Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07241947 ZPC Minutes~~ ~ %~IPdUT1sS OI+ RSGTJI~"~R ILETIIIG `LOTIII?G ~~ PLE'~NrdING CO~.~q':'SISSION CITY OF ,~fE5T ULTIVERSITY I'L11CE Thursday, July 24,1947 h regular meetingof trio Zoning ~ Planning Commission, City of best University Place, was held on Thursday, July 24,1947, at 7:30 P.T:~., at wr~ich meeting; the following. members were present: 3r. H.E.Terry,Chairman O.C; King 1'v,-s .~~~.Z~. K~`berling, Secretary ~~7r.. ~I.h.'I'erry presided and l+~rs."°'.I:,Eberling acted as Secretary. i~.~i'r.Terry declared a quorum present and the transaction of btzsi.ness ,_n order. Old Business h?Irs. J.P.Stevens,6431 Belmont: Petition for construction of small room with bath, on rear of '6431 Belmont, lot being 50 x 200 ft., for occupancy of Ivirs.Stevens' aged Father and Adother. t+otion by O.C.King that this Cor,~mission recommend permission be granted for the above ter. construction and in accordance with sketch submitted, provided building is not used for purposes other than personal use, and affidavit filed to that effect; such affidavit to be placed of record in the County Court House. ~=etien seconded by I~Irs.y+.L.Eberling. Voting: kye kll goes None A.E.Kaeppel, 3911 Swarthmore: Petition for remodeling of present garage to two story garage, upper room to be used in connection with his avocation of landscape painting. In discussion of this petition it was brought out that I~,r. Iiaeppelis vocation is draftsman and he is at present employed by tree Ilumble Oil ~ Refir_ing Company. Idloticn by O.C. 1~ing, seconded by H.E.Terry, that this Commission recommend permission be granted for the requested construction, in accordance with letter submitted, provided said room is not used for purposes other than personal use, and affidavit filed to that effect; such affidavit to be placed of record in the County Court House. Voting: kye All Noes ';'Zone Secretarial T~lote: In connection tivith both the abo«e petitions, telecahone approval of a majority of the Commission ivas secured prior to this regular meeting, and this is official ratification of that action. New Business: Joe Cathriner, Owner of vilest University Place Building; c~c Realty Co., 3202 University Blvd: Correspondence in connection with construction of addition to present structure located at this address was read, consisting of a lettr dated July 12,1947, from ~r.C.P.Lanrnon, Mayor Pro-Tom, addressed to I~Ir.Cathriner, wherein demand was made to cease building of the addition to present existing structure; i:2r.Cathriner's reply under date of July 12, to ~Ir.Lanmon, as well as ~~r.Cathriner's letter of July 14, addressed to Iuiayor Ralph B. Lee; letter from Iir.John B. Holley, City ~ttcrney, dated July 14, addressed to L~jr.H.E. Terry, as Chairman of the Zoning ~ Planning Commission. This correspondence brought out the following details: ~~ On or about the 11th of July, ',',~Tr.Cathriner applied for a permit to construct a wooden addition to his realty office located at 3202 University Boulevard, wY.ich petitition was der_ied by IJir. James F'.Jolle~-, Building Inspection, who advised ~+Ir.Cattriner that under Ordinance 111, supplemented by Ordinance 122, such a wooden addition could not be made under these Zoning Ordinances. a~~r. Cathriner proceeded with the construction of this addition without a building permit and such action was brought to the official attention of tree city, whereupon 1~~r.C,P,Lanmon, %Ia.yor Pro-Tom„ called upon I17r.Cat~zriner personally and requested that he cease further construction, and supplemented this personal call with official notice under ds_te of July 12, to cease further construc- tion. ~~r.Cathriner, in his letter of July 12, to the City Council, claims that the City Health inspector, ,7r. tcClain, called on him and stated that there had been. complaints because he had no plumbing in the building and sur;gested that 1~~r.Cathriner install same. The entire matter was placed in the hands of the City ~ittorney, 1!2r.John D~ Kelley, who addressed a letter to ~u-.Cathriner under date of July 14, calling i,~.Cathriner~s attention to the provisions of Ordinance TJo.l22 ar_d No.lll, and instructing him to cease any construction or installation tivork until the case could be passed upon by the Zoning Commission. -~~r. Kelley then referred the correspondence file, and the matter of the issuance of a permit to the Zoning ~ Manning Commission for action on instruc- tions from the City Council. lit-rre conclusion of the reading of these various letters, Pair. Terry stated tl~~at he had instructed the City Secretary to notify PIr.Cathriner that the Zoning ~ Plannin.g Commission would hear the matter at this sleeting, and asked if :"~~r.Cathriner was present. As ~'Tr.Cathriner was not present, a general discussion among the members of the Zoning. c~ Planning Commission was held. Pair. Jolley was present and was questioned concerning the case. AftE:r discussion and due consideration of the fact that the section in questioned is zoned strictly for one family residences, Pars.'