Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06121973 ZPC Minutes5=' RECESSED MEETING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMaISSION JUNE 12~ 1973 The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of West University convened in recessed session at the Community Building, 610ls Auden, Tuesday, June 12, 1973! 7s30 p.m., with the following members presents Vice-Chairman Dahlin, presiding, Members Weatherby and Bartholomew, Chairman Hines and Member Lipscomb were absent. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on May 1, 1973, of the Recessed Meeting on May 9, i,,, 1973, and. of the Special Meeting on May 29, 1973 were presented to the Commission ~ and approved as submitted. ~D ~ On motion duly made, seconded and carried, the recessed meeting was recessed V until after the Public Hearing called far 7s~15 p.m. this date. .~ ~r ~ - r . - r r . - - . .' - . - Motion was duly made, seconded and carried, to open the Public Hearing called for consideration of rezoning the hereinafter described properties. Lots 5, 6, 7, $, 9, 10, Block 2~ Collegeview 1st Addition, as originally platted, City of West University Place, Texas. The Vice-Chairman intnaduced each member of the Zoning and Planning Commission who identified themselves and stated where they lived in the city. The procedure to be followed was outlined by the mice-Chairman. The following is an introductory statement from the Vice-Chairman of the Zoning and P3.~amning Commissions "Tonight's Public Hearing is the third in a second series of hearings concerning the peripheral land uses in certain areas of the City of West University Place, Texas. For those of you who were not in attendance at one of the three hearings held during the month of February, 1973 a brief review of what brings us together tonight might be helpful and/or informative. In January, 1971 the 1971-72 City Commission charged the then Zoning and Planning Commission with the responsibility in addition to its normal duties,, of closely examining the current land uses and zoning in the city, with particular emphasis to be placed on the peripheral areas of the city and after such examination to make recommendations to the City Commission related tQ their findings. The firm of Caudill Rowlett Scott was engaged by the City Commission, upon the re- commendation of the Zoning and Planning ComYission, to conduct a lased use survey and relating their findings to other factors, among them the changes in areas surrounding West University Place, traffic flow in and around our city, general patterns of development and change within the city and then prepare a report of their findings and recommendations concerning them, The primary purpose of the report was to provide the Zoning and Planning Commission with a tool to b e used by them to help arrive at: tentative recommendations for change, if any, concerning 8 the city. In the course of time of preparation of the report, applications were received requesting consideration of changes 3n certain areas, but it was the feeling of the Zoning and Planning Commission that no piece-meal changes should be considered until a comprehensive analysis could be made. This report from Caudill Rowlett Scott entitled CITY dr WEST UNIVFRSTi'Y PIECE 1971 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN was accepted by the City Commission about 15 months ago and since that time has been available for use at the City Hall and has been on stile for those who wished ,to purchase a copy. With the aid of the CRS study, the Zoning and Planning Commission devoted a year to studying land uses with emphasis on peripheral areas. We did not then, and do not now, seek changes as goals, but wish to maintain the city as we know it, to reinforce its strong points and hopefully to re-direct trends which could result in future pr©blem areas, and it is our tentative belief that to meet these ,objectives, some zoning changes might be desirable. A brief review of the sequence of events following tonight's hearing follows. After hearing each other speak to the issues, the Zoning and Planning Commission can take two basic courses of action, neither of which will be done tonight: 1. Notify the City Commission that after the public hearing no action will be taken to recommend pursuing the matters being discussed, or, 2, Recommend to the City Commission that a portion of, or all the items con- sidered tonight be ,considered by the City Commission. The City Commission cans in the event the latter recommendation is made, take two courses of action, as I understand it: 1. Review the recommendation and reject it, or, 2. Accept the recommendation and, as required by state statute concerning changes in zoning call a public hearing far their review of ,the recommendation. The .public hearing by the City Commission is held jointly with the Zoning and Planning