Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08131981 ZPC Minutes~~ REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COI+~lISSION AUGUST 13, 1981 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of iNest University Place convened in regular session at the City Hall., Thursday, August 13,.1981, 7:30 p.m., with the following members present: Chairman Casey, presiding; Members Abell, Farrell and Norton: Mayor Pro-Tem Marla Forrestall was also present. Notice of the meeting was posted in .the City. Hall, Friday, August 7, 1981. Chairman Casey welcomed Mayor Pro-Tem Forrestall, introduced himself and gave his address in the city, followed by other members of the Commission. Mayor Pro-Tem Forrestall stated that she had been appointed as liason officer between the Commis- sion and the City Commission. She said each City Commissioner had been assigned different boards and committees to work with as they felt these groups had more contact with the public and they could receive input which would help the City Commission in deliverations. Dan Demeris appeared before the Commission with final plans for the construction of two garages in the front of existing townhouses on Lot 10, Block 10 Virginia Court Addi ion 6120 and 6122 Kirby Drive Mr. Demaris is owner of 6120 Kirby and represented Anthony F. Mercurio, own of 6122 Kirby. Plans presented showed elevations, fire wall, masonry construction and were stamped by the Department of Traffic and Transportation of the City of Houston authorizing enlargement of existing curb cut. Motion by Mr. Farrell, seconded by Mr. Abell, that final plans for the construction of garages in front of existing townhouses on Lot 10, Block 10 Virginia Court Addition 6120 and 6122 Kirby Drive be approved as submitted, subject to compliance with all. building codes, or other governing ordinances, whether or not herein specified, for any subsequent construc- tion. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Preliminary plans for .the construction of three townhouses were presented by Robert C. Williamson on North 60 ft. x 100 ft. of Lot 1 North 35 ft, x 60 ft. of Lot 2 Block 3 West University Place 1st Addition 6714 Belmont and A portion of South 100 ft. x 140 ft. of Lot 1 ~9 and South 35 ft. Block 3 West University Mr. Williamson introduced John Kleiner, architect, and his associate, Charlotte Rutherford. He stated he had had communications .with the Starnes Group (developers of townhouses adjacent to Air. Williamson's property) and that they. seemed to have broken. down somewhat. He said he was not aware they were going to make their pre- sentation at the last meeting and that he somehow missed the notice, but that he felt what they had presented and had approved: that he could work within those bounds. x 140 ft. of Lot 2 Place 1st Addition He explained that he had used the access road of the adjoining townhouse project previously approved by the Commission and rearranted some guest parking areas to lie on common property of the two projects. He stated in doing this only one (~ tree would have to be removed as indicated on the adjoining project. In answer to a question from Mr. Casey concerning the reaction of the Starnes Q Group to Mr. Williamson's plans, he stated that he had called them and that they had not returned his calls; that every party he asked for was in-a meeting. He stated he could relate the general course of his negotiations with them - that they were working together on it; that it was delayed while they took care of other business was his understanding, but that apparently that was ,not the case and added that he felt that his presentation is something .that does not disturb their development at all. Mr. Williamson stated that he believes that under Section 24, Sub-Section N (3) he has the right to develop his property using common access and driveays of .the adjoining property, and that his interpretation of the ordinance requires that adjoining property owners develop access and driveways together. Section 24, Sub-Section N (3) states: "Driveways and Access Roads.: If owners or two-or more adjoining properties develop their properties either jointly or separately, they they shall coordinace the design and layout of access drive- ways in such a way that the driveways on all properties act as a single on-site access and circulation system.. Residents of each property shall be granted right-of-way privileges over the entire driveway system. In case of a single development, the design of access roads, pedestrian and bicycle ways and designated parking spaces shall allow for future coordination with adjoin- ing townhouse or clusterhouse development." Members discussed.interpretations concerning above requirement and also expressed opinion that the overall ordinance must be looked at and that development to- gether could be allowed. but with the consent of both owners and_not arbitrarily. Other sections of the ordinance were pointed out to substantiate the feeling of the ordinance interpretation as a whole and that developing common access and driveways was not absolutely required. Specifically, Section 24, Sub-Section F (2) states:. "Joint Project. A building site may be comprised of two or more adjoining properties in difference ownerships, provided. that such owners of adjoining properties agree to design and develop the. building site, all at one. time, as a joint project, or said. owners may waive the side setback requirements by submitting a written waiver thereof to the Zoning 80 and Planning Commission signed by said adjoining owners... Within such a joint project, walls of dwelling units may be constructed on property lines separating adjoining properties. A joint project shall satisfy all other provisions of this Ordinance as though it were a single development.." Motion by Mr. Farrell that preliminary plans for the construction of townhouses on North 60 ft, x 100 ft, of Lot 1 North 35 ft. x 60 ft. of Lot 2 Block 3 West University Place 1st Addition 6714 Belmont and a portion of South 100 ft.-x 140 ft. of Lot l and South 35 ft, x 140 ft. of Lot 2 Block 3 West University Place 1st Addition be approved on condition that prior to or along with application for final approval, we receive written interpretation from Mr. Allums, City Attorney, of Zoning Ordinance No. 1025, Section 24, Sub-section F (2), Joint Projects and Section 24, Sub-Section N (3), Driveways and Access Roads and further conditioned that such application for final approval be accompanied by written joint agreement between this party and the neighboring party or by the individuals themselves. Motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion covered interpretations of specific sections and overall inter- pretations and right os separate and individual developers. The giving of easements and right of ways between the two developments was dis- cussed, with Board members feeling that: these would have to be agreed to and granted by the adjacent property owners involved... Mr. 6Villiamson stated that it given final approval these legal documents would be forthcoming and. that he did not feel the adjacent developer was going to cooperate unless he has to; that if he is approved, he and Unicenter will have to exchange easements, etc.; because they are going to have the same technical problems, but that he did not think it would be any problem; that all he is asking for is approval of somethin that is in 1025 and then the Unicenter Properties and he can exchange the proper docu- ments. Mr. Casey stated that it .appeared Unicenter was not returning Mr. Williamson' calls and that he did not have any leverage over them for anything. Mr. Williamson stated that "Of course, I don't have any leveraged except what is given to me in the law on shared access"; further stating that Unicenter would prefer to develop without him; and that he had offered to delay his development until they finish and move out but they don't. feel they have to make any kind of agreement. Motion by Mr. Farrell, seconded by Mr. Abell, that the Zoning and Planning Commis- sion ask the City Attorney.. David Allums to review Sub-Section F (2) and Sub-Sec- tion N (3) for a legal written opinion regarding. this joint development. Voting. Aye: All Voting No: None ~i Q Q [] Motion by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Abell, that the preliminary plans for con- struction of townhouses on North 60 ft. x 100 ft. of Lot 1 North 35 ft, x 60 ft. of Lot 2 Block 3 West University Place 1st Addition 6714 Belmont and A portion of South 1OO ft. x 140 ft. of Lot 1 and South 35 ft. x 140 ft. of Lot 2 Block 3 West University Place 1st Addition be denied at this time pending opinion from City Attorney as. requested and autho- rized in previous motion. Voting Aye: Abell Voting No: Casey Norton Mr. Farrell abstained from voting. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on July 9, 1981 were approved as corrected: Special meeting July 23, 1981 instead of May 23, 1981. With no further business to come before the Commission,. upon motion duly .made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: Chairman ` .r,"" SEE MINUTES O~ REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1981 FOR. CORRECTIONS TO THESE MINUTES.