Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-15-15 PC Minutes * M I N U T E S * REGULAR MEETING JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers June 15, 2015 A Regular Meeting and Joint Public Hearings of the Planning Commission and City Council was held on June 15, 2015 and called to order at 3:24 p.m. with the following members present: Commission Members present: Chairman Sina Nejad Vice-Chairman Marty Craig Commissioner Lynda Kay Makin Commissioner Walter Kyles Commissioner Lauren Williams-Mason Commissioner Eddie Senigaur Commissioner Frank Messina Commissioner Bill Little Commissioner Shani Daigle Commission Members absent: Commissioner Ranson “Duce” Jones Commissioner Clint Walters Councilmembers present: Mayor Becky Ames Coucilperson-at-Large Gethrel Williams-Wright Councilperson-at-Large W.L. Pate Councilman Mike Getz Councilman Bill Sam Councilman Audwin Samuel Coucilman Claude F. Guidroz Councilmembers absent: None Also present: Chris Boone, Director of Planning and Community Development; Adina Ward, Planner II; Raymond Rowzee, Planner I; Fran Malvo, Recording Secretary; Tyrone Cooper, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Craig made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on May 18, 2015 and Commissioner Makin seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 9:0. REGULAR MEETING 1) File 856-OB: A request to abandon a 60’ x~660’ general utility easement Applicant: City of Beaumont Location: Former Jirou right-of-way in Babe Zaharias Park Mr. Boone presented the staff report. The City of Beaumont has requested the abandonment of the easement retained when a portion of Jirou Street was abandoned to create Babe Zaharias Park. The Fire Department is preparing to construct new facilities at this location and the easement will be in conflict with the development. The only utility affected will be CenterPoint Energy, who is currently working with Fitz and Shipman, Inc. to relocate the gas main. This item was sent to all interested parties. No negative responses were received. The Planning staff recommended approval. Chairman Nejad stated no public comments were required. Chairman Nejad asked for any comments or questions for Mr. Boone. No comments were made. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Senigaur made a motion to approve File 856-OB request to abandon a 60’x~660’general utility easement. Commissioner Daigle seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 9:0. JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) File 2227-P: A request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a retail, used clothing and merchandise store in an RCR (Residential Conservation Revitalization) District. Applicant: Mark Whiteley & Associates, Inc. Location: 1795 Park Street Mr. Boone presented the staff report. In May, 2015, City council approved a Specific Use Permit at 1795 Park for a used clothing and merchandise store. Following this approval, staff received a written protest from a neighbor, claiming that she was not provided proper notification of the Joint Public Hearing on April 20, 2015. After researching Planning records, it was noted that the adjacent property owner of the subject property (1795 Park), the post office box was changed to a physical address in July 2014, and the Planning Department’s records did not reflect the change. For public hearing notification, the ordinance requires that in addition to publication in a newspaper, written notice is to be given "...to all such owners who have rendered their said property for city taxes as the ownership appears on the last approved city tax roll." June 9, 2015, City Council voted to repeal ordinance 15-010, and rehear the case. In conjunction with the protest, some of the neighbors requested that the following conditions be imposed on the approval: 1. Off street parking for the business and the 4 apartments. This house was converted to 4 apartments years ago - and is still leased as such - 2 up front and 2 in the back. 2. Fire sprinkler system installed inside. 3. The entrance to face Irma Street. 4. A suitable historical colored paint. 5. Proper signage instead of it hand painted on the walls. 6. No parking signs up front on Park Street to prevent the already people parking on the street to go in and shop. 7. Proper landscaping around the parking lot area. The applicant has applied for a specific use permit to allow a retail clothing store in an RCR (Residential Conservation and Revitalization) District. The property is located at 1795 Park. The property received a Specific Use Permit (File 2032-P), in April of 2010 for a retail clothing store, however, the property was not used as a retail clothing store for at least one complete year and therefore must reapply. The previous owner stated that the property had been used as a resale shop by his father since 1934. The clothing store will be in an existing 1,120 sq. ft. building. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the landscape buffer and screening requirements along the North and East property lines. This property is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Conservation/Revitalization Area, which is described as “…experiencing influences such as…dilapidated and derelict structures…a decline in population and in the number of housing units and businesses..