Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11141978 ZPC Minutes REGULAR MEETING .ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1978 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place convened in regular session on Tuesday, November 14, 1978, 7:30 p.m., with the following members present: Chairman Norton, presiding; Members. Berg, 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.. '~ Public Hearing to consi de the application of Richard V. Adkins, owner to subdivide 0 and replat Lots 6, 7 $ EZ of 8, Block 21, West University Place 1st Addition as ~,,,~ follows Q Lot 6 - So. 65 ft. x 150 ft., facing Buffalo Speedway Lot 7 - 100 ft. x 155 ft., facing University Boulevard Ei of Lot 8 - 50 ft. x 155 ft., facing University Blvd. was opened. The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Publication appeared in The Southwestern Argus, October 25, 1978 and that Notice to Interested Property Owners with 200 ft. of the above property were mailed October 24, 1978. Chairman Norton explained the procedure to be followed during the Public Hearing, each member of the Commission introduced themselves and gave their address of re- dence, and Chairman Norton administered the Oath to all those desirx~ to speak on the application. Mr. Adkins presented a plat plan showing the existing and proposed lines of the three lots he desires to replat. He stated that it is his intent to sell Lot 6 if it is approved as 65 ft. x 150 ft., facing Buffalo Speedway and that the pro- spective buyer plans to construct a new residence there: He pointed out that at present. the parcel of land is three buildable lots, but that the replatting as requested would still have three buildable lots each larger than the required mini- mum of S,OOO sq. ft. with a 50 ft. frontage. He-also stated that it is his de- sire in the replatting to preserve the large. corner lot on which his house is located intact with surrounding trees.. Mr. Robertson stated that he is the prospeective buyer of the lot and plans a single-family residence in conformity with all codes and setbacks of the city. Mr. Casey: As I understand it, there are three existing lots that could be built upon and your request is for a change in size. and configuration of the lots. Mr. Adkins said that is correct. Mr. .Raymond Kerr, 6312 Rutgers, said that he was not opposing the subdivision or replatting but that he would like assurance that the building lines on Lot 8 would be upheld and that any future construction would keep building"lines properly spaced.. Q He was assured that at the time of any future construction building setbacks would be enforced by the proper city officials. Motion by Mr. Casey, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Mr. Robertson assured Mr. Kexr that he would make no requests for variances from set- back requirements on the lot on which he proposes to construct a residence. Motion by Mr. Casey, seconded by Mr. Berg, that a decision on the application from Richard Adkins for the subdivision and replatting of the lots as described be tabled to a later time to be set. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Public Hearing to consider the .application of M. A. and Della Tallen to rezone and replat Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 ~ 10, Block B(2) as follows: Lots 6, 7 $ 8, Block B(2) Pemberton Place Addition into four (4),lots, each 37.50 ft, x lOl ft. with frontage on University Boulevard and Lots 9 ~ 10, Block B(2) Pemberton Place Addition into three lots,. each 33.33 ft. x 101 ft. with frontage on University Boulevard was opened. The Chairman ascertained .from the secretary that Notice of Publication appeared in The Southwestern Argus, October 25, 1978 and that Notice of Interested Property Owners within 200 ft. of the above property were mailed October 24, 1978. Chairman Norton explained the procedure to be followed during the Public Hearing, each member of the Commission introduced themselves and gave their address of residence, and Chairman Norton administered the Oath to all those desiring to speak on the application. Mr. Casey explained that the Zoning and Planning Commission would hear facts, statements of opinion and elicit various other information in order to make a decision. as to whether or not to recommend to the City Commission that the application either be denied or approved and that the final decision would be in the hands of the. City Commission. Mr. Whitt Johnson, 3217 Nottingham, introduced himself as representing the owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. M. A. Tallen.. Mr. James Campbell, .2628 Fenwood, inquired if it was legal procedure for owners to be represented by someone and if so why were not the property. owners given the same right to have a spokesman. ~~~., Mr. Campbell was advised that there was on file for record a signed statement .from Mr. and Mrs. Tallen authorizing Mr. Johnson,.. Peter Serebrenik and James Heaton to represent them at this hearing before the Zoning and Planning Commis- sion and was referred to the 4th paragraph of the letter to Interested Property Owners which stated time and place of the'Public Hearing and "......at which time you may submit. your views on the matter in person, by writing, or by re- presentative." Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Tallen was unable to attend the meeting because of ill health but that Mrs. Tallen was in the audience at which time he introduced her and then introduced Peter Serebrenik 'and James Heaton, partners in Bayou Park Association who have an option to buy the subject lots-for. development. ~ He stated that Mr. Serebrenik live at 2715 Carolina Way. ~ Mr. Johnson stated that his only interest is to serve as an agent for the owners. ~ and said the developers proposed by replatting to have seven lots on which to con- L'~ struct single-family residences instead of .the five now allowed by replatting the lots whereby four lots would be 37.50 ft. x 101 ft. and three lots would be 33.33 ft. x lOl ft. The smaller lots (33.33 ft.) would be those nearest Kirby Drive. Mr. Johnson stated the developers proposed to construct singel,family dwellings with the same setback requirements as now in effect and would ask. no variance from other zoning requirements except for .the smaller size lots. He felt there was no question of rezoning only a replatting to allow the smaller size lots. Reintroduced the following letter signed by David C. Steitle, City Engineer: "September 18, 1978 Mr. M. A. Tallen 2207 Dorrington Houston, Texas 77030 Dear Mr. Tallen:` Mr. Peter T. Serebrenik of the Bayoy Park Corporation and Mr. Whitt F. Johnson of Gary Greene Realtors met with me in my office on September 15th to discuss the availability of city utilities tolots 6, 7, 8, 9 and10, block 2, Pemberton Addition. As we discussed, sanitary sewer is available through a six-inch line in the rear easement of the property or through a txunk line in the south half of University Boulevard. Water is available through a two-inch line in the rear easement. Storm sewer is available through a line in the north half of University Boulevard or through a City of Houston inlet on the southwest corner of University and Kirby. Sincerely, /s/ David C. Steitle, P. E. City Engineer" Peter Serenbrenik: Stated that he and his partner are primarily buldexs of very fine custom homes; that he was concerned. with the poor construction and townhouse types which have srpung up around the city' that the only way it would be economi- cally feasible to build the type home they do is to build seven houses instead of five; that he does not feel the size would effect the use of the property and feels they are qualified and better equipped to develop this property than any- one else. James Heaton: Explained that the smaller lots would be closer to Kirby Drive and the larger lots on the westerly end and would be two and three bedrooms, 2? baths, study, and sell for approximately $165,00 to $175,000 each; that about one.-half the trees would be preserved and existing setbacks observed. Whitt Johnson: He felt that of all the years he had seem proposals for these lots this was the best one to have been presented; that as now zoned one-half masonry construction is allowed and that another proposal might propose to building cinder block, or concrete block. Peter Serebrenik read and presented for the record the following consent signed by adjacent..property owners: "To .the Zoning and Planning Commission of West University Place. We the under- . signed property owners of the City of West University Place, Texas do hereby give our consent for the Zoning and Planning Commission to rezone and replat lots 6-7- 8-9 and 10, Block B(2) Pemberton Addition of the City of West University Place into 7 lots of the following dimensions. 4 lots 37.50' x 101' each and 3 lots 33.33' x 101' eac, all with frontage on University Boulevard on which to construct seven single family residences each exceeding 1800 square feet in area and in compliance with the build- ing code and other applicable codes of the City of West University Place. We believe the project as proposed by Messrs. James. Heaton and Peter T. Serebrenik owners of The Bayou Park Corp. is to our best ineterest and will protect our propserty and that of our neighbors from an undesirable future construction- which could occur from possible rezoning. We do not believe the rezoning of the 5 lots for townhouse construction would be desirable and to the. best interest of all. the citizens and property owners of West University Place. We therefore urge-you as members of the Zoning and Planning Commission to take action to rezone and replat the above mentioned property into 7 lots as herein described on which are to be constructed 7 single family dwellings each exceeding 1600 square feet in area and all in compliance with the .building code and