Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN SEP 09 1980 REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF BEAUMONT HELD SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 BE IT. REMEMBERED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont , Texas, met in regular session this the 9th day of September, 1980 , with the following present : HONORABLE : Maurice Meyers Mayor Tom Combs, Jr. Councilman, Ward I Evelyn M. Lord Councilman , Ward II *Calvin Williams Councilman, Ward III Wayne Turner Councilman, Ward IV Ray Riley City Manager R. E. Platt Asst . City Manager Kenneth Wall City Attorney Myrtle Corgey City Clerk (*Arrived late) -000- The Invocation was given by the Reverend Jim Stevens , Calvary Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Turner. -000 Mayor Meyers issued the following proclamation : The Exchange Clubs' "Golden Deeds Day in Beaumont" September 11 , 1980 and recipient of the Golden Deeds Award - Judge Joe J. Fisher . -000- Consent Agenda items considered were as follows : Approval of the Minutes of the regular City Council session held September 2 , 1980; Resolution 80-312 accepting two (2) 15-foot utility easements from Philip and Frances Lascoe and Beaumont Harbour Associates Ltd. ; Resolution 80-313 accepting the bids of Jones Supply Company ($7,932. 22) and Golden Triangle Pipe and Water Supply ($2 ,477.40) for furnishing meter boxes for the Water Utilities Department ; Resolution 80-314 awarding a contract for construction of 850 feet of 12-inch sanitary sewer line along Catalpa Street from Pine Street to Grand Avenue to Aluma-Wall , Inc. at a cost of $24, 904 . 00; Resolution 80-315 rejecting bids received on cleaning and painting a water storage tank because the low bid exceed the budgeted amount ; Resolution 80-316 authorizing payment of $2,790. 50 for professional services by W. R. Richard related to the design of a new building for the Carroll Street Day Care Center; and Resolution 80-317 reappointing Raymond Noack and Charles Bullock and appoint- ing Howard Nichols , Jr. for two year terms to the Plumbing and Mechanical Board of Review. The Consent Agenda was approved on a motion made by Councilman Lord and seconded by Councilman Combs. Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -149- September 9, 1980 A public hearing for consideration of a zoning change from C-1 to C-2 for Block 3 , Langham Addition, in the block bounded . by Emmett , Neches, Langham, and Gray Streets, was held : MR. JESSE TORRES, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR: File 699 Z is-a change from C-1 to C-2 for Block 3 , Langham Addition , filed by Mr. Gerald Farha on behalf of the owner A. M. Phelan, to provide a site , for a ship supplier , also known as the Ship 's Chandler. The location is the 1400 block of Neches - the block bounded by Emmett , Neches, Langham and Gray Streets. Surrounding land use is predominantly residential, although the entire ex- isting zoning pattern is C-1 , Neighborhood Commercial . There are some com- mercial uses in evidence generally to the east and to the southwest of this particular block. The 1960 Comprehensive Plan designated the area for clearance and rehabilitation. Neches Street has substantial utilities for any change in zoning - a 12" water line and 8" sanitary sewer line and also has a 60-foot right-of-way with 38 feet of pavement . This particular area was the subject of a portion of a rezoning study and a comprehensive land use plan which was submitted to the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. In that plan, this particular area was designated for R-2 , Multi-Family Development . In analyzing this particular request , we thought since it is surrounded by residential uses and is not abutting any other C-2 zoning, it would constitute spot zoning since it would be increasing the number of allowable uses on this particular pro- perty and would not be compatible with surrounding land use as it is pre- sently in evidence. We feel that zoning district boundary lines should ideally transition at rear property lines and in this case it would have frontage on all four sides and would be contributing towards the deterio- ration of the residential character in this particular area. Accompanying traffic which would come with any type of wholesale uses which would be allowed by the change in zoning would likewise contribute toward the dete- rioration of this location. , There were 30 notices mailed to surrounding property owners within 200 feet of this request . We received two replies in favor of the change and two replies in opposition to the change. Based on the analysis that was brought forth in our staff report , we recommended denial of the request for C-2 since it .is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan in that it constitutes spot zoning. It is not in accordance with good planning principles for transi- tion of zones and finally it was contrary to the land use plan for the Blanchette/Sabine Pass area which was submitted to the Council and the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission. Planning & Zoning Commission by a vote of 3-2 denied the request with one Commissioner abstaining. THOSE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONE CHANGE : MR. PATRICK PHELAN, 2460 LONG: Mr. Phelan stated that the block of land has been vacant from the Spanish Land Grant . It is approximately three or four blocks from the Port and is one-half block from I-1 property. Mr. Phelan mentioned other businesses similar in operation to the needs of Atlantic Steamers which are located at 1495 Pennsylvania and 1495 Park Streets. He said he was not asking for something that it out of line as far as development of the area is concerned. MR. KENNETH CLINGAMAN, PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS : Mr. Clingaman , representing Atlantic Steamers Supply Company, addressed Council to say that his Company intended to construct a building 200 x 200 x 14 ' high of metal construction . He said there were approximately 18 employees now with the company in Beaumont and more would be needed for the larger facility. Trucks would be going in and out but stated that off- street , fenced parking would be provided for company and employee vechicles. -150- September 9, 1980 MR. GERALD FARHA, AMERICAN REAL ESTATE : Mr. Farha addressed Council to say that Atlantic Steamers had come to him about four months ago looking for a square block piece of land to serve the Port . He stated that the highest and best use for this property which has been vacant has to be commercial . He said that 25 per cent of the land in this area is vacant now - has not been used and stated that the best use would be to serve the Port . THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONE CHANGE : MR. ONYX LANGHAM, 694 ROYAL: Mr. Langham addressed Council to say that the area is surrounded by homes and is not commercial property. He said the streets in the area are not sufficient for large truck use all day long. He asked that the area be rezoned R-1. The public hearing portion was closed. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS AS INDICATED UPON THE ZONING MAP OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, BY CHANGING A 1. 65 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE LANGHAM ADDITION, BEAUMONT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED C-1 TO C-2 ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. Councilman Turner made a motion to deny the ordinance ; Councilman Lord se- conded the motion. Question : Ayes : Councilman Lord Nayes : Mayor Meyers Councilman Turner Abstained: Councilman Combs -000- A public hearing for consideration of a zoning change from R-3 , R-2 , and C-2 -to LR-1 for 6.21 acres out of Blocks 3 and 4 , Laurel Heights Addition, east of 23rd Street in the 3800 Blocks of Phelan Boulevard and Laurel Avenue was held: MR. TORRES : File 696 Z is a request by Mr . Jerry Nathan for a change in zoning from C-2 , R-3 and R-2 to LR-1 for 6. 21 acres of Blocks 3 and 4 of the Laurel Heights Addition. It is located east of 23rd Street and is generally in the 3800 blocks of Phelan and Laurel . The property is vacant . The sur- rounding zoning is R-3 to the north; LR-1 to the west , C-2 and a portion of R-3 to the east and R-2 to the east of the request . The property has 420 feet of frontage on Phelan and 490 feet of frontage on Laurel . The Comprehensive Plan designates this area best suited for commercial de- velopment . Twenty notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within 200 feet of the request ; there were two replies in favor of the change and one re- sponse in opposition to the change. - Utilities in Laurel area 6" water line and 8" sanitary sewer. 