\[and that\] …immediate actions are needed to prevent continued deterioration and to reverse and repair those conditions”. Although some investments and improvements have been made in this area, This Comprehensive Plan category continues to be valid given the numerous vacant properties in this area as well as the trend of property values which showed either modest increase in values or flat or declining values in the past ten years. As an action to attempt to revitalize this area, this property is zoned as RCR-Residential Conservation Revitalization zoning, which calls for a “mixture of residential and commercial uses…that will stimulate the normal, orderly development and improvement of the area…”. It should also be noted that the structure in question has historically been a commercial structure and would be very difficult to utilize as a residential structure. Please note that final occupancy approval is subject to review and acceptance of submitted plans and field inspections to verify compliance with applicable codes. Slides were shown. Nineteen (19) notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. There were no responses in favor and four (4) responses in opposition were returned. Planning staff recommended approval. The Planning staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide nine (9) parking spaces including one (1) disabled parking space. 2. Provide a six (6) foot wide landscape strip along the Irma St. frontage of the parking lot. Chairman Nejad opened the public hearing and asked for applicant’s comments. The applicant, Miller J. Shield of 8095 Torrey Pines Circle, Beaumont, Texas 77707, addressed the Commission. Mr. Shield questioned the Commission regarding his approval of the SUP and having to address the Commission once again. Chairman Nejad explained to Mr. Shield that a citizen was not properly notified and therefore, the citizen was not given the opportunity to agree or oppose. Chairman Nejad asked for comments in favor of or in opposition. Dale Carter of 1814 Park Street. Mr. Carter stated that he had just recently purchased the historic Hinchey House which is at 1814 Park Street. Mr. Carter stated that he never received notification regarding the subject property (1795 Park Street). Mr. Boone stated that Mr. Carter submitted his response letter moments before the meeting started and out of the 4 responses received, Mr. Carter was one of them. Jesse Gomez at 495 Craig Street addressed the Commission. Mr. Gomez stated that he was not the property owner but that he has occupied the property for fifteen (15) years. Mr. Gomez stated that bikes and furniture are on display in front of the business and a sign that reads “Flea Market”. Mr. Gomez also stated that he would like the entrance to the business to face Irma Street, due to the numerous wrecks that have occurred. Mr. Gomez stated that drug dealers and prostitutes occupied the apartment complex and that the tenants of the apartment complex occupied five parking spaces which are intended for the patrons of the business. Mr. Gomez expressed concerns about the patrons not having anywhere to park in addition to the colors of the building. He felt that the lips and signs that are painted on the outside of the building is very tacky. Mr. Gomez stated that he has to deal with drunken tenants, registered sex offenders, cussing and fighting amongst each other. Mr. Shield readdressed the Commission. He stated that his wife chose the colors blue and brown for the building to represent heaven and earth because their son was murdered in November. Chairman Nejad closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mason inquired was there any room for on-street parking. Mr. Boone stated that the parking is based on the ratio of the square footage of the proposed use. Commissioner Craig questioned Mr. Boone about where did the tenants park before. Mr. Boone stated that the Traffic Division deemed it a violation that the business and apartment complex shared parking. Consequently, they are requesting seven parking spaces for the business and two additional spaces the residence of the apartment complex. Commissioner Makin made a motion to approve File 2227-P request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a retail, used clothing and merchandise store in an RCR (Residential Conservation Revitalization) District with the following conditions: 1. Provide nine (9) parking spaces including one (1) disabled parking space. 2. Provide a six (6) foot wide landscape strip along the Irma St. frontage of the parking lot. Commissioner Craig seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 9:0. 2) File 2232-P: A request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a home daycare in an R-S (Residential-Single Family) District. Applicant: Debra Kay Griffin Location: 3590 Bennett Road Debra Kay Griffin, owner of Lil Debs Daycare, is requesting a specific use permit to allow for a day care facility in her home. The property is in an R-S (Residential – Single Family Dwelling) District, which allows this kind of use with a specific use permit application. The property is located at 3590 Bennett Road. The facility will be located in a somewhat rural, residential area. The facility will be in operation from 6 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday and have a maximum of 6 children enrolled. Traffic is not anticipated to be a problem as this is not a highly populated area, the Griffin's have ample driveway, and they have limited the number of children. Utilities and drainage will not need to be altered. Parking will be provided on the existing driveway; however, it is not anticipated that this use will require any additional parking. The property owner has requested a waiver for the fencing requirement due to the rural nature of the area. Property lines to the east, north and west are all heavily wooded. Please note that final occupancy approval is subject to review and acceptance of submitted plans and field inspections to verify compliance with applicable codes. Slides were shown. Sixteen (16) notices were mailed within 200’ of the subject property. No responses in favor of or in opposition were received. Planning staff recommended approval with the following condition: 1. ADA parking space must be paved, striped, and designated with signage. 