Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-14 PC Minutes * M I N U T E S * REGULAR MEETING JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers December 15, 2014 A Regular Meeting and Joint Public Hearings of the Planning Commission and City Council was held on December 15, 2014 and called to order at 3:20 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 Frank Messina Commissioner Bill Little Commission Members absent: Commissioner Ransom “Duce” Jones Commissioner Eddie Senigaur Commissioner Clint Walters Councilmembers present: Mayor Becky Ames Councilman Mike Getz Councilman Audwin Samuel Councilman-at-Large W.L. Pate Councilperson-at-Large Gethrel Williams-Wright Councilmembers absent: Mayor Pro-Tem Alan Coleman Councilman Jamie Smith Also present: Chris Boone, Director of Planning and Community Development; Adina Ward, Planner II; Fran Malvo, Recording Secretary; Tyrone Cooper, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairman Craig made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on November 17, 2014. Commissioner Makin seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 7:0. JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) File 2221-ZP: Request for a zone change from R-S (Residential Single Family Dwelling) to C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing) District or a more restrictive zoning district with a specific use permit to allow sandblasting and coating. Location: 7625 Washington Boulevard Applicant: Robert Fontenot Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Mr. Fontenot submitted a request for a rezoning and specific use permit on December 30, 2013. On October 7, 2014, City Council denied the request, but indicated they would consider an application with a request for a rezoning of a reduced area. The Fontenot’s own approximately forty (40) acres at 7625 Washington Blvd., their original request was for ±21.51 acres, enclosed is a request for 2.88 acres. The Fontenot’s purchased this property approximately fifteen (15) years ago and immediately opened for business. Staff has no record of permits pulled for this business. The property includes a barn, used for their sandblasting business, which is located in an area previously used for oil and gas drilling. Mr. Fontenot contends that this oil and gas drilling operation created a “dead zone” where vegetation no longer grows, making the land unsuitable for agricultural purposes. The proposed use employs two or three employees and operates from 8 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. Sand blasting is considered similar to other metal working uses for the purposes of zoning. While it is being argued that the rezoning of a smaller area would possibly reduce the negative effects from the sandblasting on the neighboring residential properties, the reduction in the area to be rezoned fits the definition of "spot zoning" to an even greater extent. Texas Municipal Law defines "Spot Zoning" as, "A piecemeal zoning amendment that arbitrarily singles out a small tract for special treatment . . . Lots that are rezoned in a way that is substantially inconsistent with the zoning of the surrounding area, whether more or less restrictive, are likely to be invalid according to the Texas Supreme Court case, City of Pharr v. Tippitt¹." Furthermore: 1. The request is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The subject property is designated as a neighborhood growth unit by the comprehensive plan. 2. The request is not consistent with the zoning or land use of the surrounding area; existing uses in the area are primarily residential in accordance with the Residential Single Family Dwelling (RS) zoning designation. A sandblasting business is not allowable in this type zone. The zoning pattern in the immediate vicinity is predominantly RS as designated. In addition the surrounding land use is residential to the north, Crescent on Walden is located to the southeast and land to the west and northwest have been developed residentially. ¹616 s. w.2d 173 (Tex. 1981), rev'g 600 S.W.2d 951 (Tex. Civ. App. Corpus Christi 1980). 3. The suitability or nonsuitability of the subject tract for use as presently zoned is a factor. The size, shape, and location of the property as it exists allows for its continued use and further development for residential purposes in compliance with the comprehensive plan and present zoning. 4. Rezoning would not serve a public purpose furthering public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Mr. Boone addressed the audience with these questions: 1. Is the proposed rezoning in accordance with the comprehensive plan and is there a change in the condition of the surrounding land use that would substantiate departure from the comprehensive plan? 2. Would commercial manufacturing zoning be appropriate for this area apart from the comprehensive plan? Seven notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. No responses were returned in favor or in opposition. Staff recommended denial of this request. Chairman Nejad opened the public hearing and asked for comments. Jane Fontenot, 7625 Washington Blvd., addressed the Commission. Mrs. Fontenot is the applicant. Mrs. Fontenot commented that it would be devastating to them and the families of the men that are employed to lose the income of the sandblasting business. Mrs. Fontenot’s plea to the Commission is that they let Mr. Fontenot remain in