Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05071974 ZPC Minutes 1 d" O Q A REGUTAR ,MEET~IVG ZQN A1~ID ~'LANNINC CCfl~lISSInN 1KAY 7~ 1974... The Zoning and Planning Co~.ission of the City of West University Place con vened in regular session, Tuesday, May 7, 1974, at the City Hall, 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: E. Gene Hines, chairman, presiding; Mem- bers 0. C. Bartholomew, Roland Dahlin, W. Peter Lipscomb, and H. Allen Weather- by. The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that proper notice of meeting had been posted on the bulletin board at the City Ha11 three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting as required by House Bill 3, ~inending 6252-17 V.C.S. Mr. Hines declared the meeting opened as the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Connnission so designated by motion at the regular meeting on April 9, 1974. Motion by Mr. Lipscomb, seconded by Mr. Dahlin, that the Public Hearing call- ed for 7:30 p.m. to consider the subdivision of Lot 2, Block 68 West University Place 2nd Addition 3220 Plumb 1 1 into two (2) lots, one 100 ft. x 100 ft., fronting on Plumb, and one 50 ft. x 100 ft. fronting on Rutgers, be opened. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Mr. Hines explained the procedure to be followed during the Public Hearing, ascertained from the secretary that publication had been made in The South- western Argos, and letters mailed to property owners on April 17, 1974, as required by State Statutes, introduced the secretary and members of the Zoning and Planning Commission, and administered the oath to all persons desiring to speak. either for or against the subdivision during the Public Hearing. Mr. Cox speaking for his application: T bought this property February 15, 1974, and it is my~~.ntention to live in the house and remodel the existing house - I plan to upgrade the house and live there the rest of my working life with my family, as it is close to my employment in Greenway Plaza. After buying the property T employed an architect to remodel and plan the house. We looked at the ground and T do not need all the land area so we came to the Building In- spector and. he outlined the requirements for building sites in West University Place and we found at the rear of the lot a 50 ft. x 100 ft. lot could be created within the minimwn lot requirements. T was referred to the Zoning and Planning Commission and made application for the subdivision as outlined. My feeling is, we are doing nothing by subdividing the property to lower West University values. Rutgers now has garage apartments. I plan myself to build a patio type house on this lot if .the subdivision is approved and it is my feeling it will cost a minimum of $75,000.00 and would upgrade the neighbor- hood and help West University Place's tax roll. We find nothing wrong with the density and we could meet all the restrictions. Mr. Sines: 'T'he application stated that the lot is 100 ft, fronting on Plumb and 150 ft. deep on Rutgers, and if approved would create two (2) lots - ,~ one (1) 100 ft. x 100 ft. facing Plumb, and one (1) 50 ft. x 100 ft. facing Rutgers. Mr. Cecil Lancaster, 5115 Beechnut (owner of property at 6401 Westchester: T own some property on West Chester and Duke and we have a similiar situation and we are here for the same purpose so I guess T would be speaking favorably for this application.. Mr. Martin Duggan:, 5920 Buffalo: If this subdivision is allowed, will then be a minima structural recTuirement for any house built? Mr. Hines: Yes, 1,300 sc{. ft. minimum. Mr. James G. McMurtry, 3302 Plumb: My wife and T own property immediately across from this property. We want to protest any change. Rutgers Street is asphalt topped and raised, with deep ditches. Any parking of cars in front of a residence built facing Rutgers would make it almost impossible for us to get out of our garage. The building of a house facing Rutgers would lower the value of our house and others in the vicinity, and all of West University Place would be effected by a lower class of house on so small a lot. Tf 50 ft. x 100 ft. lot was permitted on the rear of this lot the south property line would be within 10 ft. of the present house and destroy the value of that home and others around it. Mr. W. A. Bloomfield, 3315 Georgetown: I am opposed. This has comee up be- fore on Westchester and Georgetown and it was denied, to make three lots each 50 ft. x 100 ft. This is about the same position. Tt will be jammed too close to the present house, facing garages and make undesirable houses for re- sidential homes. It would probably wind up being undesirable rental property. Tf we start something no'w it will keep on going all over West University Place. Mr. A. C. Moss, 3401 Robinhood When I was on the Zoning and Planning Commis- sion in 1952 we never allowed this. T think we would be letting the gate down. if there are others, and there well may, who want to build on the back of their lots, this would set a precedence. T think it would be very unwise to give a foothold and do something against our zoning. Tt would degrade all of West University Place. Mr. W. A. Borchert, 3214 Plumb: Any size house would destroy our homes - it would come too close to our back yard. Parking would make it bad for Mr. Mc- Murtry to get to his house. Others will want the