2. Approval of the waiver for the fencing requirement. Chairman Nejad opened the public hearing and asked for applicant’s comments. Commissioner Mason inquired about the fencing for the home daycares and the City Ordinance. Mr. Boone stated that since this business is a state licensed facility they may require a certain type of fencing for play areas. Chairman Nejad asked for comments in favor of or in opposition. No comments were made. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Daigle made a motion to approve File 2232-P request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a home daycare in an R-S (Residential-Single Family) District with the following conditions: 1. ADA parking space must be paved, striped, and designated with signage. 2. Approval of the waiver for the fencing requirement. Commissioner Mason seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 9:0. 3) File 2233-P: A request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a law office in an RM-H (Residential Multiple Family Dwelling- Highest Density) District. Applicant: Audwin M. Samuel Location: 2226 Hazel Avenue The applicant would like to use the property at 2226 Hazel Avenue, to house his law firm. The office is to house two licensed lawyers and one assistant. Office hours would be from 8:00am - 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Normal business would involve no more than two scheduled clients visiting the office for consultation at the same time. In reviewing the application, while it might appear initially, that a professional office in a block containing multiple apartment complexes and bordered by blocks containing a professional offices might be acceptable. However, as part of the review Mr. Boone stated he took an in- depth look at the application. Part of the review primarily, is in considering this being the first business located within the block. Mr. Boone stated he took a very close look at the eight conditions of approval. This is what the zoning ordinance requires when considering a Specific Use Permit. Although this is the last on the list of eight, the first one considered was condition number eight which is what is this area designated as in the Comprehensive plan. Slides were shown. In the analysis of the Purpose as well as these three Conditions, it is important to first consider the Comprehensive Plan and what it calls for in this area of the Oaks District. In the Plan, this area is designated as a Stable Area—an area considered “free from blighted influences such as incompatible land uses…vacant parcels which may exist are good to excellent development sites”. As such, extra care should be given in allowing varying land uses. Next to consider are two additional conditions specifically in the list of the eight conditions which are: (1) That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; (2) That the establishment of the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property; In analyzing the question, Mr. Boone stated they went back and looked at the history. The th Comprehensive Plan determined that the area was stable on that side of 4 Street. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003. To answer this, it is important to also consider the 2007 Oaks District Rezoning Study. This study sought to analyze which areas of the Oaks District had sufficiently stabilized to warrant rezoning to then further limit commercial and multi-family encroachment. The purpose was also meant to better align the zoning of the neighborhood with what was called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Several blocks were rezoned from RM-H (Residential Multi-Family-Highest Density) which is Commercial with a Specific Use Permit to R-S (Residential-Single-Family). Several blocks were changed from RCR (Residential Conservation and Revitalization) to R-S (Residential-Single- Family). Residential Conservation and Revitalization (RCR) which allows professional offices, light retail and residential. The purpose of this type of zoning to be allowed is if there was a declining residential neighborhood and you are trying to stabilize it, many cities do this; they allow and encourage professional offices because they would bring in life and an investment into what may have once been a single family area. As part of that study, it was reviewed that allowing that type of zoning worked in certain areas and as a result the zoning was changed in certain areas to eliminate that. In addition, all the RCR (Residential Conservation and Revitalization) that remained to was changed to RCR-H (Residential Conservation and Revitalization-Historic) and that further limited retail uses and office uses in the Historic District. However, it would still allow certain uses. The question remains would the Specific Use Permit be the most appropriate for this block which is completely residential? In order to answer this, we should look to such