all other applicable codes of the City of West University Place. Signed by the following property owners NAME ADDRESS William T. Lutz, Jr. 2628 University Blvd. Bonnalie 0. Campbell 2628 Fenwood Donald R Jablowoski 2632 Fenwood Carole Jablowoski 2632 Fenwood Glenn Fryer 2635 University Blvd. Mrs. Taylor Hughes 2621 University Blvd. Z. E. Treges 2633 University Blvd. Mrs. H. 0. Heller 2629 University Blvd. Mr. Johnson called on Mrs. Taylor Hughes, 2621 University Blvd., who owns the property directly west of the subject property who stated she would like to have nice homes instead of vacant lots because of-the trash and debris which collects and is very unsightly. ~~~ Mrs. Glenn Fryer, 2625 University, also stated .the, problem of the trash and debris on the vacant lots and that she was against townhouses being developed there: Mr. Johnson reitereated that their main pleas was that they are only asking for a replatting not a rezoning. After questioning from Mr. Johnson to the Commission, he was advised that in the opinion of the Commission members, it was a rezoning matter as a new single- family district would have to be created for the smaller lot sizes. t~ Mr. Johnson took issue with this opinion. 1.~ ~ Rex Woolridge, 6135 Lake: Stated that he felt the project would be a definite ~ asset to West University Place and that he had seen the work of the proposed `~ developers and felt it was far suprior to any done in the area. D Mr. Casey asked the square footage of-the four larger homes. Peter Serebrenik: 2400 to 2500 square feet. Members of the Commission and Mr. Johnson again exchanged views on whether this was a rezoning matter or replatting. .Janet Messer, 3608 Corondo: Was there anything in the original zoning establishing the width of lots? Mr. Norton: Yes. Fifty feet. Mrs. Messer: I don;t think we should start chopping up lots. In answer to a question from the audience, Mr. Norton explained the difference in the functions of the Zoning and Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjust- ment. Curtis Kelly, 2620 Fenwood: Asked for clarification of the request of the group petitioning since the lots. are already zoned for single-family residences. Mr. Casey: Advised that the Public Hearing was. to seek information and attempt to have everyone understand the. application. Julia Boone, 2612 University Blvd., Would the construction be phased? Peter Serenbrenik: Yes. Planned to build four homes at the westerly end first. Ms. Boone: What is your estimated construction time? Mr. Serebrenik: Six months for the first phase. Entire time depends on time space between phases, but approximately twelve to sixteen months in all. Ms. Boone: At that location there is no parking on the streets .• Where do you plan parking for residencts and visitors? .1 Mr. SerebreniK Garages and driveways as other residences. Ms. Boone, If approved, what legal binding do you have for builders to stay with these plans? Chairman Norton: We cannot bind them to any plans. We do not function as designers. Lloyd Flynt, 3606 Rice Blvd.: Is the purchase of this land by you dependent on a decision to approve this request. Serebrenik: .Yes. We would not want to build the type of homes you could build only five of. Mrs. W. A. Moore, Jr., 4226 University Blvd.: Is the information in the Argus concerning the front setback of these being 20 ft. correct? Mr. Johnson: No that is incorrect. The front setback is 30 ft. Tom Browder:, 6352 Buffalo Speedway" You can put. seven ;175,000 houses on that property for $1.2 or you could build 6 $185,000 for $1.2. Could you build a $238,000 house on each lot.? SerenbreniK; I don;t think the would sett at the corner of Kirby and University Boulevard. Mr. Browder and Mr. Serebrenik entered into a discussion concerning the definition of a patio home which was interruppted by the Chairman as not pertinent to the consideration. Mr. Browder: Since this is going about a block off the perimeter would that not be rezoning? Why are your plans to construct the houses in two phases? Mr. Serenbrenik: Economic. We cannot afford to build them all at once. Mrs. Moore: 19hat is the normal distance between houses? Chairman Norton;. Houses must be built 3 ft. from the .side property line. Douglas V. Benson, 4150 Amherst: How many houses on University Blvd. have garages on the front? Serenbrenik: Several. Mr. Brenson: Do you think your design. is in keeping with the other houses? Mr. Serenbrenik; There are other homes that have similar configuration. Mr. C. P. Endress:, 3750 Georgetown: You said if you built only five houses they would be .more cheaply built, but what if you paid less for the land? 0~4 Mr. Browder: Some. people here have spoken against your application, but their names appear on your letter of consent.. Mr. Serebrenik: Most people we talked to agreed not to contest it. We secured 90o signatures of those to whom we .talked. Mr. Browder: Did your letter say ''rezone" or "replat"? Mr. Johnson: Both. Elizabeth Burton, 2621 Fenwood: How many people did you talk to? dy Mr. Johnson: We did not contact all the people on the block. About twenty-five• ~ homes within 200 ft. 0 '~ C. P. Endress, 3750 Georgetwon: I am not. an authority on zoning ordinances, but I Q think.. the homes you plan would be like a hole in a dike, the damage would be done, but if we started this practic it could easily spread. Curtis D. Kelly, 2620 Fenwood: The Zoning ordinance. says fifty foot lot is smallest you could build on - if that has not changed. I think they can build a confortable home on fifty ft. lots. These proposed homes would reduce .the value of all others .around it. I don't think this should be allowed. Mr. Browder: I am against this rezoning. I am a member of the Property Owners Party and we stand for no rezoning. We don't want profiteering.. We want nothing less thatn fifty ft. lots out here. I thini this would set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Flynt: They are not asking the Zoning and Planning Commission to reduce a normal lot, but to reduce a minimum size. lot. The sole purpose of this Hearing is to get a seller and purchaser together. I am strictly against it. Chairman Norton:: It is not the intention of this Commission to bring commercial interests together. Mr. Flynt: What is the purpose of rezoning? Arnold Robinson, 2612 Fenwood.: I am very much against it. Our lots are nearly 70 ft. What .would keep someone from subdividing our property and they would still. be larger than 33 ft. lots. Chairman Norton: You as the property owner would have to request a subdivision. Mr. Campbell: I object. The only thing that has been presented for this re- zoning is the finances of this group of people. With that size lot you would only have 29 ft. left on which to build. I think you would have a very much row- house look. Ms. Moore: I object to the smaller lots and believe this would be setting a pre- cedent. From its inception there has never been a developer to do a whole block. Its amviance is apart of the community and this would be lost. It would take a very great deal: away. Mark Boone, 2612 University Blvd.: Aside from aesthetics our concern is basic in- crease in density.. A closed street would be an area most conducive to re- platting and redeveloping. The criteria here is economics. The price. of the land is causing them to see seven instead of five. Mr. Warner: I think it should be ~u-rred rows. Someor:e can develop it to meet the existing ordinances. It is purely the value of money. Lots os us could subdivide our lots and make money. I am opposed. Ms. Burton: I donut like the added density and the setting of this precednet. tilihen townhouses were allowed we were .assured there would be no more rezoning. This is spot zoning.. Before we know it, it will be all over the city. Univer- sity Blvd. is the entrance to our city and I would like to see it remain as it is. Susan Cole, 2625 Fenwood: I too remember heated arguments on townhouses. That hearing makes this one look like a picnic. I have strong feelings on prevent- ing spot zoning and I see no other way it can be viewed. There would be no stopping it. Gerald Kerbow, 2630 University Boulevard: Do you know what is the smallest frontage lot that exists in West University Place? Mike Casey: There is a .lot on Tangley at Poor Farm Ditch which was 36 ft. wide due to the. fact part of it was taken over by the Harris County Flood Control District and the .owner subsequently purchased 8 ft. back, making the frontage 44 ft. but 150 ft. deep. Mr. Kerbow: This would establish a new lot for a front footage for a buildable lot. It would establish a new minimum. Chairman Norton: For this property only. Mr. Kerbow: Were this to be .adopted, we would still be without guarantee as to what would go on there except for building lines. Mrs. Campbell, I would like to see these lots cleaned up. We have a flooding probelm on Fenwood. What import would this have on drainage system? Chairman Norton read the letter aloud from the City Engineer concerning utilities. Mr. Kelly: The ednsity disturbs ,e. It will over load everything. This letter needs to be checked. I would like to verify utilities. I think it should be turned down because of density. Mr. Endres: If you would recommend this for approval, what would be the feeling of the Board if it received a similar application? Chairman. Norton: We have to hear each request on its merits. All members try to make the best decision for West University Place as a whole and on merits of application. Tom .Browder: If you recommend to reject, can the City Commission overrule your recommendation? Mr. Johnson: On a 4/5ths vote of City Commission. ~~ Mr. Flynt:' When will your decision be made. Chairman Norton: .The time will be decided tonight after the Public. Hearing. is closed. Ms. Cole: Will City Commission have a Public Hearing? Chairman Norton: Yes. Ms. Coles: Would you consider the storm and sanitary sewers .and other utilities• before making decision. 