Commission. At its conclusion the Zoning and Planning Commission can either vote to affirm their previous aetion~or rescind or modify them recommendations. Depending on the action so taken by the Zoning and Planning Commission, the City Commiss3.ssn can then, or at a later date, vote to reject the recommendation or vote to accept it and call for the drafting of an ordinance amending the existing ordinance to effect the change or changes. So much for the procedure. During the first part of these remarks, I made reference to the three public hearings held in February. The calling of those earlier hearings was set by the 1971-?2 Zoning and Planning Commission. The evening prior to the first hearing, the 1973-74 Zoning and Planning Commission was sworn in and two of the members received their "baptism of fire" the following evening on a board hearing recommendations which they had had no part in formulating. Z think they held up well under fire« At our first regular meeting at the conclusion of the three earlier hearings, the Zoning and Planning Commission voted to withhold any recommendations concerning the hearings until the 1973-7~. Commission ~• e) could review the other peripheral areas, determining whether additional hearings would be called, and if so to make any recommendations to the City Commission after conclusion of these additional hearings. We have met many times in the interim, have reviewed and discussed actions to be taken. ° This hearing tonight and those held on Tuesday, May 29th, and on June 5th, represent the current Commission's "plan of action". Tonight's hearing concerns only those properties described in the Notice of Public Hearing for tonight, as published and the Notice of Property Owners distributed as required by law: Cat CD U V Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Block 25, Collegeview 1st Addition, as originally platted, ° City of West University Place, Texas, the aforesaid lots being bounded on the NORTH by Ru~kin:;Street, on the :FAST by Wesleyan, on the SOUTH bar the south property line of Lots ~, b, 7, 8, 9, l0, Bloch 2~y Collegeview 1st Addition, and on the '~FST by the west property line of Lot 5, Block 25, Collegeview 1st Addition. Lots in the above boDnded area will be considered for rezoning to allow use as townhouses, cluster houses, or parking purposes subject to various restrictions. Do any members of the Zoning and Planning Commission wish to add to this statement or present statements of their own?N The Vice-Chairman ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Houston Chronicle on May 26, 1973 and letter dated May 26, 1973 was mailed to property owners within 200 ft. of properties to be considered. Motion by Mr. Bartholomew, seconded by Mr. Weatherby, that the following motion be extracted prom the minutes of the Zoning and Planning Commission of January 2i 1973 and made a part of these minutes "Motion by Mr. Dahlias, seconded by Mr. Caldwell, that the Zoning and Planning Commission hold a series of Public Hearings to consider plans for each of the peripheral areas identified on page 33 of the Caudill Rowlett Scott West University Place 1971 Land Use and Circulation Plan and further defined in the letter dated November 9, 1972 to Mayor John N. Neighbors, in preparation of formal recom~- mendations to be presented to the City Commission. Voting Aye: All Voting No: None.' Voting Aye: All [] Voting No: None The Vice-Chairman administered oath to all those in audience desiring to speak. The following are those FOR rezoning: Wm. Partridge, l~tkt0 Ruskin: I am in favor of this piece of property being rezoned for parking. the '~e"lepFione Co~any needs parking spaces for 30 ar !~0 more cars to take care of the ones now being parked on the street. I am in favor of rezoning on the other peripheral areas for some of the things that-have been mentioned. I am not in favor of any rezoning for retail establishments. Jane Oskouie 2705 Cason to Mr. Partrdger Where do you live in relation to ~h{s properE Mr. Partridge; Across the street on the corner about 200 ft. J~ Oskouie to Commission: Has any petition or individual indicated to you they wou e o ave ese lots for parking or townhouse use? Mr. Dahlias: We have had an inquiry for parking but no formal application. Jane Oskouies T assume the Telephone Company made the inquiry? Mr. Dahlins Y'es. Mr. Partridge: I would like to say the Telephone Company is desirous of having more ots for parking. I talked with Mr. Burney, the manager, and he said he did not know of the Publie Hearing but that he was in favor of securing more spaces. Mrs. Betty Hach, 2718 Arbuckle: How can you consider this a peripheral area? Mr. Dahlias: By its proximity to the boundaries of the City of West University $ ac~But we are not limited to the consideration of only peripheral property. Bill Cole; 2715 Cason: To Mr. Partridge: Do you feel