factors as rate of vacancies in the immediate area, red-tagged structures, as a good indication on whether or not it was stable or maybe still in need of some varying land use adjustment. Slides were shown regarding SUP’s over the years. Primarily the SUP’s are on Broadway, Liberty, McFaddin and North. The single family areas off of Calder over the years became more distressed, they were in need of investments from commercial uses to try and stabilize the neighborhood. An SUP was approved for a barber shop on the south side of Hazel, which is right across the street from the th subject property, but this was in 1992. There is also one located at the corner of Harrison and 6 streets, which also dates back to the 1990’s.While there are some SUP's in the area, they are either no longer in existence or they have been in place for many, many years. With regard to trends in property values and stability, our research showed that of the seventeen thth (17) structures in this block of Hazel (excluding those along 7 and 6), sixteen (16) showed significant increases in value (as appraised by the Jefferson County Appraisal District)- significant evidence of stabilization. In 2003, the value of these seventeen (17) properties was $931,490, in 2007 the value was $1,292,640, and in 2014, the total value was $1,424,830. Not only did all but one of the structures increase in value, the increase in value from 2003 to 2014 was greater than fifty percent (50%). This rate compares to an increase rate of only 12.4% in another more traditionally stable part of Old Town, 20% in an area on the south side of Calder Avenue in Old Town, as well as an increase in value of 13% at a randomly selected, but similar RM-H property in another part of the city (Please see attached chart for property value data). Another indication of stability. Finally, it is important to consider whether or not the use itself is compatible with the non- residential nature of the business itself. This would include the daytime-only occupancy as well as the traffic associated with employees and clients. While it could be argued that the impact of the use would be somewhat limited compared to other commercial uses i.e. restaurants or retail and might be appropriate in areas of the Oaks District that continue to struggle, it can also be argued that this type of use is substantially different than that of residential uses and would be considered incompatible. In summary, cities with declining historic neighborhoods often turn to light commercial uses— especially professional offices to help stabilize an area. While it can be argued that certain blocks in the Oaks District continue to struggle to stabilize and may continue to need a variety of uses, their RCR-H zoning specifically calls for this and allows it if granted an SUP. This particular block of Hazel, while maintaining its RM-H zoning due to the prevalence of multi- family structures and uses, has stabilized in the eight (8) years since the last zoning study and is designated as a Stable Area in the Comprehensive Plan. As such, adding this new office in this established residential block would not be compatible and would be considered injurious to adjacent properties and would impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant and improved properties. Slides were shown. The action taken then as part of the study was to rezone some areas to (including the area across the street from this site), create a new type of zoning district, known as to further restrict commercial encroachment, and change the zoning of several blocks of zoning. It should be noted that while the south side of this block of Hazel was rezoned to R-S (Residential-Single- Family) zoning, the north side of this block remained RM-H. This and other areas were not changed, not necessarily due to a desire to allow and encourage commercial uses, through an SUP approval, but due to the prevalence of multi-family structures that would be very difficult or impossible to revert back to single-family residences. 30 notification notices were mailed to property owners within 200’ of the subject property. Five (5) in favor and five (5) in opposition were returned. Chairman Nejad opened the public hearing and asked for comments or questions for Mr. Boone. Commissioner Daigle questioned regarding the letters of opposition received, how many letters were mailed to individuals that lived within 200 feet of the property. Mr. Boone stated that to make sure that the count was precise, he will complete a tally on Tuesday. Mr. Boone stated preliminarily the indication is that within the 200 feet notification area, the Planning staff received three (3) in opposition, including the subject property, 4 (four) in favor of. Commissioner Daigle questioned were any of the notifications that were mailed back in opposition from owners that no longer live in the residence. Mr. Boone was uncertain. He stated he will revisit the file. Commissioner Daigle also questioned were there any businesses within the block that operate a business that currently don’t have a Specific Use Permit. Mr. Boone stated that the Planning Department did receive inquiries about the law office on the southwest th corner of 6 and Harrison which is in the block of the subject property but it is also on the corner. The Planning Department’s record show that File 1268-P received an SUP in the late 1990’s for legal records storage in conjunction with the law firm that occupies the northeast th corner of Harrison and 6 and there is no SUP