23rd Street has a 61' water line and 15" sanitary sewer. -1.51- September 9, 1980 The property is located at the intersection of two major arterials - one of which is Phelan Blvd. and the second is 23rd Street ; therefore, it fol- lows the planning principle which states that property located at the in- , tersection of major arterials is best suited for commercial zoning since it does front on high intensity traffic arterials. The land uses to the west and to the north of this particular request indicated that this area is best suited for commercial development . The extension of LR-1 zone to the east of 23rd Street would be a logical extension of the exist- ing LR-1 zone . The applicant at the present time has not submitted any plans to us for intended development of the property and we feel that the request would be speculative in nature; but , based on the location of this particular tract and the development that surrounds it , we feel that it does have characteristics which would be supportive of commercial development . The portion of the request that is currently zoned R-2 has its major frontage on Laurel . Initially the request had been for C-1 zoning. That type of zoning extended in this particular location would increase the possibility for incompatibility for residential traffic which comes westbound on Lau- rel Avenue. However, in discussing the case and the Commission's vote on it , the applicant was cognizant of this fact and he stated to us that LR-1 would be a substitute zone for the C-1 he originally requested. The portion of the property that has frontage .on Laurel Avenue would best be suited for multi-family development due to its depth and would have constraints for commercial development because of its location and because of its access to Laurel . We feel that the transition of these particular types of zones from commercial to residential multi-family and then multi- family to residential single family should all occur at rear property lines and, in this case, we would have the opportunity to do that if the change were limited to the property that fronts on 23rd Street . So, in view of all the analysis that we have put in our staff report , we recommended denial of the original request for C-1 since LR-1 zoning would provide a full range Of retail uses at this location and secondly since the property southeast of the location is currently R-2 , it would be a transition between the re- tail zoning and the single family residential zoning to the southeast . And, we therefore recommended to the Commission that LR-1 zoning be con- sidered for the property on the northwest corner and that the property on the southeast corner remain R-2. The Commission in turn recommended ap- proval for the entire request for LR-1 zoning by a vote of 5-3 . THOSE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CHANGE WERE: MR. JERRY NATHAN, ATTORNEY, Benkenstein, McNicholas, Oxford, Radford, Johnson and Nathan : Mr. Nathan stated that he represented two of the three owners of the pro- perty. He .said the property runs approximately 150 feet east of Phelan Blvd. and north of Phelan Blvd. is a shopping center. There is a Sonic. Drive-in on one corner - Albertson's Shopping Center on one corner of 23rd Street and Laurel Avenue and on Laurel , there is a car wash, a doc- tor' s building and the subject property. He said this property is proba- bly one of the most valuable pieces of commercial property in the City of Beaumont . He said when the Planning and Zoning Staff ' s report suggested LR-1 , he was happy with that because he thought that was the proper de- signation. The only thing that he found if they'd differed from the Staff ' s report - was they felt the portion of property just east of the car wash, for continuity sake, ought to be LR-1 and not have that cut out and become R-2. What they asked was just go 150 feet beyond it and make the entire section LR-1. MR. CHARLES `PEINBAUM, JR. , 675 WADE STREET : Mr. Weinbaum explained the history of the property and said he would be satisfied with the LR-1 zoning classification.. -152 September 9, 1980 THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING CHANGE WERE: MRS. MARGARET HARTMAN, 545 23RD STREET: Mrs. Hartman addressed Council to express her concern for the safety of the school children going to Wilbanks School . ' DR. MELVIN BOTTORFF, WOMEN' S CLINIC ASSOCIATES , representing himself , Dr . George Bosch, Dr. Jeff Hanna, Dr. Dave Free and Dr. Dennis Black Dr. Bottorff said their property was bought about seven years ago because it was zoned R-2. He said they were in another area of town in a commer- cially zoned area and wanted a place that would be more subdued and would offer more peaceful surroundings for their patients - about 11 ,000 women in the Golden Triangle Area. He said this area was selected through Am- erican Real Estate because it was zoned R-2. He asked that Council not rezone the property. The public hearing portion was closed. ORDINANCE NO. 80-86 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS AS INDICATED UPON THE ZONING MAP OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, BY CHANGING A 1 .253 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE LAUREL HEIGHTS ADDITION, BEAUMONT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED R-3 AND C-2 TO LR-1 ; BY CHANGING A 2. 384 ACRE TRACT OF LAND IN THE LAUREL HEIGHTS ADDITION, BEAUMONT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED R-3 AND C-2 TO LR-1; AND BY CHANGING A 2. 586 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE LAUREL HEIGHTS ADDITION, BEAUMONT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED R-3 AND R-2 TO LR-1 ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. Councilman Combs made a motion to approve the .ordinance ; Councilman Turner seconded the motion. Question : Ayes: All Nayes : None -000- A public hearing for consideration for a zoning change from R-3 to C-1 for Lots 1 , 2, 3 , 12 and the east 1/2 of Lot 11 , Block 7, McFaddin Second Addition, located et2005 Broadway and 2012 Liberty Streets was held: MR. TORRES : File 694 Z is a request by Mr. Charles Weinbaum for a change in zoning from R-3 , Modified Two-Family and Multi-Family Dwellings , to C-1 , Neighbor- hood Commercial , for property that is located at 2005 Broadway and 2012 Liberty. It totals . 77 acres and is generally at the southwest corner of Broadway and 4th Street and also what would be the northwest corner of Liberty and 4th Street . Surrounding zoning to the north is R-3 , the east is R-3 and the south and west is likewise R-3 . The northeast corner of this particular request is currently developed as a lease office building. Directly across from Broadway at the corner of 4th are two residences. There is an apartment complex on the northeast corner of Broadway and 4th and on the southeast corner of the request is a single family residence. There is a vacant lot to the immediate east of the request . The remain- ing portion of the property to the south of that office building is cur- rently vacant . There are residences due east across 4th Street . Looking south of Liberty, there are residences on Liberty which would be fronting into the property from the southside of Liberty. The property has 75 feet of frontage on Broadway, 150 feet of frontage on Liberty and 200 feet of -153- September 9, 1980 MR. TORRES continued: frontage on 4th Street . The Comprehensive Plan designates this area best suited for single family residences . We mailed out 20 notices to property owners within 200 feet of the request . We received two replies in favor and none in opposition. Utilities in 4th Street are a 30" water line and a 15" sanitary sewer . 4th Street has a 60' right-of-way with 44 ' of pavment as do Broadway and Liberty. Current R-3 zoning allows uses which are retail in nature to exist in the same location as residential development which we feel is detrimental to residential character of this particular area and a rezoning to C-1 , which is a less restrictive zone, would allow more intensive commercial uses to incur in. this particular location. Utilities in this area would be ade- quate to serve commercial zone. The current office us of the property is relatively compatible with the area since it does not produce an undue amount of traffic ingress and egress from that corner. The applicant did not state any intended plans for development for the remaining portion of the property which is vacant at the present and we therefore reviewed the request as speculative in nature. One of the points that was brought up during the public hearing and discussed by the applicant and the staff was the fact that the C-1 zoning - which he is requesting - would be con- verted to general commercial zoning in the new ordinance and therefore would permit more intensive commercial development to incur in this loca- tion in the vicinity of and fronting next to and on the side of residential dwellings. We also feel that C-1 zoning would be spot zoning. We feel that due to the fact that the property would transition at side and front lot lines, it would increase the incompatibility in this particular l.oca- tion and again place a burden on the residential dwellings which are lo- cated in this area. And, finally, a change to commercial zoning at this location would probably generate additional requests for similar types of zoning in the future. Based on our analysis, we recommended. denial of the request to the Planning and Zoning Commission since it is not in accordance with the development plans of the Comprehensive Plan - since it was specu- lative in nature - since it was spot zoning and - since it would increase the incompatibility of surrounding property at this particular location. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request by a vote of 8-0. THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE : MR. CHARLES WEINBAUM: Mr. Weinbaum said he did not think there was any question about Calder Ave- nue or 11th Street being commercial streets. He said that because the City had just spent $100, 000 to widen and improve 4th Street ,. it was even a more commercial and industrial street . He said the zoning map would show this particular stretch of two blocks between Calder and Laurel to be within Z-block of C-1 on the north and 2-block of I-2 on the south. He said he disagreed with the Planning Department when they said this was spot zoning - he said the property was commercial property. He told Council he timed the construction of the office building to coincide with the completion of the street . NO ONE ADDRESSED COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF BEAUMONT , TEXAS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS AS INDICATED UPON THE ZONING MAP OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, BY CHANGING A 0.77 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE McFADDIN SECOND ADDITION, BEAUMONT JEF- FERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS HEREINAFTER DE- SCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED R-3 TO C-1 ; PRO- VIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. -154- September 9, 1980 The ordinance was denied on a motion made by Councilman Combs and secon- ded by Councilman Turner. Question : AYes : All Nayes : None -000- A public hearing for consideration of a zoning change from R-3 to LR-1 for Lots 6-10, Block 24, Jarrett Addition, in the 400 Block of North Eighteenth Street was held: MR. TORRES : The property is located in R-3 zoning and is surrounded on the north and east and the west by R-3 zoning. North of the property is a former re- sidence which was converted into a dance studio. East of the property, across 18th Street are an insurance and other offices in a small office complex. South of the property there is a beauty shop which is currently owned by the landlord of the Person making the application for this re- quest and to the west of the property is an insurance office. Across Phelan Blvd. was a Kentucky Fried Chicken which is now changed to a jewelry shop and florist . Calder connects to Phelan going eastbound and it is that dogleg coming from the southeast . The Comprehensive Plan designated this area as best suited for retail commercial development and the property at present is undeveloped. There were 8 property owners notifications sent to property owners within 200 feet and we had one reply in favor of the change and two replies in . opposition to the change. There are currently adequate utilities in the vicinity of the request for the anticipated change in zoning. 18th Street has a 60-foot right-of-way with an 18-foot pavement . Auto garages are not automatically compatible with other retail and service oriented uses and are not compatible with the existing and the proposed uses currently known to this particular location. C;-1 zoning in the original request would con- stitute spot zoning if viewed in relation to the surrounding uses. This could be changed if, after revision of the ordinance, the entire area were to change in character , but by the same token , if there were zoning adopted which would include all these uses under the same category. We feel that the property to the north of this request is limited in its reuse since it is small and very difficult intersection to negotiate for traffic and it would not be sufficiently developed unless it were used in this parti- cular property in this request . We recommended denial of._C-1 zoning. We felt LR-1 was appropriate use of this particular location; however , it would not make the applicant 's use legal since his use as a car repair is an allowable use only in C-1 zoning. The Planning Commission approved LR-1 zoning for this request by a vote of 7-0. MAYOR MEYERS asked how the request moved from C-1 to LR-1 that would not serve the applicant 's need. MR. TORRES: The applicant made the request for C-1 to accomodate his use which is an automobile repair; we recommended that it go to LR-1 . The Commission ap- proved LR-1 for the request , but this happened after it had been delayed somewhat . It was tabled pending the revision of the zoning ordinance. The applicant requested that it be brought back for consideration and voted upon by the Commission. The Commission in turn voted on it and ap- proved LR-1 for the location and they were cognizant that our current or- dinance does not allow car repairs as an allowable use. THOSE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGE: MR. BILL COOK & MR. WAYNE ELLIOTT, co-owners, 447 N. 18th Street , said they had called a real estate office and an appraiser and were told by one that the property was zoned C-1 and C-2 by the second source. They thought they were legal when they began operation of the auto repair business . -155- September 9, 1980 THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGE: MRS. MARGARET HARTMAN questioned punishment for operating in violation of the zoning ordinance. MR. KENNETH WALL, CITY ATTORNEY, stated that violation of the zoning ordi- nance is a misdemeanor and is punishable by fine of up to $200. 00 per day. MR. BRUCE McCLENDON, PLANNING DIRECTOR: Mr . McClendon said these individuals opened an operation in violation of the zoning ordinance. They were advised they were in violation and given 30 days or two weeks to cease operation or to initiate a rezoning request to legalize their operation. They did make a request and presented it to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission tabled that action , may- be four or five months ago. He said they had been advised by the Legal Department that , since an application was pending, they could continue in operation. They 've been allowed to continue. The applicant did request the Commission bring it back up for official vote because they wanted to go ahead ;and make some improvements. They've done that . We've brought it back up and the Commission acted on it and now it has been sent to the Council that that ' s why this use has been allowed to operate in violation of the ordinance for the length of time that it has. MAYOR MEYERS asked regardless of what action Council would take if they would have to cease operation. MR. McCLENDON said they could continue operation if Council approved C-1 rezoning. MAYOR MEYERS said that the applicants had not requested C-1 . MR. McCLENDON said they have requested C-1 . The Planning Commission re- commended LR-1 . MAYOR MEYERS said our ordinance reads from R-3 to LR-1 . MR. McCLENDON said that the applicant had asked for R-3 to C-1 and said that the LR-1 was the staff recommendation and that the ordinance .must have been typed that way. COUNCILMAN LORD and COUNCILMAN TURNER questioned C-1 as spot zoning when most abutting property is zoned C-2. MR. TORRES answered that even though the zoning is C-2, the uses are LR-1 in nature. *COUNCILMAN COMBS made a motion to deny the C-1 request ; MAYOR MEYERS se- conded the motion. (Councilman Williams arrived during the discussion of this item. ) COUNCILMAN TURNER We are talking about a spot zoning incident within relative feet of a C-2 zoned area. That ' s my only problem with it . MR. McCLENDON: It was the opinion of the staff , and the Commission concurred, that devel- opment that was around that property was LR-1 type development - that C-2 type zoning for that area will allow uses that are not compatible with the development that had already taken place. The kinds of permitted uses in C-2 could be things such as a body shop in character and are not really compatible with the neighborhood. I think the Commission and the staff agree that there should be a commercial use for the property. It is shown having a commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan - the only limitation , the only restriction, is to what extent will the commercial development be permitted. Will it be the most intense we allow in C-2 or C-1 or will it be a neighborhood commercial function. And, based on predominant land use in the area, the Commission and the staff recommended upgrading the R-3 to LR-1 . We would have preferred waiting and doing all of the R-3 at one time. The R-3 properties should be zoned commercial - but we had -156- September 9, 1980 MR. McCLENDON continued: an applicant and we had a specific request that we had to respond to and the opinion of the Commission and staff was that the request was inappro- priate at this time. It was unfortunate that it had been established in violation of the ordinance, but, if we were forced to make a recommendation , it was LR-1 . We would have preferred leaving it R-3 until we had an op- portunity of looking at all the R-3 in the area and that is why it is com- ing to you really tattered because it is a tattered type of approach to look at. a zoning scheme. COUNCILMAN LORD: I guess tattered is really a good word and I guess that is what is going to happen to Mr. Cook, too, isn't it and this sort of bothers me. He opened his business in good faith. Perhaps he didn' t investigate it as much as he should, and I guess it is our obligation to do that , but now he is going to have to close up his business and go out of business. What happens . . . . . . COUNCILMAN COMBS: I follow what you are saying but I don't think that is being . . . . I don' t think we are getting to the point . Mr. Cook has asked for this and I would like to see him be able to continue to operate there to . . . COUNCILMAN LORD : . . . and there is nobody in objection, apparently. COUNCILMAN COMBS: Well , yes, there was. Mr. Street had sent a letter in opposition (he has an office building close by) . There was a letter in opposition at the Planning and Zoning hearing. COUNCILMAN LORD Well , that was because of parking which had been resolved, and he is not here today to object COUNCILMAN COMBS : But , the thing is to go in there and rezone C-1 at this time. The appli- cant had the opportunity of waiting. It was deferred to he could continue to operate until the outcome of the new ordinance or until something else would happen. It was at his request that it was brought back at this time to be resolved one way . . . . . . COUNCILMAN LORD: He was given the opportunity to wait - is that correct? And, he decided to go ahead anyhow? COUNCILMAN COMBS : And, it ' s true that isn' t consistent with the zoning that is already there but the whole area should probably be LR-1. It should be commercial but it shouldn' t be such an intense commercial use. COUNCILMAN TURNER: Mr. Cook, did you fully understand the recommendation of the staff when they told you . . . when you brought it before Council today? This is a do or die - did you understand that? MR. COOK: I can truthfully say I didn ' t . I guess I was a little bit off the mark. I didn ' t realize at the time that when the new ordinance was approved that we would be legal . -157- September 9, 1980 COUNCILMAN LORD : Mr. Wall , if this vote is defeated, is a motion to table in order? MAYOR MEYERS : Table the issue? COUNCILMAN LORD : Table the request? MR. WALL I think it can be done, Councilman. I want to make a correction of some- thing or an impression that I got from an earlier comment . The fact that there is an application for a zone change pending does not make the exist- ing use of the property legal . Our advice was merely that we did not think the Court would issue an injunction to stop that so long as an application was pending. In other words, we felt that it would wait until such time as Council acted upon the application before an injunction was . . . so, even if the matter were tabled, the use would still be unlawful . COUNCILMAN LORD: It would still take somebody to move action against them, would it not? MR. WALL: That ' s correct and that can be done by a neighboring property owner as well as by the City. COUNCILMAN LORD : Yes, and yet if this goes through, the situation would be the same, would it not? In other words, he would still be illegal . We know that for sure. In .other words, he is going to be illegal either way. MR. WALL: Yes, unless you were to vote to change it to C-1 . COUNCILMAN TURNER. Bruce, the Planning Department recommendation is that it would constitute spot zoning because of the fact that it is not compatible with the surround- ing land uses, is that correct? MR. McCLENDON: The definition of spot zoning is an individual lot that has been singled out for special preferential treatment and allows this individual to use this property in a manner much higher and more intensely than adjacent property owners of the same environment and the same situation - usually for an incompatible use. In our judgment , this meets the classic defini- tion of what constitutes spot zoning although ultimately that is decided by. a court of law and not by Council or the planners. COUNCILMAN TURNER: Then, what the applicant spoke to . . . . . supposedly , at some point in the future, that particular area would be considered for a general commer- cial use, is that correct? MR McCLENDON: The R-3 zoning would not be general commercial. The LR-1 would convert in the draft zoning ordinance to a general commercial designation. All of the R-3 properties that have commercial characteristics should have a commercial zone designation. It will take Council action on an individual case by case basis to convert those R-3 uses to general commercial in the new zoning ordinance. -158- September 9, 1980 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS AS INDICATED UPON THE ZONING MAP OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS BY CHANGING A 0. 38 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE JARRETT ADDITION, BEAUMONT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED R-3 TO LR-1; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. (Motion and second to approve made earlier. ) Question : Ayes : Mayor Meyers Nayes : Councilman Lord Councilman Combs Councilman Turner Abstained: Councilman Williams MR. WALL: It will take an affirmative vote to adopt the ordinance and there was not . The zoning remains the same. COUNCILMAN LORD made a motion to table; motion was seconded by COUNCILMAN TURNER. Question : Ayes : Mayor Meyers Nayes : Councilman Combs Councilman Lord Councilman Williams Councilman Turner -000- A public hearing for consideration for a zoning change from R-lA to R-2 for 14. 66 acres out of the H. Williams League, in the 1900-2000 Blocks of Dowlen Road on the west side was held: MR. TORRES : This is a request by Carl Kohler for the stated zone change; however, originally we had two requests. The first was for 3 . 4 acres of LR-1 zon- ing and the second one was for 11 . 26 acres of R-2 zoning. Originally, the staff had recommended denial of the request for LR-1 and since the R-2 is independent of that , we recommended that that be denied as well . However, we did recommend to the Commission that R-2 zoning be approved for the entire two requests which total 14. 66 acres. The applicant was notified of this and he in turn amended his request to include both tracts for consideration for R-2 zoning. We felt that the location was well suited for R-2 zoning since it was on a major arterial . Utilities in the area were adequate to support multi- family development and, by putting high intensity residential dwellings on a major arterial , we were following basic planning principles . The Planning Commission denied the request for the entire tract to go to R-2 zoning by a vote of 8-0. Land uses are predominantly vacant . The property is on the west side of Dowlen Road. It is north of Rogers Park, approximately in excess of 500 feet north of Rogers Park. Dowlen Road in this area is vacant . There is no construction. The nearest residential construction is on the east side of Dowlen -- the subdivision is Folmar Place. It is in excess of 200 feet from this particular request and, hence, there were no notifications sent to property owners in that subdivision. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : How far, approximately, beyond the 200 feet . . . ? -159- September 9, 1980 MR. TORRES : I ' d say it is about 400 feet to the boundary of this request to the south- east across Dowlen Road. The property north of Folmar Subdivision suffered a blow-out of a salt disposal line that damaged all of the vegetation with- in about 600 or 800 feet of that almost to Dowlen Road; consequently, it did leave thatproperty north of the Folmar Subdivision baren. We . felt this was important since it would leave the tract under somewhat limited reuse potential . The property north of and south of this request is crossed with multiple pipelines and transmission lines. The City's new site for a branch library is on a parcel that is generally on the northern boundary of Rogers Park. There is a drive-in grocery near Delaware in the north. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : . Jess, are you saying that the pipelines that you referred to make the rest of that R-lA property in there more or less inoperable for development along these lines? MR. TORRES : Very questionable until such time as there are some changes made to that pattern of pipelines, yes, sir. We are talking about two tracts and by considering them simultaneously contiguous to each other , we have frontage on Dowlen Road. R-2 zoning will allow 29 dwelling units per acre. THOSE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CHANGE : .MR. CARL KOHLER, 625 14TH STREET: I am here on behalf of H. G. Nichols, Jr. , trustee in this tract of land for himself and his family and some local business men , including Mr. Frank Dover who is here today. I believe I can clear up some of the questions regarding the pipelines and tank batteries in the area if I can show you the map I brought . We prepared this entire survey of 350 some acres at the request of the District Court and it shows all the pipelines , tank bat- teries, existing wells, slush pits, and whatnot that surround this tract and keep other land in the vicinity from being improved for quite some time. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS: What do you mean by that quite some time? MR. KOHLER: Amoco Production Company has the surface lease on the remainder of the tract and much of that part of Beaumont . They informed us that this is one of their most active fields in this area for oil production and have no intention of ever moving. They have quite a substantial capital invest- ment in the pipelines and the roads. They've just built a new tank battery. out there. They've just completed two new wells a little farther to the west of the tract under consideration and, because of their efforts in this area, we feel that hardly any additional land will be released by them from their surface lease in the foreseeable future. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : If they were to, are you saying that development could take place? -160 September 9, 1980 MR. KOHLER: Only at considerable expense to someone who would have to move the pipe- lines, dig them up to get them out of the way , and move the tank batteries. There are quite a few slush pits which are used for drilling mud that are located on this adjacent property that would make it very expensive for someone to take care of in the development process, and not necessarily . AMOCO. We feel that this request is particularly suited for R-2 at this time because of the .high traffic volumes and the design capacity of Dowlen Road. At one time, it was a sleepy two-land, narrow, asphalt road winding from Calder to Folsom Drive and it was shell and dirt from there on down to the rice fields. The City installed the 100-feet wide four-lane divided road that now is proposed to connect College Street to the Eastex Freeway near Parkdale in the very near future. The traffic volumes generated on this Type C arterial- which is our larg- est arterial designated on our Street and Highway Plan, with 100 feet of right-of-way - makes it very unsuitable for R-1 development . There have been other single family developments farther down to the south along old Dowlen Road, but that was before the traffic volume increased so dramati- cally. We feel that R-2 is the best suited use at this time. I would like to add to what Jesse said - correct a little bit . It is 1 , 500 feet from the closest point of this property along Dowlen Road to the nearest corner of Rogers Park and it is in excess of 500 feet to the .nearest corner of Folmar Place - that ' s the nearest single family dwelling. If you look at the land uses up and down Dowlen Road, there aren't many because of Amoco's prevalence in the area. They have most of it leased; but, between Parkdale and Gladys , there is the Westend YMCA, a small retail development near the intersection of Delaware and Dowlen which has a drive-in grocery store, a small hardware store and there are several existing or proposed churches on the east side of Dowlen Road about across from the YMCA. These are the only uses and certainly they are not of a definite residential nature. Probably the most significant thing that stuck out in my mind when I was reviewing this request with our new proposed zon- ing ordinance - the new third revised edition and the previous editions - in the general purpose and description of the residential , multi-family dwelling district , it outlines what type areas this district is most suited for . We believe that our tract of land fits this description and, if I may , I would like to quote from it very briefly. And, it says, the residential multi-family dwelling district is usually located adjacent to an arterial street and Dowlen is a designated arterial . And, it serves as a buffer or transition between commercial development or heavy automobile traffic which Dowlen certainly carries. As I was reading that , I could not think of a more ideal place in the west end to change from an or to build R-2 multi-family type of development . I believe Mr . Nichols is here to perhaps add a few things to what I 've said but before I leave, if I could answer any questions that you might have concerning the pipelines . . . . . . COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : Would you consider, Jesse, in your consideration and recommendation the impact that this development might have on Rogers Park and on the soon to be constructed Library . . . if any at all , do you consider it to be favor- able? Rogers Park is considered to be a neighborhood park? MR. TORRES : The people living in this particular development would take advantage of it . COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : I understand that . I mean - Rogers Park, the type of park that it is , would it be able to accomodate this increase that would result in this development and the same thing with the library? Was it considered also? -161- September 9, 1980 MR. TORRES : Yes. HOWARD NICHOLS , JR. I am the managing partner of the Nichols Company and primarily involved in townhouse construction and the plan that you were shown actually out- lines what was originally described as the Keith-Dowlen tract . Our piece is a part of the estate of which Amoco Production Company does have the control for the use of the production rights. And, our 14 acres have been released by Amoco for residential purposes. We also meet the needs , for the area is a suitable location for multi-family residential construc- tion. Obviously, we have the traffic accessibility. We have water and sewer utilities and drainage. In fact , we only have 800 feet of frontage on Dowlen, of which 200 feet of that would be in easements and drainage. This is an appropriate area for multi-family construction and I ask that this be accepted . MAYOR MEYERS asked about plans for development . MR. NICHOLS : I would say that , at this time, we have no plans . Unfortunately, until you know what your zoning is, it is difficult to make plans ; but , very simply, I will indicate to you that I don 't think we would ever consider building 29 units to the area even though R-2 allows it . 'To my knowledge, I don 't .believe any recent development developed anywhere near that amount and is probably closer to 16 to 18 units per acre which is what would be ultimately developed. We've already lost two acres of land for drainage and we do have a pipeline that we have to build off of , but I would say the design would be for luxury sized apartments and townhouses. MR. FRANK DOVER, 1215 Sandwood, said definite plans were for construction next year . THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING CHANGE : MR... LARRY GRANTHAM, DOWLEN PLACE, stated that he sincerely opposed Mr. Kohler ' s effort to change the zoning from R-lA to R-2 because of the Bran- age and the overcrowding of the schools . MR. JOE GIDEON, FOLMAR ADDITION presented a petition signed by people op- posing the request for the change. The problem we have with this zoning request change is density. We do not want to wake up one morning with a big apartment complex across the street . We are very pleased with our neighborhood. We enjoy Rogers Park. We are pleased that the new library is going to be located across the street from us and this is the type of things that we enjoy. It is zoned R-lA now and we ' d like to see it continue to be zoned R-1A. I would like to point out that the Planning and Zoning Commission, after hearing Mr. Kohler and hear- ing the arguments of some concerned residents , denied this request by a count of 8-0 and we strongly urge the Council to support the Planning and Zoning Commission. MR. R. C. TORTORIS, #6 Dowlen Place : I would like to suggest to you that you go along with the Planning and Zon- ing Commission and deny this request . This is some of the last land that can be used for R-1 . It would be very nice to have nice patio homes or townhouses across the street which is currently zoned for . I don't think it would look very well to have $2, 000,000 library sitting next to high density apartments which, if the land is rezoned R-2 , they can do. The R-lA allows them to put up the townhouses and the R-2 allows them to put up to three stories of apartments. I feel like going along with the recom- mendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission would be extremely benefi- cial to the entire area that currently is R-1 on Dowlen Road and on Gladys . -162- September 9, 1980 COUNCILMAN LORD: I have a question about the petition that you presented, Mr . Gideon? Some of these people live miles away from there. Pinchback . . . . . . MR. GIDEON: I didn ' t circulate the petition. MRS. TORTORIS : It was signed by people who use the park and object to overcrowding con- ditions. COUNCILMAN LORD : How many children . . . yet , the Planning staff tells us that there would be plenty of room in Rogers Park for the kids that would live in this new place. MR. TORRES : There has been some data that we 've looked at that says that apartments generate less school children than single family dwellings do, also. COUNCILMAN LORD: But , supposing there were lots of kids, it could still handle it? MR. TORRES : Yes, ma' am. MRS. DARLA TORTORIS , #6 Dowlen Place : I have two children and I take them to the park often and right now people are waiting for tennis courts and any addition to that will be very, very crowded. People drive from some distance to come to the park. I do not object to townhomes - townhomes would be excellent but I am worried about overcrowded conditions and urge Council to go along with the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this zoning request . MAYOR MEYERS : The original request was for a change to LR-1 . . . MR. TORRES : At the time of the meeting , the applicant amended his application to have the entire property considered for R-2. MAYOR MEYERS : Okay. What I want to be sure and understand is that the Planning Commis- sion ' s vote was on R-2. So, it was 8-0 for R-2? COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : I am curious, Jesse. I think the Commission also discussed the R-2M as a possibility rather than R-2, looking at the density that is permitted under R-2 versus that of R-2M, and I understood Mr . Nichols to say earlier in his presentation very few developers were developing up to its fullest -163- September 9, 1980 COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS continued : density - which would exclude 29 units per acre . R-2M would permit some- thing like 14 to 15 MR . TORRES : 17 max. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : . . . 17. Then, if that is so and if Mr . Nichols and his other partners , whomever, do not intend to build up to the fullest maximum, why, then , would R-2M be unacceptable? MR. TORRES : I think the question was put to them and they declined. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : I am talking about from a planning point of view. MR. TORRES : We were just making our recommendation based on the R-2 use. We didn 't . . . COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : Okay, I ' ll address that to Mr . Kohler. Why would an R-2M be unacceptable? MR. KOHLER: Mr. Nichols ' prime concern is not necessarily the density allowed under R-2. It is the flexability of arrangement of building on the site. The current R-2M ordinance is very restrictive to building setbacks, private driveways - each driveway has to be so wide - and other restrictive things in addition to the density that make it very difficult to have an effi- cient layout with this type of zoning - R-2M, our current R-2M ordinance. If I may follow-up on this a little bit , there were some comments made that we can build townhomes now -- we cannot . This is single family re- sidential of the most restrictive type. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS: I understand that . MR. KOHLER: And, had we been able to build townhomes, we perhaps might have taken another tack but to answer your question , it is not necessarily the den- sity, although that is a prime concern. If you get the 17 and you still efficiently and with a good land use can build 20 units per acre , and still have a decent plan - R-2M will not allow you to do that . But , we find the most difficulty with R-2M in making a layout of that nature is the setback requirement and the other private driveway right-of-way re- quirements that are out of the ballpark. -164- September 9, 1980 COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : Let me say, Mr . Kohler , that I really don' t have any arguments in terms of what has been presented. I think that , looking at the outlay of the land, the proximity of the nearest residential development there, and other factors that you mentioned pipelines and what have you . Still it is odd it seems to me that you get an 8-0 vote from the Commission based on one item basically and that is the R-2M versus the R-2. And, you say it is difficult . Does that necessarily mean that it is insurmount able, that you could not plan . . . ? MR. KOHLER: Of course not . COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : and do an adequate job of bring about R-2M versus R-2? We are talking about basically, Mr. Kohler of what - 400 units versus say 250 units or something of that nature? MR. KOHLER: That ' s correct . Something like that . I think that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was based partly on some misunderstanding on their part . The . staff report was presented as we had originally applied - some LR-1 and some R-2 -- a small portion of LR-1 and the remaining portion R-2 . The original staff report recommended denial of both requests for valid reasons taken together . I think that the Staff report at the Planning and Zoning hearing was presented that way. I have the minutes of the meeting . and I read them. The staff report was presented that way at the meeting. He mentioned that we had revised our request ; however, all the staff reports were sent out as perhaps you may have also in light of our original request . And, I think that from that , based on reading the min- utes and the questions asked by the Planning and Zoning Commission , they held on to some of these spot zoning ideas and I really can't tell you why they voted against it . I could not pick out one single reason to deny the request . Perhaps the Planning Staff can have some feel . . . . . . COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : Commissioner Pearson questioned why R-2M would be too restrictive and you answered that the current R-2M district has a lower density requirement than R-2 . That keeps getting in the way right now in our judgment of the 29 units versus say 14 to 15 units . If Mr. Nichols has indicated that he doesn ' t intend to build it up to the maximum density, I still cannot under- stand why R-2M would not be satisfactory to the developers. MR. KOHLER: I have to defer to Mr . Nichols on that . He calls the shots . From my standpoint of laying out the development , it is more expensive because of the setback requirements and what not and so forth to build under R-2M than under R-2 . The same number of units per acre -- you can build 10 units per acre under R-2 and under R-2M and it is more expensive under R-2M. That is the primary reason. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : Okay. All right . Jesse, I am just pursuing that based on the discussion apparently that was held with the Commission; but , you still say and Mrs. Lord asked a similar question, you are still saying that even if the devel- oper decides to build up to the maximum density allowable under R-2 that there would be no adverse impact on Rogers Park nor adverse impact on the proposed Library facility - no adverse impact on the additional traffic that would be created as a result say of full development up to its maxi- mum capabilities? -165- September 9, 1980 .MR. . McCLENDON: From a planning standpoint , the density of this particular development does not have any significant bearing on the capacity on the local park system or the street system or the utility system and those are factors that the planning staff looked at along with the other departments when we reviewed the request- whether or not it would in fact overload these systems. Rogers Park functions as a community park. There are people who drive four or five miles to that Park, including individuals like myself , so it has Ea large service area. High density development is encouraged along your major streets for transit reasons which we did not indicate or mention. Also, you want to make sure your facilities are being built, such as Rogers Park which is supposed to be a neighborhood park and your library, and have an adequate population to utilize that facility based on its own service area - not so that you have to go and pick up people that live five or six miles out to go and make your adequate use of the facility. So , with those kinds of considerations, the staff could find no basis for rejecting the application. Plus, you have to remember that there is a large tract of land in addition to this 15 acres that is not going to be developed so, if you take this density and spread it out over a much larger area, you really are going to have relatively net low density development for a very large tract of land. COUNCILMAN LORD questioned reasons for the Planning and Zoning Commission's vote. MR. McCLENDON: The staff discussed this particular request with the Commission afterwards because we did have a case you just reviewed before this which was on Laurel which was R-2 zoning abutting across the street from single family development . The staff indicated that was appropriate development for R-2 zoning - a superior site. The Commission recommended zoning that com- mercial similar to what the Council has done and we expressed concern that we were taking prime multiple family residential and rezoning those and not replacing them with other compatible similar R-2 areas that would sup- port development . So, we did discuss the need for multiple family housing. The Manning Commission did indicate some additional supporting facts and justification for their actions . They were concerned about the precedence. The Council has not as yet accepted the principle that multiple family development should be permitted along major streets. It is in the new zon- ing draft ordinance. It is in our proposed Comprehensive Plan but it is not yet official policy.. This is a predominant single-family area and they were concerned that they were going to establish a precedence that would allow multiple family and commercial type zoning along Dowlen Road. So, under those circumstances , that was why the Planning Commission was as cautious as it was. They were reluctant to rezone this area. Secondarily, they were concerned about the density as had been requested by the appli- cant in the absence of plans to support that density. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : I was pursuing it primarily because I just wanted to know the impact if any it would have on the facilities that I mentioned. MR. DOVER: It would have a very severe impact on our planning if you restrict us to 17 per acre because of the unusual cost involved in this piece of property. We released two acres for a drainage ditch north of the 14+ acres - we are going to lose that - and there is a pipeline . . . . . . -166- September 9, 1980 COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : I am always cautious in passing on items of this nature because we have to balance, it seems to me, the interests that you are speaking to as well as the interests of the facilities out there and the rest of the citizens who use those facilities and I preface my statement with the idea that I don ' t really have a serious problem with what has been said. I was curious, however, to find out why R-2M would not be satisfactory if you didn ' t intend to build up to that maximum. MR. DOVER: We need the R-2 to make this tract work. MAYOR MEYERS : Are there any other questions or discussion? This is item number 5 - the request for zoning change from R-lA to R-2 for the 14. 6 acres. Do we have a motion? COUNCILMAN COMBS made a motion to approve the ordinance; motion was secon- ded by COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. ORDINANCE NO. 80-87 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS AS INDICATED UPON THE ZONING MAP OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, BY CHANGING A 3 . 40 ACRE TRACT AND AN 11 . 