the Telephone Company ads caused your residence to become undesirable because of traffic problems2 Mr. Partridge: I do not think so. Mr. Cole: I know none of the members here were on the Commission when the other lots were rezoned for a parking lot for the Telephone Company. But do you not feel since the lots have proved inadequate that the rezoning created a situation at ,the sacrifice of the remaining residential lots. Mr. Dahlias: MY opinion is that it d,d not and it allowed the Telephone Company a greater utilization of their building. Mr. Coles Why do you .feel it is necessary to rezone those lots? Mr. Weatherby: We have not reached a decision on what we will dog but we have had an inquiry about these lots and to be able to give an over all recommendation to the City Commission we must consider aI1 those things that are pending or may be pending in the future. Mr. Cole:, Ts this Public Hearing the result. of that inquiry? Mr. Dahlias: Ido. We have considered a great number of other possible uses which divot ever get out of our study. Thris is not an adversary proceeding. Mr. Cole; Ts it not within this Commissions power to protect the people on the north side of Ruskin Street against parking lots in front of them. Mr. Dahlias: We are not a legislative body but any recommendations would in- c u~"cCe screening procedures. •; Jane Oskouier We did a survey of the parking situation~on that area and at the time there were about 61 cars parked on the streets. If the remaining six lots were used for parking lot.;that would give them approximately 80 or 85 more ,spaces. Is it possible the Telephone Company could build a two story parking garage on their parking lot2 Mr. Dahlia: No. Jane Oskouie« If you have had an inquiry were you informed whether or not the Telephone Company plans to add any mare employees? Ms. Dah7.ins No. Just as an observation, I understand the Telephone Company gen- ~ era~y does not provide parking for their employees. This parking lot was an ex- CV ception to their policy. ~ Mrs. Israel Ruskin and Wesl.ayan: To Mr. Partridge:: Is it true that you owned U wo o s on a si e o s reet where the parking lot ::now is and you sold them V to the Telephone Company. We were told the Telephone Company would need no more spaces. We fought against the other change. It is time we realize we are fight- ing a losing fight. I also consider this spot zoning when they rezoned for the previous parking lot. The street is still full of cars. Mr. Dahlia: I believe the question to Mr. Partridge is out of order and Mr. ~r~c~ge does not have to respond :if he does not care to. Mr. Partridges It doesn't make a lot of difference to me what the Zoning and ~ann~ing Z"omaai.ssion does. I have no interest in the Telephone Company. other than being a good friend of Mr. Burney, the manager. I did not own two houses thatt are now in the parking lot. I did own the corner houses. I was not in favor of the parking lot but thought it would be in the best interest of West Univer- sity Place and I do not consider it .spot:>zoning as it was apart of lots already zoned for business. I am still in favor of parking. The Telephone Company has spent some $5 million dollars in expansion and progress and I think the city has benefitted. Even if rezoned that does not mean the Telephone Company can buy this property. Mrs. Horace J. Hicks l~028 Ruskin: The Telephone Company assured us it would add no a ono emp oyees. i our block acxoss the street them become peripheral property Mr. Dahlia: It may be peripheral area already, This depends on definition. Mrs. Hicks: Why not rezone bath sides of street? Mr. Dahlia: We have discussed this at great length. ?~1r. Weatherby to Mrs. Hicks: Would proper screening be a benefit to your property? Mrs. Hicks: I do not think so. $ would make it look better. Mr. Hicks: I do not care to 1©ok at Fed-Mart and other retail stores. I recommend ~-~o Fi sides of street be rezoned for townhouses. The Telephone Company can consider other vacant land on Bellaire Boulevard for parking. ~`~ Jackie Patterson 3616 Amherst: Are any of you aware of the court ruling against piing Valley rich said that the Telephone Company could use any contiguous property for any use in running their. business. John Whisenhunt 2700 Block Gason: Do you intend to recommend that if the Telephone ompany expands further that they include parking? Mr. Dahlin: I appreciate all your comment's and recommendations, but you are only tal.ki.ng to one of the proposed changes in this area. We have also recom- mended consideration of townhouses and cluster houses. The following are those speaking AGAINST rezoning: Mitchell Banks, l~003 Ruskin: The opposition should have started several years ago against this. The Telephone Company showed us all sorts of plans and graphs which showed they would not add more employees. T live backed up against