on record for the southwest corner of 6th and Harrision. However, records indicate that they may have been a doctor’s office or some other professional office prior to 1981 and as such, there would not be an SUP required. th Commissioner Daigle questioned the other law office located at the corner of North and 6 street. Mr. Boone stated that there is a list that contains approximately 30 offices but that it th would appear that there is an SUP for a law office on the southwest corner of 6 and North. Commissioner Daigle questioned how many vacant lots and red-tagged properties were in the th area. Mr. Boone replied, according to the map, there’s one in the block of North and 5 and the stth others are two on 1 street along the railroad track. The closest one is on North and 5. Commissioner Daigle questioned is there a vacant home located behind the subject property. Mr. Boone replied yes. Commissioner Daigle questioned about the two-story blue house next door to the subject property being red-tagged. Mr. Boone replied he didn’t believe it was red-tagged and to his knowledge it had a permit. The applicant, Audwin Samuel at 3715 Bowen Drive and Sean-Villery Samuel, his son and partner approached the podium to present the application. Mr. Samuel declined to comment due to his position on City Council. Sean-Villery Samuel at 520 Cathedral Square spoke on Mr. Samuel’s behalf. Mr. Samuel and son, Sean-Villery Samuel stated that he and his father created the law firm Samuel and Son law firm located at 1965 Park Street. Mr. Samuel stated that on April 30, 2015 they received notice that the owner of the building decided to lease the entire building to a new tenant and their lease had expired so they were given 30 days to move. Audwin Samuel starting seeking new locations and he found the subject property, 2226 Hazel. Of the various reasons Mr. Samuel admired the subject property; one reason in particular is the location. It was also discussed with the owner of the property that they could purchase the property after leasing for a year. The Samuels then entered into an agreement with the owner of 2226 Hazel for a one year lease with the option to purchase the property at the end of the lease term. During that time, they started to gradually move into the subject property in addition to conducting business at the Park Street location. Once the Samuels had completely moved into the subject property, members of the community witnessed them moving into the subject property and they later learned that there was some opposition with the Samuels moving in. It was alleged, from members of the community, that the Samuels were operating their business at the subject property, so they decided to cease operations and relocated the Office Manager and secretary elsewhere and the Samuels met their clients elsewhere. Sean Samuel stated that no one was currently operating in that particular location. Sean Samuel stated that after viewing the staff report, it was a couple of things that he wished to express his concerns. The staff report reflected the area is designated as a Stable Area—an area considered “free from blighted influences such as incompatible land uses…vacant parcels which may exist are good to excellent development sites”. Mr. Samuel indicated that these finding were based on a report dated back to 2003. Mr. Samuel states that the information gathered for the report dated in 2003 was based off of the statistics from the Polk Directory in 2002. Samuel stated that the Polk Directory is similar to a telephone directory however, not only do they have it listed with your phone number, but you can also locate particular streets, block by block, what type of residence i.e. commercial or residential (homeowner or renter). Samuel stated that the Comprehensive Plan is based off of the same information. Samuel stated that the subject property is listed as RM-H (Residential Multi-Family-Highest Density) and the surrounding areas are R-S (Residential-Single-Family). He further stated that in 2007, there was consideration on whether or not the vicinity around the subject property would be deemed R-S (Residential- Single-Family) and they chose not to. Mr. Samuel stated because the subject property is considered RM-H and according to the City Ordinance, they are within the guidelines to apply for a Specific Use Permit. Mr. Samuel addressed the questions from the staff report regarding whether is important to consider whether now, some eight years after the rezoning study, is this block still in need of commercial investment and mixed uses or whether, in 2015, this block continues to be stable or improving and still in need of being free from incompatible land uses. Mr. Samuel stated that in considering the land uses, the staff report reflected three different criteria that was used: 1)vacancies; 2) the number of SUP’s applied for; and 3) property values. Mr. Samuel stated that there were almost no vacancies that existed in the vicinity of the subject property. He stated if you take a visit down Hazel and Harrison there are numerous vacant homes and lots. Mr. Samuel questioned how often is the Comprehensive Plan report performed and he stated he was told every 10 years. He also asked the question has another study been performed to verify whether or not the neighborhood is still stable or not. He replied the answer was no. Mr. Samuel stated, if the neighborhood was considered stable in 2003, but in reviewing it today 2015, would it still be reflected as stable or unstable as of today. Mr. Samuel stated he was told that it would still be considered as stable in spite of what the new studies would show. Samuel stated according to the thth Polk study, at the time on Hazel between 6 and 7 street, there were three homes that were occupied by owners, there were 15 homes that were occupied by renters and two that were unverified which meant that it could not be determined whether or not it was owner occupied, a thth business or a renter. He also stated that on Harrison between 6 and 7, there were four homes occupied by owners, six occupied by renters and nine unverified. In comparison to those numbers, the occupancy rate and the vacancies, in 2003 which considered the area stable, in thth 2015, there are four homes between 5 and 6 street that were once occupied that are now thth vacant. 