same thing. Mr. E. R. Rulon, 3221 Plumb: I am strongly against subdividing this lot. I don't think it will do any one any good. T have been living here for 42 years and would not like to see it subdivided into a smaller lot. Mr. J. A. Caldwell, 3301 Georgetown: My wife and T live at Rutgers and George- town - 1-1/2 blocks from this proposed building. I would like to welcome Mr. Cox to West University Place - the best place T know to live. I hope he will live here a long time and like we do - enjoy it. T get a sinking feeling when I hear this. Tn West University Place we have ~, very fine neighbors, few neighborhood squabble, a low crime rate, due to the low density. This would start other lots to be subdivided and we would have 50 ft. lots all up and down the east-west street. I hope the Zoning and Planning Commission will not allow this. Mr. M. C. Driscoll, 3223 Tangley: I would like to welcome Mr. Cox and hope we will all be good nei~hbvrs, but, I object to this subdivision which would start breaking up the city. Mr. Cox: I am not asking to break any restrictions. I am only asking for ~ permission to do something to my property that T have the area to do with. ~ I do not want to down grade West University Place. I am happy to meet my ~ neighbors. Q Mrs. W. A. Borchert, 3214 Plumb; T would like to ask Mr. Cox why he bought a C~ house with all that land if he did not need it. Mr. Hines: That is not pertinent to the issue. He is making an application which falls within the ordinances of West University Place. Mr. Hines made the following comments: According to the laws, regulations and zoning ordinance of the city, this property could be subdivided legally - 50 ft. x 100 ft., is the minimum lot in West University Place and applies to all sections according to the zoning ordinance, If a change is made it does not mean a zoning regulation would be broken, If the subdivision is allowed, there are restrictions placed on existing structures on the newly created lots. Other property owners would be protected the same as on existing lots. There would be no lessening of the rules for Mr. Cox or any. others making applica~ tion to the Commission. Mr, Dahlias: I am concerned about the reference to inferior houses on 50 ft. lots. I do not think this is true. It depends on what is done with the house. I lived in a house on a 50 ft. x 100 ft, lot when T first moved to West Univer~ sity Place, and now live on a larger lot, but T did not feel inferior on the small lot. What we are considering is not rezoning.. Whether or not it is subdivided this would be a single family unit and would permit no break in the zoning ordinance. T do not think there is anything demeaning in a small lot. The question is the location and relative position to other homes in that neighborhood. Mr. McMurtry: T question that the average lot in West University Place is 50 ft. x 100 ft. Mr. Hines: I said this is the minimum lot size in West University Place. Mr. Cox: You might find that the lots were all platted that way, but that is rather .immaterial. Mr. Everett (Architect for Mr. Cox): The density on a lot with 5,000 sq. ft. is the same as on a lot 10,000 sq. ft. I doubt if all lots were 5,000 sq. ft. that it could be called. high density use of land. We are not asking to change the use. There are garage apartments immediately north and west on Rutgers and ~' . set backs between exzstuig houses would be separated by at least 30 ft. A $75,000.00 house would not-down grade the ndigfiborhood. Density as such is not bad. 'The beauty of West University Place is food and that is what we want to do. At some point in time West University will have to use some of this land. Mrs. Hal Terry, 5822 Buffalo: I think if this div~r~un from our zoning is allowed it would be like a cancer and would be a beginning of a decline in West University Place. The rest of the lots in that block are larger. Mr. E. J. O'Malley, 6404 Westchester: Density? What ,does that mean. Where I use to live we had two automobiles and when T had company T had to go out and get the neighbors to move their cars. Now T have three cars and you cannot park in front of my house. Every teen-ager in West University has a car and 1 daresay three is the average for each household. Where do we put our cars? What is the density factor? Mr. Hines: Density is the number of familites per given unit of land. The minimum lot in West University Place is 5,000 sq. ft.; therefore, we have a family unit on 5,000 sq. ft. and also a family unit on 10,000 sq. ft., more or less. Mr. O'Malley: But what about the automobiles? Mr. Dahlin: Mr. Hines has explained the basic definition of density. The only regulation we have in West University Place is the minimwn lot for a single-family is 50 ft. x 100 ft. We have no other density regulation. Motion by Mr. Dahlin, seconded by Mr. Weatherby, to close the Public Hearing to consider the subdivision of Lot 2, Block 68 West University Place 2nd Addition 3220 Plumb into two (2) lots, one (1) 100 ft. x 100 ft. facing Plumb, and one (1} 50 ft. x 100 ft. facing Rutgers. Voting Aye: A11 Voting No: None The following letters were received concerning the subdivision of this lot: May 6, 1974 Zoning Commission West University City Council Houston, Texas 77005 Gentlemen; This letter is for the purpose of our firmly and vigorously protesting the proposal made