HomeMy WebLinkAbout2221-ZP
DATE: December 15, 2014
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Chris Boone, Director of Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Consider a request for a rezoning from R-S (Residential Single Family Dwelling)
to C-M (Commercial - Manufacturing) or a more restrictive zoning district with a
specific permit for a metal sand blasting and coating facility.
FILE: 2221 – Z/P
___
STAFF REPORT
Planning staff recommends denial of this request.
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 Fontenots
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 Fontenots 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 understandable 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.
2. The request is not consistent with the zoning or land use of the surrounding area,
existing uses in the area are primarily residential. While it is unfortunate that the
business is not allowable in this zone type, the zoning pattern is predominantly
RS. 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. Rezoning would not serve a public purpose furthering public health, safety,
morals or general welfare.
Please note that final occupancy approval is subject to review and acceptance of
submitted plans and field inspections to verify compliance with applicable codes.
Exhibits are attached.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notices mailed to property owners 7
Responses in Favor Responses in Opposition
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ORDINANCE PURPOSES
Being Plat SP-8, Tract 31-A, C. Williams Survey, Abstract 59, Beaumont, Jefferson County,
Texas, containing 2.88 acres, more or less.
ANALYSIS
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT
(SECTION 28-26.E, ZONING ORDINANCE)
Application Application
is in is not in Comments
compliance compliance Attached
Conditions:
1. That the specific use will be compatible with and not
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property,
or significantly diminish or impair property values
X X
within the immediate vicinity;
2. That the establishment of the specific use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and
X X
improvement of surrounding vacant property;
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and
other necessary supporting facilities have been or will
be provided; X
4. 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; X
5. That adequate nuisance prevention measures have
been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive
odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration; X
6. That directional lighting will be provided so as not
to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; X
7. That there are sufficient landscaping and screening to
insure harmony and compatibility with adjacent
property; and, X
8. That the proposed use is in accordance with the
X X
Comprehensive Plan.
GENERAL INFORMATION/PUBLIC UTILITIES
APPLICANT: Robert Dean Fontenot
PROPERTY OWNER: Jane J. Fontenot
LOCATION: 7625 Washington Boulevard
EXISTING ZONING: RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling)
PROPERTY SIZE: ~21.514 acres
EXISTING LAND USES: Residential
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: X – Area determined to be outside the 500
year flood plain
SURROUNDING LAND USES: SURROUNDING ZONING:
NORTH: Residential RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling)
District
EAST: Vacant RS
SOUTH: Vacant RS
WEST: Residential RS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Growth Unit
STREETS: Washington Blvd. – Collector street with
60’ wide right-of-way and 24’ pavement
width
Pevitot Road – Local street with 60’ wide
right-of-way and 20’ pavement width
Burbank Street – Local street with 60’ wide
right-of-way and 20’ pavement width
DRAINAGE: Open Ditch
WATER: 3” Water line
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE: 8” and 36”Sanitary sewer lines
PROPERTY OWNERS
FINDLEY SCOTT TROY
FONTENOT JANE J
JEANSONNE DORIS F
MARKS SPENCER A
MISTROT ROBERT C & SHARON R
WINDHAM JANN & LARRY N WINDHAM