2215, 2249, 2255 and 2266 and if you go into the block between 5 and 6 street there is a another home 2106 Hazel which appears to be unoccupied as well. On Harrison, Samuel stated, there are three homes that are now unoccupied, which are 2226, 2225 and 2255 in addition, there are also three vacant lots which are 2250, 2260 and 2245. 2250 was occupied in 2003, however, thth it is not currently being occupied in 2015. If you’re on Hazel going into the 6 and 5 street, and th you make the left on 5 street, there is another home that is vacant. There are literally two homes that are next door to one another that are vacant. To say that in the immediate vicinity that there aren’t any vacant homes, he’s hard pressed to believe that. Pictures were taken of the neighborhood via the google map dated from 2011 and pictures for comparison were also taken on Friday, June 12, 2015. Looking at the ordinance, words that are not defined, you are to use their normal definition. Commercial means anything that deals with commerce i.e. rental property, even though its residential in nature, it does have a commercial aspect as well as duplexes. For this SUP application, other than this application, no applications for new commercial uses, via the SUP process, have been recently submitted within this block. Samuel stated that it is a very arbitrary and useless method. While property value and vacancies are indicative of the efforts their property owners put into enhancing the value of their property, it is safe to say that property owners do not necessarily recruit businesses. That is something they have no control over whether or not business owner submits an SUP to that particular area. Other measures that should be used is how many other homebuilders have submitted request to build on a vacant lot, how many homeowners have submitted request to buy the vacant properties and how many renters have submitted request to rent the properties. However, that is not part of the criteria and therefore it is just as arbitrary. With regard to trends in property values and stability, our research showed that of the seventeen thth (17) structures in this block of Hazel (excluding those along 7 and 6), sixteen (16) showed significant increases in value (as appraised by the Jefferson County Appraisal District)- significant evidence of stabilization. Samuel stated that the property value has increased because of the investments of everyone that has homes in the community. It is not due to the absence of business. Two of the highest valued property in the area are two different law firms. On thth Harrison, from 7 street to 5 street, the law office at 2145 is the highest valued property. However, the law firm that is a block away is valued even higher than that. On wanting to get a better understanding on property values, Samuels stated he went to the Jefferson County Appraisal District and he spoke with the appraisers, he knew that there was a concern for the individuals that live in the area. Samuels stated when he asked the appraisers about the subject at hand, they stated that there are two different values that are given, 1) A certain value is given for the structure itself being it residential or not; and 2) Another value is given for the business. One would think that the value of the properties would increase just simply by the business being there. However, Samuels did ask the appraisers would it matter if a law office being a civil, criminal, family or what have you, make a difference in the value of the structure of the property. Samuel replied he was told no. To say that the property value would diminish by Samuels moving their practice into the area is without any substance or record. Samuels stated that he will not reference the conditions that were met, however he will touch on the conditions that were allegedly not met. They are significant enough to note that once they found a location, to do due diligence, Audwin Samuel had the code inspector to come and inspect the property and make sure the home was up to code. The inspector explained what needed to be done and Sean stated that his father did it. Sean stated that Zoning was contacted and asked preliminary does it appear that they meet the 8 conditions. Sean stated that preliminary, it appeared that all 8 were met. Until Friday, June 12, 2015 approximately 10 o’clock or so it was learned that they were absent of five conditions. In regards to the conditions that were not met, to the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; Due to the increasing stability of this area and the lack of other commercial uses in this immediate area and designation as “Stable” in the Comprehensive Plan, allowing professional offices would be