26 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE H. WILLIAMS LEAGUE, BEAUMONT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS , AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED R-lA TO R-2 ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. Question : Ayes : Mayor Meyers Nayes : Councilman Turner Councilman Combs Councilman Williams Abstained : Councilman Lord -000- A public hearing for consideration for a zoning change from R-3 to C-1 for Lots 1-10, Block 2 , Laurel Heights Addition , at 3800 Calder, was held : . MR. TORRES : The property is currently vacant and is zoned R-3 . It is located on the south side of Calder in the 3800 Block between Calder and Phelan Blvd. and is generally on the southeast corner of that intersection. At the time of the request , the applicant had no stated plans for the development of the property other than anticipation of the change in category in the new zoning ordinance. The property is currently being used as a shopping cen- ter . It has R-1 , Single Family, dwellings to the north; R-3, Modified, Two- Family Multiple Dwelling zoning, to the east ; C-2 to the south across Phe- lan Blvd. and R-3 zoning to _,.the west across 23rd Street . It does have 260 feet of frontage on Calder . The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is for commercial development . This is the location that we have under consideration at the present time. Two of the tenants in that particular location have since left - the Market Basket Grocery Store and the Sommers Drug Store are no longer located in the shopping center . Look- ing west on Calder , there is a drive-in grocery and clearners across 23rd Street , S & H Redemption Center east of the property in question and the remaining land use north of Calder is entirely single family residential R-1 zoning . We mailed 13 notifications to property owners within 200 feet of the re- quest . After discussion with one of our residents that lives within 200 feet to help us correct our files , there was a petition that was submitted -167- September 9, 1980 MR. TORRES continued: which had 11 of 13 signatures from the 13 property owners on our 200 feet list that constituted 21 . 8% of the land within the 200 feet of the request . There were also five citizens who spoke in opposition to the request at the public hearing which was held on August 18th. Calder has adequate utilities for the requested change. It has a 70-foot right-of-way at this location with 35-.foot pavement . The property in ques- tion is developed as a shopping center . It is located directly across the street from single family developed residential neighborhood. The parti- cular location where the request is being made is already developed in ac- cordance with the Comprehensive Plan for commercial development and the request is being made in anticipation of the revision to the zoning ordi- nance. We felt that to allow C-1 zoning in this location would overinten- sify this particular development and thereby cause incompatibility with the properties across the street from it to the north. We did feel , how- ever , that since there is an existing LR-1 zoning to the west of the pro- perty that the extension of that LR-1 zone to this location would maintain the conformity of the Comprehensive Plan and would as well provide possi- bility for development even under any anticipated changes that may result as a result of the revision to the zoning ordinance and finally that LR-1 zoning expanded to this location would be a logical expansion of that zone. We, therefore, recommended to the Commission that the request for C-1 be denied since the property is already developed in LR-1 fashion and instead recommended approval of the LR-1 zoning for this particular property. The Commission recommended denial of the request for C-1 zoning by a vote of 7-0. The Commission denied the request for C-1 - no action was taken on LR-1 zoning. MR. WALL: Why did the Commission fail to make a recommendation on the LR-1 , Jesse? MR. TORRES Probably because the property is already R-3 . I don ' t really recall , but I could look through the minutes and probably see what the general feeling was. MR. WALL: I think for the Council to rezone it LR-1 , it would have to be sent back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS : Yes, we can' t vote on it . Thank you , Counselor. MR. McCLENDON: The policy of the Planning Commission was to go on record as being opposed to making any change in the zoning ordinance on the believe or the assump- tion that something was going to happen with a revised draft zoning ordi- nance and since that was the presentation that was made by the applicant that they were proposing to anticipate the adverse consequences of being left R-3; and the effects it would have in the draft zoning ordinance, they were proposing the change anticipating the effects a change would have . And, the Commission again went on record as being opposed to changing any zoning district classification on the basis of anticipating the new or- dinance. MAYOR MEYERS : I guess my question would be, well . . . maybe the applicant can answer it . Did the applicant pursue the LR-1 or was it recommended from staff? -168- September 9, 1980 Those speaking in support of the zoning change : MR. CHARLES WEINBAUM, JR. : Well , we may have over-requested the zoning for C-1 but I would be perfectly content to follow the Planning Department recommendation of LR-1 so, as far as I am concerned, that would be acceptable. . . . . . . This property, for 22 years , has been a shopping center and it is commercial property. (Councilman Williams left the meeting at this point . ) Mr . Weinbaum told Council that most of the residential properly oyaners bought their homes after the shopping center was established. He told Council that residents had spoken against certain uses, such as taverns, and noise that . could be allowed. Mr . Weinbaum said he has no plans for any other things to come in except to refill spaces that are vacant at this time. MAYOR MEYERS: Did I understand that the consideration now before Council , because of lack of action by Planning & Zoning Commission , makes this invalid. MR. WALL: Only to consider the LR-1 change since you have no recommendation from the Commission on that point . As I understand it , the Commission's vote merely disapproved the C-1 request and they did not consider the request for LR-1 and you are required to have a recommendation from them on that . MAYOR MEYERS: So, what you are saying is that consideration today would be solely on C-1? MR. WALL: Yes. Those speaking in opposition to the change : MR. BOB HOUSTON, 540 N. 23RD STREET : My name is Bob Houston; I live at 540 23rd Street - that is designated as Lots 1 , 2 & 3 in Block 9 of Calder Place. This is across Calder from the property that the rezoning is asked for. I live at the northeast corner at the intersection of Calder and 23rd. My objection to the requested change would be to C-1 as it was requested or LR-1 because Mr. Weinbaum, in discussing this with some of the people living in the area prior to the hearing and then at the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission said that he had no specific plans - no immediate plans - for any change in that property - that he was looking down the road. He was basing it as the Planning people over here mentioned earlier on the supposition that the new zoning ordinance would go through and make changes that would put his property into the R-C-R category. I believe R-3 would go into that and it would be more restrictive and the individual property owners would have more protection for what went on in his immediate area - that there would ahve to be a hearing - there would have to be action taken. The property owner would have the opportunity to come here or to the Planning Commission and state opposition on individual basis. He said he wanted to get this done now before the new zoning ordinance was approved so he would not have to comply with this. . . . Right now, his shopping center , which is the point at issue here, is our buffer between an R-1 , single family, residential area and some very commercial property over there that they want to make even more commercial . MRS. MARGARET HARTMAN: I am in opposition to the change because of the noise factor and I am not going to mention the word decibel . There is more noise allowed in C-1 than there is in R-C-R and then many of the types of business allowed in C-1 are not the kind of businesses one wants as a neighbor. Once the zoning is changed to C-1 abutting an R-1 zone; a conventional mortgage is difficult if not impossible to obtain . Mrs. Hartman expressed her concern that the area would change from an owner-occupied neighborhood. -109- September 9, 1980 MR. CARL BROWN, 565 22nd STREET : I am Carl Brown and I live at 565 22nd which is directly across Calder from the property -- the second house from Calder . At the Zoning Commission meeting, I pointed out that, although the map shows this to be R-3 , for all practical purposes from the intersection of Phelan all the way to 23rd, it is now really LR-1 . One thing that I think is in our favor , most of those, in fact I think all of them, are service businesses and I , too, like that neighborhood because of the convenience of all of these services - every- thing within 100 yards . Any change that would grant C-1 status to that property would be in effect from here on would have the opportunity to bring in several types of business or activities that we wouldn 't want that close to our homes and that was our chief reason for opposing this zone and I suggested to the Zoning Commission that we let matters stand as they are. (Councilman Combs not present for the motion nor the vote. ) AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS , AND IN PARTICULAR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS AS INDICATED UPON THE ZONING MAP OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, BY CHANGING A 3 . 