business until he retires. Stewart Yoes, 3535 Calder, is the attorney for the Fontenot’s. Mr. Yoes addressed the Commission about “Spot Zoning”. Mr. Yoes also stated that the burden of proof would lie on the individual that’s challenging the amendment regarding the zoning issue and not the City. The individual that proposed the amendment, it’s their burden of proof to propose that the ordinance bears no substantial relationship to the health or affairs of the community. Mr. Yoes also stated that if reasonable minds differ, then the City stands. The approved plan should be specific and not altered. The proposed zoning ordinance is not for the special benefit of the Fontenot’s it’s for the community as a whole. The adjoining landowners agree with the proposed land change which are The Scott’s and the Parigi’s. Mr. Yoes also stated that the City’s comprehensive plan is going on 13 years old and suggests that it should be revisisited. Mr. Yoes also states that the houses surrounding the property belong to the Fontenots. Mr. Yoes states that the land does not support the current zoning use. Chairman Nejad asked the audience if anyone would like to speak in favor of or opposition to Mr. Yoes’ comments. Commissioner Makin questioned Mr. Cooper about the repercussions for the City of Beaumont regarding spot zoning if it’s approved and considered. Mr. Cooper responded that spot zoning by law is an unlawful act and Mr. Cooper stated that if it were attacked that it would be overthrown out as an unlawful act if. Mr. Cooper stated that this situation is a clear definition of spot zoning which is the preferential treatment for a small tract of land that benefits only the land owner and there is no commercial manufacturing near this particular site. It would be an arbitrary act on the City of Beaumont’s part to change the zoning. Commissioner Mason asked for clarification from Mr. Cooper of a revocable zone change and if the Fontenot’s decided to sell the land. Mr. Cooper responded that zone changes are permanent and also stated that it would be unlawful to contract zone. With the specific use permit you can put conditions on it but you would need a zone change prior to receiving the specific use permit. Mayor Ames asked Mr. Cooper to clarify the comprehensive plan and the City’s failure to update it. Mr. Cooper stated that the applicant mentioned that the comprehensive plan is outdated because it is more than ten (10) years old, then indicated that whenever the Planning and Zoning meets, reviews and makes changes to the plan it is evolving and not a stagnant plan. Also, Mr. Cooper stated that for purposes of a taking,, it must first be determined whether the use is a lawful use as it exists prior to the Government coming in and impacting that use. Sandblasting is unlawful and illegal and is a zoning violation as it exists in the present location. Mr. Boone addressed Mr. Pate stating that drilling rigs are permitted just about anywhere in the City of Beaumont but not sandblasting. Councilwoman Wright comments and questions Mr. Cooper about the length of the time the sandblasting has been in operation which is approximately sixteen (16) years and questions that since the City has allowed it to operate for this length of time how does it affect the Law of “Suffering Permits.” Mr. Cooper could not provide an answer to this question. However, Mr. Cooper stated that the Statute of Limitations does not run against cities and because the City hasn’t enforced the issue of the ordinance or having a permit until now, does not mean that the City of Beaumont waives the right to do so. The structures that were built on the land were all built without building permits and inspections so the City is uncertain of what the safety aspects of the buildings would be. Granting the zone change would mean that the applicant would have to retrofit all of the buildings to comply with all City codes and that could become a financial burden to the Fontenot’s. Councilman Getz would like the clarification of retrofitting a building and would like to know the whereabouts of the commercial manufacturer. Mr. Boone states that it can’t be seen because it is not shown on the slides. The Commercial manufacturing actually starts at the other part of the Dowlen extension. Chairman Nejad asks if there are any other questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Williams-Mason moved to approve the denial of File 2221-ZP. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Motion approved 7:0. 2) File 2222-P: Request for a specific use permit to allow retail sales of beard grooming products in RCR-H (Residential Conservation Revitalization-Historic) District. Location: 2628 McFaddin Avenue Applicant: Ryan Olson Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Ryan Olson would like to conduct business as the Texas Beard Company at 2628 McFaddin Avenue. The property would be used as a storefront to market their own products, and products related to their brand. As a majority of their customers order online, packaging and shipping will be the primary activities at this location. Seven notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. No responses were returned in favor or in opposition. Vice-Chairman Craig motioned to approve request. Commissioner Williams-Mason seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. OTHER BUSINESS THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:10 P.M.