considered injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property and could significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Samuel stated what proof of data does the Zoning department have to show that it would be injurious. He also questioned what data do you have to show that their business being there would decrease the value of the other properties. The statement in that report is speculative at best. Samuel stated that the information that he shared with the Commissioners from the Appraisal District is contradictory to those assumptions. Due to the increasing stability of this area and the lack of other commercial uses in this immediate area, the establishment of the specific use will impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property. Samuel questioned how long the homes have been vacant. How long have the lots been vacant prior to them asking for the SUP. How do you know that by the Samuels bringing the business into the area will not improve or give better opportunities. Why and how do you believe that a business being put there would prevent other businesses or homeowners from coming onto the vacant property as compared to apartments. Samuel stated that the particular zoned had been left the way it was because of the numerous apartment complexes and duplexes in the area. A number of the homes are vacant. Many homeowners have not moved into the homes to buy them but to rent them. Samuel stated that he did not feel that the individuals are not moving into the homes because there are businesses moving in but because they made the decision not to move in because of the many apartments. Samuel stated, as previously stated in order to stabilize the community one of the best ways is to bring in a businesses such as the law firm. The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; The applicant proposes to expand parking in the rear yard to add 3 parking spaces, including an ADA compliant parking space. Samuel questioned the conditions not being met regarding the parking. Samuel expressed that it was not feasible to add the parking spaces prior to obtaining the SUP due to spending additional money and that it would have been perceived that they were operating a business. Samuel stated they received a quote regarding the three parking spaces. They also contacted the owner of the apartment complexes and inquired about renting parking spaces from them. Samuel stated they are making all attempts to make sure the changes are sufficient. That there are sufficient landscaping and screening to insure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property; applicant is requesting a waiver to the buffer requirement as existing buildings, driveway and proposed parking encroach into the required ten (10) feet. Applicant wishes to keep existing fencing in an attempt to maintain the residential nature of the property as much as possible. Samuel stated this is something they were not made aware of until Friday, June 12, 2015.There was no way possible to attempt to come in compliant. There is an 8 foot fence surrounding the property. The homeowner did that in consideration of the surrounding properties. Samuel stated that he would think that is what one would want for a business so that you would not be blight to the community. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this block as a Stable Area. Samuel suggested that if a new evaluation is performed he felt that the area would show as Unstable. Samuel wanted to address concerns from the community regarding them moving their business in the area. Samuel stated the property with the SUP could be used for any purpose afterwards. Samuel disagreed and replied that the Ordinance 28.04.001(g) specifically states when an SUP can be carried over: 1) If the SUP is not used within 2 years it will die; or 2) It has to be in substantial compliance with the prior existing SUP. Samuel stated the legal terminology for this is if the SUP is substantially different from the first SUP you will not be able to use the same one. Samuel quoted the statute, a) a change in the intensity shall include but not limited to; meaning the Council or anyone else has more discretion to use in whether or not the intensity of the use is enhanced but continues b) External structure alteration for enlargement of the building; c) an increase in the required number of parking spaces; d) an increase in the hours of operation; or e) an increase in offensive noise, vibration or smoke, dust, food, glare, odors etc. Samuel stated that the homeowner put a lot of work and effort into the home and stated that he only rented to individuals on a month by month basis. Samuel stated they have plans to use their own funds to further develop the home. Samuel stated that there a several prominent lawyers that have an office in the Old Town Historic District. There are numerous home businesses being operated out of the homes on Hazel. There are over 20 law firms in the Oaks Historic District with seven of the businesses operating without SUPs. Two of the law firms are a block away from the subject property. Commissioner Makin clarified that she purchased the office personally in 1996. It had been a commercial property since 1981. The Makin’s were grandfathered in when the new addition of the Oaks Historic District came into play and they were not required to have an SUP. Chairman Nejad asked for comments in favor of or in opposition. David Bradley at 2165 North stated that the crime rate was high years ago. Robert