by Mr. George Cox to partition the lot on the corner of Plumb. and Rutgers, resulting in a dwelling site to front on Rutgers. The property to be partitioned is immediately adjcent to the double lot which we own on Tangley and Rutgers. We are opposed to the partition of Mr. Cox~x recently acquired property since it would introduce into the neighborhood a rearrangement of property lines, resulting in a crowding of dwellings. There are. no other lets fronting on Rutgers between University and Bissonnet and we object to the proposed introduction of such property lines. ~ We emphasize-that we have owned our property at 3223 Tangley for 40 years p and feel that our wishes should be a strong factor in the Zoning Commis- +-j sion's consideration of Mr. Cox's petition. C~ A We sincerely join in our neighbors' hopes that the Commission will deny this proposal. Yours very truly, /s/ M. C. Driscoll /s/ Mrs. M. C. Driscoll April 19, 1974 City of West University Place Attn.: Mr. Whitt Johnson, City Manager and/or The Chairman of the Zoning Commission 3800 University Blvd. Houston, Texas 77005 Gentlemen: 1 We have been informed by the daughter of one of our neighbors that a hearing has been set .before the Zoning Commission for Monday, April 22, 1974 concerning the application of the person who recently bought the Mittie L. Howell home at 3220 Plumb Street, to create a 50 by 100 foot lot on the rear of the property, facing Rutgers Street, and to permit the building of a townhouse/apartment style of building on that lot. As the owner and occupant of the property at 3302 Plumb Street, immediately across Rutgers Street from the proposed building lot, Mrs. McMurtry and T want to protest the issuance and approval of any such change in the present Zoning laws, as our property would be the most affected by the building of any type of house on the 50 x 100 foot lot on the former Howell property. Our home was built by us in 1935, and we have watched the orderly devel- opment of the area because of the strict zoning laws in that area. The Howell home, built at the end of World War TT was the last new home built in that neighborhood, and was a substantial type of home built to fit the size of the 100 x 150 foot lot on which it was built. Mr. Howell intend- ed to build a suitable garage on the back of the lot, but his death in a car accident stopped those plans. On March 19, 1974, 1~rs, ~rtry and T were called to New York City by the hospitalization and serious illness of our oldest son ~ I?r. James G. Mc- Murtry, TTT. We had hoped to return to Houston before now, but his recov~ ery has been slow, and we now hope to bring him with us on April 24, for additional recovery time before he will be able to return to his practice of Neurisurgery. Tf by any change this- zoning change hearing is delayed until after we reach Houston, T shall be glad to appear at the hearing to reaffirm our protest to the application to subdivide into two lots the Howell property land. Thank you :for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, / s/ ,Tames G . McMurtry /s/ Mrs. J. G. Alberta M. ~ McN~.irtry Note hadnwritten at bottom of notice sent: "T vote N0. This is a neighborhood and this breaks the high standard the City of West University Place is noted for." /s/ Vivian C. Price 3217 Plumb Street Motion by Mr. Weatherby, seconded by Mr. Lipscmnb, that application from Mr. George Cox to subdivide Lot 2, BLock 68 West University Place Second Addition 3220 Plumb into two lots, one 100 ft. x 100 ft. facing Plumb, and one 50 ft. x 100 ft. facing Rutgers, be denied, because the establishment of such a key lot as a rule of thumTi world not be to the betterment of West University Place as a whole. Mr. Bartholomew: Why wouldn't it be to the betterment? Mr. Hines asked Mr. .Weatherby if he would like to delete his reason from the motion so as to allow discussion. Mr. Weatherby restated the motion, accepted by Mr. Lipscomb, that application from Mr. George Cox to subdivide Lot 2, Block 68 West University Place Second addition X220 Plumb into two lots, one 100 ft. x 100 ft. facing Plumb and one 50 ft. x 100 ft. facing Rutgers, be denied. Mr. Bartholomew: Tt seems to me that either way would be to the betterment. We would not be changing anything. Is that better? ", ~ , Mr. Weatherby; We hate discussed that we need. moxe parks and more open room. Density of population of cars with%n and around West University Place, increasing density surrounding West University Place. Tf all lots facing east and west were made into key lots we would create several hundred key lots. T do not think this would be to the betterment of West University Place with the addi~ tional things occurring on the periphery. Mr. Dahlias: It is relative that a key lot would be all right in one area but in others it would be detrimental to a particular neighborhood. T do think it would be detrimental in this area, !