Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04131976 ZPC Minutes~~ REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1976 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University Place convened in regular session at the City Hall, 7:30 p.m., Tuesday. April 13, 1976, with the following members present: Chairman Bartholomew, presiding; Members .Norton, LaCook and Weatherby. The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that proper notice of meeting had been posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting. Application. from James M. Richards, Jr. and Thomas R. Jackson to subdivide Lot 6, Block 1 West University Place 1st Addition 2800 Block Cason Street into two lots., each 70 ft. x 200 ft., each fronting on Cason Street, was presented for consideration. In discussion of the application with the owners, it was determined a garage had been built on the east one-half of the property subsequent to the survey presented to the Commission. Mr. Dahlin came to the meeting at this time. Motion by Mr. Weatherby, seconded by Mr. Norton, that application to subdivide Lot 6, Block 1 West University Place 1st Addition 2800 Block Cason Street into two lots, each 70 ft. x 200 ft., each fronting on Cason Street, be accepted and Public Hearing called for the next regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 11, 1976, contingent on presentation by the owners of a current survey showing all improvements on said lot. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Mr. Leichtman of Leichtman Realty Company, representing owners E. A. & R. B. Mayor, appeared before the Commission to discuss development of W. 45 ft. of Lot 7, Lot 8 & 9 E. 10 ft. of Lot 10, Lot 15, W. 15 f t.- of Lot 16 Block 1 Kent Place Addition 3600 Bellaire Boulevard. He stated a prospective buyer desired to develop townhouses on W. 45 ft. of Lot 7, Lot 8 & 9, and E. 10 ft., Block 1, and construct a single family .residence on Lot 15, d'' Lf? O Q 1 Block 1, leaving the W. 15 ft. of Lot 16, Block 1, vacant. It is the desire of the buyer to use this fifteen (15') feet for ingress and/or egress into the townhouse development on the Bellaire Boulevard lots. Discussion covered the following areas: 1. Ordinance covering townhouses requires twenty (20') ft. access roads. 2. Size of Lot 15 on which. a Houston Natural Gas Co. re- gulator station occupies the southwest corner, approximately 15 ft. x 15 ft., if owned by Gas Co. this lot would not meet "5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot requirement for single family dwelling. 3. Possibility of access road to townhouses at rear of Lot 6 and E. 15 ft. of Lot 7, whether developed in conjunction with other lots facing Bellaire Boulevard and/or left as single family dwelling. 4. Consideration that Corondo Street is only twenty-six (26') ft. wide.. Mr. Leichtman was advised that the Zoning and. Planning Commission could make a fairer and better judgment if furnished with an accurate survey of all lots and a more complete plan taking into consideration the various items discussed. Mr. Leichtman left-the meeting at this time. Minutes of the regular-:meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 9, 1 ~6 were approved as submitted. Consideration of a tentative report recommending certain changes in the zoning ordinance acrd other eland uses was discussed and decisions made as follows:(Approved recommendations are presented in their entirely.) L PORCHES pA orT undefined in the Zoning Ordinance but is allowed to extend into the front yard beyond the. building line (Section 26. Paragraph 2). It appears that. the problem -which has arisen is whether existing porches' extending beyond the front setback line (into the front yard) may be enclosed by fences or permanent walls and whether decks extending into the .front yard can be classified as porches. It is the opinion of the Zoning and Planning Commission that the front setback line .establishes a concept of open space which gives West University Place a great deal of its character as a community of homes °and "its desirability as a "residential area in the Houston metropolis. The entrance into a home should be an important feature of its design and therefore.. the extension of an entrance porch ten (10'0") feet into the front yard should continue to be allowed. This entrance porch should not be enclosed or in any way negate. the openness which is desired. Since there is presently no means of determining the acceptability of proposed construction, adefinition- of a front porch should be added to the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: A front porch is a roofed or unroofed structure attached to the main building and open and.. unobstructed on all sides other than the main building side. The supporting vertical structure may occupy no more than 10% of the non-contiguous perimeter of the front porch. Front porches may have a solid or partially open safety railing, provided that the top of the rail is no higher than .three: feet six inches (3'6") above the front. porch floor. II. SWIMMING POOLS Tabled for further discussion. III. GARAGES e oning Ordinance classifies garages as accessory buildings and clearly prohibit their use. as living quarters, except for servants employed on the premises. Further regulations on- the construction of garages appear to the:. Zoning and Planning Commission to be unnecessary and unfairly restrictive. RECOMMENDATION: The existing ordinance should be vigorously enforced. IV. LOT COVERAGE space between .single family residences should be maintained to preserve the park-like atmosphere of the city and to prevent densities. which would threaten the health of the citizens and the capacity of city-furnished .services. The present ordinance .provides for adequate setbacks to achieve the desired open space. The Zoning .and Planning Commission does not feel that restrictions should be placed on covering yards with brick, rock, concrete or decorative materials. Wood decks should be allowed to be built in rear and side yards and in .front yards (within. the restrictions of front porches above) provided they do not encroach on the setback. lines and are not constructed with the surface of the deck more than two (2'0") feet above the natural .ground level. A deck higher than two (2'0") feet would be considered an accessory building and subject to existing restrictions. RECOMMENDATION: Any construction or anything other than the main building built more than two (2'0") feet above. average ground level of .the graded lot is classified as an accessory building. - ., _ _ V. CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS."Tabled for further consideration. VI. SIGNS' ~ie~sze of signs -used- to advertise the sale of property is .clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance. There does not appear to be any reasonable cause to change the present regulations. RECOMMENDATION: The existing ordinance should be .enforced. VII. FENCES- nstu yc?Ting the various ordinances YZertaining to planning, it has come to our attention that the fenc ordinance and its subsequent amendments do not clearly define .the allowed location of fences in the single family residential zone. It appears reasonable to allow residential property owners to construct fences around the entire buildable area of their lots; on the property lines at the sides and rear: and on the front building lines. "This would. allow the main. building to be set back from the front building lines with an en- closed court, if desired; thus, the front yard open space would be preserved and an enclosed entrance to the house would be provided. RECOMMEI~IDATION: Fences may be constructed on the side and rear property line and on the front building line. With no further business to come before the Commission at this time, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. airman 1