0 Chairman Norton: All these things will be considered. ~ It was suggested that outside consultant might be hired to study the utility pro- ~ biem. Chairman Norton advised this would be the responsibility of the City Commis- Q sion that the Zoning and Planning Commission had no such authority. Ms. Boone:. I would like for you to consider the parking - between .Kirby and Lake there is no street parking and the more houses, the more parking problems will occur. Mr. Flynt: What do you consider in determining size? Chairman Norton stated that the preamble of the Zoning Ordinance which states "... to preserve the present residential character of the. City and the public improve- ments thereof, to prevent congestion and to promote and provide for the health, safety, convenient, comfort and general welfar of the citizens thereof''. Mr. Johnson: If the utility question. had not been resolved, I would not be here to make this application. I personally know the storm sewer is there. I think the one thing that would concern me is the parking in the area. If the Zoning and Planning Commission recommend denying the application, I can almost assure you that would end it. Mr. LacCook: In my opinion .this is a xezoning question. Depending on the deci- sion made. And I think it would have to be a new single-family dwelling district. It would be under a different Zoning District so as to construct which would be built on these particular lots. 1 Ms. Pryor: How many other areas in the city meets the same size and problems of this area? Is it unique? Chairman Norton: I can't think of any offhand with the same size, but there are others which have the same problem with the trash and debris and .unsightliness. Motion by Mr. Casey, seconded by Mr. Berg, that Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Chairman Norton called a five minute .recess. ,~ The regular meeting of the Zoning. and Planning Commission convened after recess with the same members. in attendance. Mr. Casey advised those in the audience they were .welcome to stay for the re- mainder of the meeting bur cautioned that the Public Hearing was .closed and that no more comments would be heard from the floor. Motion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Casey, that inasmuch as those. remaining were primarily interested in the application by M. A. Tallen consideration be given to it first. Voting Aye:. All Voting No: None Mr. LaCook: I am opposed to this application. It is not to the best interest of West University Place at this time. There has been difficulty in developing. this property. This is the best plan I have seen. But I do not believe that it is for the food of all West University at this time. Chairman Norton: I think that this application is not in keeping with the preamble to the original Zoning. Ordinance as previously quoted. Its implication is that rezoning or replatting concerns must be taken in context and a compre- hensive look at the whole city. I think there are some merits in this case. Probably the debris and trash on the vacant property is a nuisance, but it is required. that we consider the general benefit to the entire city in a compre- hensive way. I would have to be against it. Motion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Casey, that the Zoning and Planning Commission recommend to the City Commission that application from M. A. Tallen and Della V. Tallen to rezone and replat Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 F~ 10, Block B(2) as follows: Lots 6, 7, ~ 8, Block B(2) Pemberton Place Addition into four (4) lots, each 37.50 ft. x 101 ft. with frontage on University Boulevard and Lots 9 ~ 10, Block B(2) Pemberton Place Addition .into three lots, each 33.33 ft. x 101 ft. with frontage on University Boulevard be denied. Mr. Casey: I feel the project is first rate and I tend to agree with the other. The wuestion in my mind is whether this is the best thing for the city as a whole. I would like to hope and encourage developers to develop it as it is presently platted. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Members of the Commission reviewed the application of Mr. Richard Adkins and studied the survey plat showing the requested subdivision. Motion by Mr. LaCook, seconded by Mr. Berg, that the application of Mr. Richard ~i Adkins to subdivide and replat Lots 6, 7 ~ EZ of 8, Block 21, West University Place 1st Addition as follows: Lot 6 - So. 65 ft. x 150 ft., facing Buffalo Speedway Lot 7 -.100 ft. x 155 ft., facing University Boulevard EZ of Lot 8 - 50 ft. a-155 ft., facing University Boulevard be approved as originally submitted. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None With no further business to come before the Commission, upon motion duly made., seconded and carried the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: ~ / U ~~~ ~- Secretary