`~.l..E'berling made the motion that permit be denied -ir.Cathriner for the addition to the present building located on the site. aotien seconded by U.C.King. Votingz Aye All Noes None T~irs.Ladelle Ogburn:(Lot E~, Block lO,Virginia Court Addition - Petition for construction of a home-studio on lot on west side of Kirby Orive. Letter from JJrs.Ogburn dated July 22, was read, wherein s}^~e stated that she taught dance and music classes for children, ages 4 to 15. She further stated that the previous Zoning r~ Planning Com- mission had given her permission by letter, to construct a hr..me-studio on this location. +~rs.Ogburn was present in person and stated that she intended to use some type of masonry construction but did not have her plans sufficiently completed to state definitely just what type at this time. She said she taL.ght dancing and music to children under 15 years of age and only in the afternoons, and for four afternoons each week. trir. Terry told ~':~rs.Ogburn that the section in which her lot was located was zoned for single family residences only, and the use to which she intended to put the building would be prol.ibited under the Zoning Ordinance. lfirs. Ogburn maintained that she vrould be considered an artist and that gar. P?ueller of the previous Zoning Corunission had told her that she could conduct a studio t~~ere. Pti-rr. King told P<irs.Ogburn that if the previous Zoning ~ l~lannir_g Commission had given 1-.er permission, that they were in reality waiving restrictions, vahic'r~ would necessitat a public hearing, and tl~,.€~.t such a letter would not be sufficient to allow her to build. !irs. Ogburr. maintained again that her proposed use was rot a violation because she was not conducting a business, that sloe was educating the children. ~~r. Terry pointed out to her that if' tY~at vras the manner in -which she made her living, that it would be considered a business, and therefore, not permissable. She said she did not agree with him and that if necessary she ti°rould go to t~"ie residents on Labe Street to secure teir permission for the construction she proposed. ~~he mertiored that she was not a part of the Al Cr-stal movement to lift the zoning restrictions on the ~''est Side of Kirby Drive, and had told ~:`!r.Crystal she would not be a party to it, and that she did not need his help. T,ir. Terry asked ~!~irs.Ogburn if she didn't mention something in a conversation he had previousl~r had ?-~~ith her about fees paid to ~1r.Crystal in connection with the attempt to lift the restrictions on the west side of T{irby Drive. i'~rs.Ogburn said that i,1r,Crystal told her that he wanted X1,000.00 fee from the owners of corner lots and 250.00 fee from the owners of the inside lots, to place the matter before the City Council. r--? yrs. Ogburn said that i~.jr.•iIueller had told her that the Zoning Ordinance contained a "~`"` paragraph that would enable her to operate a dancing studio.r.King told her that the paragraph in the Ordinance to which she referred had been interpreted by the City ~= Kttorney as not including a dancing; studio or school. I~~rs. Ogburn said that she was considered an artist and that the definition in ~'tebster's Dictionary would bear her out in this, and further~r.ore, she co~~ldn't understand how the `Coning & Planning Com- mission could refuse her permission. to operate a dance studio, because the previous BoQ.rd had said s~-~e could do so; and further that she had to make a living because she had her son and mother to support. ;fir. Terry told ~1rs.Ugburn that the question of thQ ironing restrictions on that par- ticular property raas nov~r in the courts and suggested that she await the outccme of tY~at litigation. i1rs.0~burn said she did not vrant to do that - she wanted to get started right avray or her work. ~Y'Ir.Terry told .1rs.Ogburr_ that tl~e Board appreciated her position, but, as the Board sate the situation, the particular commitment from the previous Zoning ~- Planning Commission to jF~hich she referred, did not bind this Board - triat the property in question is restricted to on.e family dwellings now, and the Board could not grant her permission for the construction and use as requested. ar.