Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07061976 ZPC Minutes REGULAR MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION July 6,1976 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, July 6, 1976, with the following members present: Chairman Barthlomew, presiding; Members Dahlin, LaCook and Norton. Proper notice of the meeting had been posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall ~ three days prior to the scheduled meeting. ~ Motion by Mr. Dahlin, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that Public Hearing scheduled for this ~ time to consider application of Mr. Joseph S. Bracewell to re-draw lot lines according to ~j survey and description submitted with application, in order to make existing garage Q conform to zoning ordinance with separate ownerships on the property described as: East 10' of Lot 1, All of Lots 2 & 3 Block 16 Monticello Addition 3123 Tangley Road be opened. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None. Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Southwestern Argus, June 16, 1976 and all property owners within 200 ft. of the above described property were notified of the Public Hearing by letter dated and mailed June 16, 1976. Mr. Bracewell advised he had recently purchased the above described property on which a house and garage are located. The existing garage is constructed into the property line of Lot 3, and it is the desire of Mr. Bracewell to re-draw the property lines so that setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will be met in the event of separate ownership of the two lots. Mr. Bracewell presented a survey of the lots on which was indicated the lot line he desires established with one lot containing 5,192.5 square feet with a front property line of 52.5 feet and a rear property line of 42.5 feet; and one lot containing 6,357.5 square feet with a front property line of 57.5 feet and a rear property line of 67.5 feet. He also stated that the structure alongside the garage was divided into two rooms, with plumbing in each, facilities for a darkroom, a barbeque pit and a water well and that removal of the construction would be expensive inasmuch as it is on the same concrete slab as the garage and because of the improvements. He advised that a carport over the driveway and columns supporting same which encroach into the proposed new lot line would be removed. Motion by Mr. Dahlin, seconded by Mr. Norton, that Public Hearing be closed. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Motion by Mr. Dahlin that the request of Mr. Bracewell to re-draw the property lines of East 10' of Lot 1, All of Lots 2 & 3 Block 16 Monticello Addition 3123 Tangley Road ~: in accordance with survey and description presented be approved. Mr. LaCook asked that Mr. Dahlia withdraw his motion for a discussion of the position of the Zoning and Planning Commission in respect to this application. Mr. Dahlin withdrew his motion. Members of the Commission discussed the legality of the position of the Zoning and Planning Commission approving this type replatting, whether or not an approval of this replat with the uneven property lines would constitute a precedent wherein other applications would be approved, desirability of uneven lot lines for the overall good of the city, and the responsibility of the Commission to consider each application on its own merits. The Chairman. advised that he had discussed this application with the City Attorney and he advised that this did fall. within the jurisdiction of the Zoning and Planning Commission contingent on the owner submitting a plat of the new property lines, if approved, by a licensed surveyor. Motion by Mr. Dahlin, seconded by Mr. LaCook, that application from Mr. Joseph C. Bracewell to re-draw the lot lines of East 10' of Lot 1, All of Lots 2 & 3 Block 16 Monticello Addition 3123 Tangley Road in accordance with submitted drawings and descriptions, be approved, contingent upon plat by a licensed surveyor being submitted to the .Zoning and Planning Commission for certification and approval of the new lot lines, and subject to compliance with all building setback requirements, building code, or other governing ordinances, whether or nat herein specified, for. any subsequent construction. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None Mr. M. T. Crump, prospective purchaser, and representing Mr. Doy D. Myers, joint owner of Lot 2, Block 40 West University Place 1st Addition 660.0 Block Buffalo Speedway presented an application for consideration for subdivision of the property into two lots, each 50' x 150', each .fronting on Buffalo Speedway. It was determined that the above .described lot is owned jointly by Mr. Myers and another person. Only Mr. Myers signed the application for subdivision. Mr. Crump was advised that before the application could be considered, an application signed by all owners of the property should be presented to the Commission.. Mr. Crump left the meeting at this time. 1 1 Copies of a letter from Mitchell Carlson and Associates, Inc. acting in behalf of Bravo Company, Inc., owners of West 45' of Lot 7, Lots 8 & 9, 10' of Lot 10, Kent Place Addition 3600 Block Bellaire Boulevard to Mayor Paul Wallin requesting certain variances from Ordinance No. 1025 was presented to the Commission for their information. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission on June 8, 1976 ~ were approved as corrected. ~ The Commission continued its discussion and study of Circular Driveways with the ~ following conclusions and recommendations: ~ Conclusions and Recommendations Concerning Circular Driveways and Related Problems The Zoning and Planning Commission believes that the paving of front yards, the installation of circular driveways, and the parking of vehicles in front yards, except on garage driveways, should not be permitted. These conclusions were reached after comprehensive, intense discussion of these practices and alternatives and their various ramifications. It is our belief that permitting these practices and installations in front yards is contrary to the residential goals and purposes stated in our city zoning and related ordinances. If these practices were permitted, the appearance of residences from the street, which is the natural public face of our city, would be transformed into a series of mechanically functional paved parking areas thereby discouraging concern for the appearance of the front of properties. The loss of oxygen-producing plant life and the furthering of front yard open space would result in an appearance of congestion and would effectively de-humanize our neighborhoods. We believe that sufficient alternative design solutions to the vehicle parking problem are available within the present building area and open space provisions of city ordinances to allow individual development and use of property. RECOMMENDATIONS: City ordinances should: 1. Encourage residents to park their vehicles behind the front building line of their property. 2. Prohibit circular driveways except on property fronting a street on which parking is prohibited or which is subject to excessively heavy traffic. 3. Prohibit paving of front yards except on property fronting a street on which parking is prohibited or which is subject to excessively heavy traffic. 4. Prohibit the parking of vehicles in front yards except in designated driveways. ~s~ 5. Define driveways as follows: With no further business to come before the Commission at this time, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned. Chairman