Dickenson 2300 Block of North. Mr Dickenson stated that he felt they need businesses coming into the residential area to change the tenure. Mr. Dickenson spoke in opposition. Norris Turner at 2454 Roman Street is the homeowner of the subject property at 2226 Hazel street. Mr. Turner stated the property was inhabitable when he purchased the property and spoke in favor of. Roxanne Bramble addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of. Negeiko Muhammed at 2215 Hazel addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of. Keith Broussard at 1145 Sheldon Road, Channelview, Texas addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of. John Martin Busceme at 5680 N. Circuit addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of. Patricia Hudwin at 2106 Hazel addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition. Nancy Cook at 2395 Long Street addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition. Viginia Jordan at 2145 Hazel addressed the Commission. Ms. Jordan is the President of the Home Owners Association for the Old Town Historic District spoke in opposition. Dale Hallmark at 2223 North Street addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition. Jane Fontenot at 7625 Washington Blvd. addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition. Carolyn Fernandez at 2140 Hazel addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition. Judge Paul Brown at 4370 Cartwright addressed the Commission and spoke in favor. LaDonna Sherwood at 3110 Cartwright addressed the Commission and spoke in favor. Paula Blazek at 2534 Long addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition. Reginald Richmond at 8820 Anna Lane, addressed the Commission and spoke in favor. Gretchen Harwin at 2301 Long, addressed the Comission and spoke in favor. LaShon Proctor at 4680 Jancar Drive addressed the Commission and spoke in favor. Ronnie Turner at 7832 Bythewood addressed the Commission and spoke in favor. Paul Jones at 10033 Brooks Road addressed the Commission and spoke in favor Chairman Nejad closed the public hearing. Sean-Villery Samuel readdressed the Commission. Commissioner Kyles addressed the Commission. Commissioner Kyles made a motion to approve File 2233-P request for a Specific Use permit to allow a law office in an RM-H (Residential Multiple Family Dwelling-Highest Density) District. Commissioner Daigle seconded the motion. Motion was denied 4:5. Attorney Tyrone Cooper addressed the Commission and told them that since the motion to approve was denied, they needed to make another motion to deny. Commissioner Mason made a motion to approve File 2233-P request for a Specific User permit to allow a law office in an RM-H (Residential Multiple Family Dwelling-Highest Density) District. Commissioner Messina seconded the motion. Motion to deny carried 5:4. Sean Samuel addressed the Attorney Cooper regarding the commissioners that live in the Oaks Historic District being recused from the meeting due to a conflict of interest for being residence of the Oaks Historic District. Chairman Nejad replied that during the workshop held before the meeting, it was already discussed and decided upon that it would not be a conflict of interest for the commissioners to vote. Chairman Nejad also stated that Commissioner Daigle was appointed by Audwin Samuel and she was present to present her vote. 4) File 2234-P: Request for a Specific Use Permit to allow an automotive repair shop in an NC (Neighborhood Commercial) District. Applicant: Sheila Spikes Location: 3135 Park St. Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Shelia Spikes is requesting a specific use permit to allow for a mechanic shop at 3135 Park Street. The property is zoned NC (Neighborhood Commercial). Ms. Spikes states that this property was used as a mechanic's shop several years ago. Since it has been several years, and the most recent use of the property was a restaurant, a specific use permit is required. A waiver to the landscaping and screening requirements is requested. As the property has been commercial in nature for many years, the buildings and parking situation are existing. The building abuts the property line and existing fencing appears to be sufficient. Please note that final occupancy approval is subject to review and acceptance of submitted plans and field inspections to verify compliance with applicable codes. Slides were shown. Twenty-eight (28) notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. There were no responses in favor and none in opposition were returned. Planning staff recommended approval upon the condition: 1. The driveway from Euclid should be narrowed to allow placement of 6 parking spaces. Parking area must be cleared, repaired and striped as per plan. Chairman Nejad opened the public hearing and asked for applicant’s comments. The applicant, Shelia Spike was present and declined to comment. Chairman Nejad asked for comments in favor or in opposition. No comments were made. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kyles made a motion to approve File 2234-P request for a Specific Use Permit to allow an automotive repair shop in an NC (Neighborhood Commercial) District with the following condition: 1. The driveway from Euclid should be narrowed to allow placement of 6 parking spaces. Parking area must be cleared, repaired and striped as per plan. Commissioner Mason seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 9:0. OTHER BUSINESS None. THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:53 P.M.