Motion by Mr. Casey, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that application to redraw lot '` lines on Lots 1 and 3, Block 7 Virginia Court Addition 2715 Rice Boulevard be denied for reasons as stated in discussion and shown in minutes. .Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Minutes of the special meeting of the .Zoning and Planning Commission on ~ April 24, 1979 were approved as corrected. l.f~ ~~ With no further business to come before the Commission at this time, upon "'a motion duly made, seconded and carried the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Q F >~ ~ ~ r ~- # Chairman ATTEST: _. . r l~ , -`. Secretary ~~ 1