28 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE LAUREL HEIGHTS ADDITION, BEAUMONT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, PRESENTLY ZONED R-3 TO C-1 ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. COUNCILMAN LORD made a motion to deny the change in zoning; COUNCILMAN TURNER seconded the motion . Question : Ayes : Mayor Meyers Nayes : None Councilman Lord Councilman Turner -000- The Benefit Hearing for the Elinor Street (from Iola to 11th Street ) Assessment Paving Project was held : (Councilman Combs returned to the meeting. ) MR. STIRLING COPP, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: The project consists of 26-foot wide pavement and the length is about 2300 feet . It will have underground drainage, curb and gutter, with driveways and all the other abutting attachments will be built in this construction. Now, today, we have gone through the procedures of 1-20 and we would like to ask the City Attorney ' s Office if they will attest to that fact . MR. WALL Yes, it is our opinion that those procedures as required have been com- plied with. MR. COPP : Thank you . And, we also have to attest to the fact that the enhancement values are attained and I would ask Mr . Buddy Dedman to do this. MR. DEDMAN: I am Buddy Dedman , Real Property Manager. I have examined the fourteen parcels in the Elinor Street Assessment Paving Program that are being con- sidered for assessment today. In my opinion, the costs of the proposed street and drainage improvements - these properties will be enhanced more than the assessments . -170- September 9, 1980 CITY MANAGER RILEY: The prepayment was made by the property owners in the amount of $10. 00 per linear foot and I believe prepayment was made in the amount of $27 ,902 . 70 and now the assessment for the remainder will be made at $12. 00 amount and those, I believe you have 14 that are being assessed . . . MR. COPP : .14 being assessed -- 26 have prepaid. i MAYOR MEYERS : At this time, then, we would open this benefit hearing for any of those present who would care to make any comments and would just ask that you would come forward and given your name and address first , please. THERE WERE NO CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BENEFIT HEARING. The benefit hearing was closed. ORDINANCE NO. 80-90 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE CLOSING THE HEARING GIVEN TO THE APPARENT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ON ELINOR STREET FROM ELEVENTH STREET TO IOLA STREETS IN THE LUCKY FIVE ADDITION AS TO SPECIAL BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO SAID PROPERTY AND THE TRUE OWNERS THEREOF BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPROVE- MENTS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND TO THE ACCURACY, SUFFICIENCY, REGULARITY, AND VALIDITY OF THE PRO- CEEDINGS AND CONTRACTS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS , AND ANY MANNER OR THING CONNECTED THEREIWTH; OVERRULING AND DENY- ING ALL PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS OFFERED, FINDING AND DETERMINING SPECIAL BENEFITS TO EACH PARCEL OR PROPERTY AND THE OWNERS THEREOF EQUAL TO OR EXCEED- ING THE AMOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE SAME; FINDING THE REGULARITY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS , AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL PREREQUISITES TO FIXING THE ASSESSMENTS LIENS, AND THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS ; LEVYING ASSESSMENT, FIXING A CHARGE AND LIEN AGAINST SAID PROPERTIES SO ABUTTING SAID STREET AND THE TRUE OWNERS THEREOF FOR THE PAYMENT OF PART OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE LIMITS DESCRIBED; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES AND THE MANNER OF THEIR COLLECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. The ordinance was approved on a motion made by Councilman Combs and seconded by Councilman Lord. Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- PUBLIC HEARING for Beaumont Municipal Transit System improvements was held : Mr. Clyde McManus, Transportation Administrator, briefly explained the pro- posed changes - additions and deletions - to the system. Those addressing the public hearing were : Ida Sartim, 1759 Corley, asked that buses be scheduled for South Park area earlier than 6 : 20 a.m. because of transfer delays downtown. She said she needed to be at Parkdale Mall by 7: 00 a.m. and usually arrived about 7: 15 a.m. Crystal Hilts , 2956 Lincoln Drive, said the new proposed schedule is ex- cellent . Marie McDaniel , 1410 Edson, representing a delegation of employees and re- sidents of Schlesinger ' s Geriatric Center , spoke in favor of the new pro- posed schedule. -171- September 9, 1980 Sue Brubaker, Beaumont Housing Authority, especially Raintree Tower and Northridge Manor, spoke in favor of the proposed schedule. Bessie Zecker , Raintree Tower, Apt . No. 510, spoke in favor of the proposed schedule, especially for the Best Years Center on Fourth Street . Margaret Plummer , 4315 Bob, asked that the new proposed schedule be accepted. Alzie Swearingen, 2342 .Broadway, representing the Beaumont Chapter of Texas Senior Citizens, thanked Council for the Best Years Center . Marie McDaniel , Schlesinger ' s Geriatric Center, again addressed the hearing stating that she was representing 396 residents and 325 employees . Dan Nisley, 9435 McLean Drive, Executive Vice-President of Goodwill Indus- tries , asked that buses be routed in fornt of Goodwill for the convenience of his employees and customers . Pearl Moore, resident of Raintree Tower, spoke in favor of the proposed bus schedule. Michael Bibby, 6035 Westgate, presented a petition containing 19 signatures protesting the deletion of the Caldwood, Dowlen West and Westgate areas from the Calder bus route (Route 3). Robert Brookshear, 6580 Wedgewood, spoke in opposition to the deletion of service for the Dowlen West area. Unidentified from the audience -- suggested service to Dowlen West at 7 :30 a.m. and 5 : 30 p.m. only.. James McLaughlin, 1130 Monterrey, asked that the 8-month old statistics be updated before deletion of service (Route 3 ) . Jane Dunatchik, 6860 Guess Road, suggested buses cross the L.N.V.A. Canal ( in the North End) for the safety of those riding the buses or considering riding the buses. Larry Smith, 1130 Shakespeare, asked that buses be scheduled earlier than 7: 30 a.m. for those working downtown and later than 5 :30 p.m. for those staying at work later than 5: 00 p.m. Alice Jefferson Taylor , 1408 G. , spoke in favor of the proposed schedule. Councilman Combs asked if time adjustments could be made for the Westend routes. Mr. McManus spoke to a 7 : 00 a.m. bus schedule now. Mr . Smith spoke again to the timing of buses . Mr. McLaughlin talked about transfer delays . Councilman Lord spoke to scheduling buses from downtown later than 5 :30 p.m. and also about questionnaires to non-riders in the downtown area. Mr. Jim Lee, Traffic and Transportation Director , spoke to indicated inter- est but no follow-through of those questioned. Ida Sartim asked about bus service to Lamar University. Mr. Bibby spoke to low ridership possibly due to friendly people stopping and offering rides to those waiting.'f°or buses. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. -000- Resolution 80-318 authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the South East Texas Regional Planning Commission concerning Economic Development Planning Assistance Funds (grant - $13 , 631 ) was approved on a motion made by Councilman Lord and seconded by Councilman Combs. Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -172- September 9, 1980 Resolution 80-319 authorizing execution of a contract with the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 491 , for an amendment increasing wages, was approved on a motion made by Councilman Turner and seconded by Council- man Lord . Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Ordinance No. 80-88 establishing a Clean Community Commission was consid- ered : ORDINANCE NO. 80-88 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE CREATING A CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PRO- VIDING FOR REPEAL. The ordinance was approved on a motion made by Mayor Meyers and seconded by Councilman Lord . Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 80-320 relating to the presentation of a concern by Tom Jones was approved on a motion made by Councilman Lord and seconded by Council- man Combs. (Southwest Concerts - performance November 18th) Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Ordinance No. 80-89 letting a contract for renovations to the Municipal Auditorium and adoption of a budget for the Public Buildings and Land Fund was considered : ORDINANCE NO. 80-89 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AP- PROPRIATION OF FOUR MILLION DOLLARS IN THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND LAND FUND FOR RENOVA- TIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL AUDITORIUM; AUTHORI- ZING THE AWARD OF BID TO DANIELS BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR RENOVATIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL AUDITORIUM; APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO SAID CONTRACT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL. The ordinance was approved on a motion made by Councilman Lord and seconded by Councilman Turner. Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Ms. Crystal Darden Hilts, Lincoln Village, 2956 Lincoln Drive, Apartment 57 , addressed Council to complain about needed repairs for Lincoln Village. She complained about high grass and weeds, rats and broken windows . Mr. Patrick Phelan thanked Council for action taken today to establish the Clean Community Commission. -000- There being no further business, the City Council continued with the Work- shop Session. -000- I , Myrtle Corgey, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont , Texas, certify that the above is a true copy of the Minutes of the regular City Council session held September 9, 1980. Myrtle Corgey City Clerk -173- September 9, 1980