Fed- Mart. We have had t© contend with trash, garbage, traffic, noise of trucks' etc. -- who would want a townhouse backed up to a slum. I think this is foolish and a waste of time. If the Telephone Company wants this they should put it in writing. I don't think parking is goir~ to solve it. People across the street may later be wanted by the Telephone Company. The city should be realistic. in its use and no one wants it for a townhouse or cluster house. The Telephone Gompany~s word means nothing. So many "No Parking' signs have been placed around my house .that when I parked in my driveway I got a ticket from the police department for blocking the driveway. I am against it. Jane Oskouie 2705 Gason: She-spoke far the Residents Association stating they di not believe the elephone Company needs more parking, but that before any recom~nendation~was made facts should be secured ,from the Telephone Company as to who they service, future needs of equipment and employees and that these facts should be made available to the public. She also said they were against town- houses and cluster houses in this area because she did not. feel this would alle- viate the parking problems, and suggested that the screening devices now at the parking lot leaves something to be desired. Mrs. Bett Hach 271$ Arbuckle.: Spoke against any rezoning changes, Even with townhouses a over the city, she stated, it was an eating away process and that there is never a stopping place. She stated there was a good deal of feeling and concern on her street about the rezoning and they don't want townhouses, cluster houses, business or professional buildings, clinics, traffic or anything. She said she was against anything except private residences. Mr. Banks: Do you take into account the loss of revenue? Mr. Dahlin: No. We dust look at the. use of the property. Mrs. Vincent Fromen, 2613 Pemberton. .Made inquiryas to whether or not new type residences for single-family dwellings could not be built on some of the vacant peripheral area by application and granting of variances to some of th® set-backs, ordinances, etc. Mr. Dahlin told her he-supposed in some things this could be done, but that the City of West University Place had the reputation of being so strongly opposed to change that no one has come forward to offer any new ideas; and that innovation was. one of the consideration in looking at land use and land change. f~.~. . Mrs. Alexander Sachs, 5902 Lake: Inquired if City Commission called Public Hearn ngs wou ey e e e same order and sequence as the Zoning and Planning Commission hearings, if property owners would be notified and if they would have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Dahlias said he could not speak as to the order Public Hearings might be called by the City Commission, if any, but that in the event they were, all property owners within 200 ft. of any property under consideration for rezoning would be notified and they would have opportunity to speak the same as at the Zoning and Planning Commission hearings. Jeff Beecham, 2636 Albans: Do you have no further parcels to be considered. ~`+ G~ Mr. Dahlias: We will make our recommendations based on Public Hearings and at this ~ time are not considering calling more. r-J ~"~ Mrs. Israel: Are your recommendations influenced in any way by the number of people V for or against a proposition? Mr. Dahlias: We consider all of the views expressed here and all views expressed ~._ at all Public Hearings. Mr. Weatherby pointed out, however, that in the case of the townhouse rezoning the majority speaking were against rezoning, but when it came to a vote the majority was for it, and stated they tried to encompass the majority opinion and add to that what they considered in the best interest of the City of West University Place. John Whisenhunt: Why does not the Telephone Company have a representative here? Mr. Dahlias: I do not know. Susan Coles 2715 Cason: If zoning goes to a further process will proposals be set forth more strictly? Mr. Dahlias: If we made recommendations at that t3.me we would be proponents of our recommendations. Mrs. Billy Elles, 2909 Bissonnet: Stated that she lived in a townhouse and pointed out the good construction in the houses including a firewall between each unit, but said she was apposed to townhouses all around the city like a wall, and that she thought diversity is nice and one of the reasons for West University being such a nice place to live. Motion was duly made, seconded and carried to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Hines joined the meeting at this time. There wad discussion of calling a special w©r~ session, but it was decided to not meet again until the regular meeting Monday, July 9, 1973. Motion was duly made, seconded and carried to adjourn the s~eeessed meeting at 9:50 p.m. Attest: ~~~ ~x~V l ~ ~ ~a, rx ""~ ecretary