~iing advised hrs.0{burn that she had the privilege of appealing the decision of the 7,cning ~ Planning Board to the City Council. :hrs. Ogblzrn stated that she svo?xld have to take the mattF.r to court and test the ini,erpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. G,L.Ingram - Lot 1, Block 8, Rice Court: rppreval ef' set-back lines on residence being constructed. In this particular case, it tiv~~.s brought cut bt=i,2r.Jolley,Building Inspeotor, that the City,. owned enough of the southeast ccrner of the intersection of Rice Boulevard and Buffalo Speedway to eventually curve Rice Boulevard at that inter- section so that the continuation. of Rice Boulevard on the west side of Buffalo Speed- way would present less of a traffic hazard. In placing his house on Lot 1, Block 8, Rice Court, =~+x. Ingram had taken this dedicated strip into consideration, but ,~r.Jolley, Building Inspector, suggested that re appear before the Zonir_g w Planning Commission to secure their approval of the manner in which the house is f~laced on the lot. i~;~otign by I~;1r.Ying, seconded by Yirs.Lberling, that set-back lines be approved as per plans submitted. Doting: eye X11 Does None ~~ 'a.~'j.Epas,Owner - ~~.A.~Iendon,Contractor - 3711 Arnold: Pet_tion in person for waiving of restrictions requirint; 51o brick construction. In discussing this matter with P+~x.rEpps and his contractor, I<r.J.A T-:endon, it was brought out that in this particular section there were 32 houses, out of a total of 37, no~ra constructed of asbestos siding or wood .. and there were only 3 lots remaining vacant in Block 1. ~r.~pps and ':~r.Yiexxdon prP ented plans, which called for asbestos siding with brick front. After due disc?~_ssiorx of the fact that tY~iis particular section required con- struction to be not less than 1300 square feet with no frame dwellings, and consider2tion of the fact that previous Toning c; Planning Commissions 'read allotived asbestos siding con- struction to the extent +,hat practically all construction in that area was now that type, rs."~.~.~~berling made the motion that t;lie honing ~~ Planning; Commission recommend that permit be issued for construction of a residence at 3711 Arnold, of asbestos siding, with brick veneer front, in line t~aith plans submitted. r!Ir.u.Y~.Terry seconded the motion. voting; Aye All I~ o e s Iv one Rouck Realty Company -Property known as the 'Cunningham 12tcrest`: This property is bounded on the north by Riley at., on the East by the City of Southside Place, on the South by Cambridge Place Addition, and en the P'dest by ?~leslayan St. - requesting amend- ?nent to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the erection of multiple family dwelling units of masonry or brick veneer construction, not more than two stories in Izeight, on said tract. r1r.Yi.R.1`iouck and ~~r. J.L.'°lilliams were present and in discussion of their request, they presented copy of letter addressed to the City Council, wherein tYiey proposed to dedicate land to widen Riley Street, and further to pave Riley Street at no cost to the property owners on the north side of Riley street. The plan proposed provides for four or six way apartments adjoining; a section novv commercially zoned and front- ing on Bellaire, and duplexes only on the land fronting north on .4.2iley street. In discussing this with j:r,Houek and "r.'d~~illiams, hir.~'illiams presented a list of the property owners on Riley street, together with a petition form. le said that it was their intention to contact each property owner and secure signatures to the petition, requesting this ara.endment to the Zoning Ordinance. Yle said that in view of the fact that ~Ir.liouck proposed to pave Riley street without cost to the preperty owners, they did not anticipate any opposition, i~ut they knew, of course, that there :would have to be a public hearing, in t}~e event the Zonine; ~ Planning Commission recommended the amendment. =r. infr then made the motion that the Coning ~~ Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be anended to allow the erection of multiple family dwelling units oi' masonry or brick veneer construction, not more than two stories in height, an the above described tract of land, with the provisions as out- lined in letter addressed to tYie City Council under date of July 22, signed by Rouck Realty Company, and in accordance with. plat submitted. Copy of this letter is attached and made apart of the minutes of this meeting. There being no further business to come before the Commission, upon motion made, seconded, and carried, t.,he meeting was adjourned. t ` SFC~~.ETARY _--= ' -- ~,,'"_