~ C7 Ca ~1 Mr. Hines. In planning a key lot situation, if it is incompatible to the general area, it represents a poor plan. Voting Aye: Dahlias Weatherby Lipscomb Voting No: Bartholomew The Chairman declared a five minute recess before reconvening the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission. An application from Mr. Cecil C. Lancaster, owner, to subdivide Lot 7, Block 29 West University Place 1st Addition 6401 Westchester into three lots, each 50 ft. x 100 ft., two facing Westchester Street and one facing Duke Street, was presented to the Commission for their onnsideration. Questions from the members to Mr. Lancaster established that he tentatively plans to move the existing structure (hte main house) over to the outside lot facing Westchester,. and remodel for sale. The two garage apartments at the rear would have to be demolished to meet set back rec{uirements for a building site in the event the lot was subdivided in the manner rec{uested. It was also ascertained that the house and the two garage apartments are occupied by renters at this time. Motion by Mr. Dahlias, seconded by Mr. Weatherby, that application to subdivide Lot 7, Block 29 West University Place 1st .Addition 6401 Westchester into three lots, each 50 ft. x 100 ft., two facing Westchester Street and one facing Duke Street, be accepted for consideration and a date set for a Public. Hearing. Voting Aye: Bartholomew Voting No: Lipscomb Dahlias Weatherby ~` An application fxom L. B. Scha~taxtzbach, ownex, to subdivide Lot 4, Block.~0 West Univers~.ty Place 2nd Addition 33.0 Tangley into two lots each 50 ft. x 150 ft., each facing on Tangley, was presented to the C~nnission for their consideration. Although the plat presented with the application shows this lot as 4A, 4B and 4C, ther is no record that the lot way subdivided by the City of West University in any manner. Mr. Schwartzbach has the house for sale and feels it would make amore desirable property as two building sites. Motion by Mr. Dahlias, seconded by Mr. Weatherby, that the application to sub divide Lot 4, Block 70 West University Place Znd Addition 330 Tangley Voting Aye: All Voting No: None into two lots, each 50 ft. x 150 ft., each facing Tangley, be accepted for consideration and a date set for a Public Hearing. The Chairman advised he had been .requested by the City Commission to discuss with the members of the setting of a date for a joint Public Hearing of the Zoning and Planning Commission and the City Commission to consider the report of the Zoning and Planning 'Commission concerning rezoning of certain areas in the city. Motion by Mr. Dahlias, seconded by Mr. Weatherby, that the Zoning and Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing on June. 12 and l3, 1974, jointly with the City Commission, to consider proposed rezoning as outlined in the Zoning and Planning CommissionFs report to the City Commission dated March 11, 1974, but if the City Cmmnission does not vote to hold the Public Hearing on the above dates on this subject,-this motion is void. Voting Aye; All Voting No: None The following letter from City Attorney Charles Cockrell concerning the defini- tion of a "Family" was presented to the members of the Commission: April 26, 1974 Zoning and Planning Commission City of West University Place Mr. E. Gene Hines, Chairman Mr. 0. C. Bartholomew Mr. Roland E. Dahlias Mr. W. Peter Lipscomb Mr. H. Alen Weatherby 1 L] 1 ~: Gentlemen: At its regular meeting on Monday, April 22, 1974, the City Commission rec{uested that a letter be addressed to-you recommending your consi- deration of a new definition of the. word F'Famnily" as contained in Ordinance No. 111. Such recommendation is made to you in view of the recent Supreme Court decision title, Village of Be11e Terre et a1, Appellants, vs. Bruce Boraas et a1, decided on April 1, 1974. You have pxeviously been advised of said decision. Copies of the Court's opinion can be read in the office of the City Manager. d"' ~ Subject to your approval and reccernnendation, it is thought a defini- © tion should be as follows, to wit: "gamily - Any nunber of people ~ living together as a single housekeeping unit in which no more than p two (2) individuals are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption." if I can be of assistance in your consideration of this matter, please so advise me. Yours very truly, /s/ Charles F. Cockrell City Attorney The Chairman was authorized to extend a written invitation to the City Attorney to meeting with the Zoning and Planning Corrunission at their next meeting on May 28th, to help them to arrive at a definition on a '"Family" to be recommend- ed to the City Commission to be used in amending Zoning Ordinance No. 111. The secretary was instructed to place the United State Law Week, Supreme Court Opinons, dated April 2, 1974, in the reading file for reference concerning definition of a "Family". Motion by Mr. Lipscomb, seconded by Mr. Da.hlin, that Public Heari.~g for con- sideration of Lot 4, Block 70, West University. Place 2nd Addition, 3330 Tangley, be set for 7:30 p.m., and Public Hearing for consideration of Lot 7, Block 29, West University Place 1st Addition, 6401 Westchester, be set for 8:00 p.m, Tuesday, May 28, 1974, at the City Hall. "Voting Aye: All 1 Voting No: None Motion by Mr. Dahlin, seconded by Mr. Bartholomew, that a meeting on June 12, 1974 at 7:00 p.m., be designated as the regular monthly June meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission instead of June 11, 1974. N~inutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Conunission, April 9, 1974, were approved as presented. With no further business to come before the Conanission at this time, upon motiom "duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ,ATTEST ~' ~ ~~, Secretary ~,, ~~ C irman