Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-15-21 PC Minutes * M I N U T E S * JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers March 15, 2021 A Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Commission and City Council was held on March 15, 2021 and called to order at 3:00 p.m. with the following members present: Commission Members present: Chairman Sina Nejad Commissioner Johnny Beatty Commissioner Shawn Javed Commissioner Lynda Kay Makin Commissioner Tom Noyola Commissioner Taher Quraishi Commissioner Eddie Senigaur Alternate Commissioner Erika Harris Commission Members absent: Commissioner Bill Little Commissioner Roy Steinhagen Alternate Commissioner Marty Craig Alternate Commissioner Lauren Williams Mason Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro-Tem Randy Feldschau Councilmember Taylor Neild Councilmember Mike Getz Councilmember Audwin Samuel Councilmember Robin Mouton Also present: Chris Boone, Director of Planning and Community Development Adina Josey, Senior Planner Tyrone Cooper, City Attorney Catherine Allen, Recording Secretary 1 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Senigaur moved to approve the minutes of the Joint Public Hearings held on January 25, 2021. Commissioner Makin seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes carried 7:0. REGULAR MEETING 1) PZ2021-16: Request for Preliminary Plat approval of Highpoint Subdivision, Phase II, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. Applicant: Daniel Dotson, P.E. of Fittz & Shipman, Inc. Location: Extension of Highpoint Avenue Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Daniel Dotson, P.E. of Fittz & Shipman, Inc., has requested Preliminary Plat approval of Highpoint Subdivision, Phase II. This 6.869 Acre development was first approved in December of 2004. Phase One was filed for record in March of 2006. Since it has been more than two (2) years since the Preliminary Plat was approved, it is required to seek approval again. Phase II will extend Highpoint Avenue to the north and consists of 23 residential lots. Water and sewer will be provided by an extension of the city’s facilities. Waivers for the number of lots on a single access and for the length of cul-de-sac were not discussed when the plat was first approved. However, the Subdivision ordinance states, “A single outlet residential street shall serve no more than thirty-two dwelling units.” Mr. Dotson would like to request a waiver to allow 65 lots on a single outlet residential street. In addition, a waiver is being requested to the length of cul-de-sac. The ordinance states, “A cul- de-sac shall be no more than eight hundred (800) feet long . . .” Once Phase II is completed, the cul-de-sac will be approximately 1900’ in length. In review of the plat, one response requested that the address on Lot 36, Block 1, should be changed to 6698 Highpoint Avenue. Slides of the plat were shown. Staff recommended approval with the requested waivers and one condition: 1. Change the address of Lot 36, Block 1 to 6698 Highpoint Avenue. Chairman Nejad asked about the logic for recommending the waivers when they go against the City ordinances. Mr. Boone replied that the ordinances were written with a regular block pattern in mind and tend not to reflect modern subdivision arrangements. He added that it is not uncommon for staff to recommend waivers in these situations. Chairman Nejad stated that perhaps the ordinances need to updated and was concerned about the fairness of the use of waivers. Commissioner Beatty asked how often such waivers were recommended and Mr. Boone estimated the number to be about two (2) to three (3) a year. Further discussion occurred about the specifics of the waivers on this case and the possible update of City ordinances. 2 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 The applicant was present. Daniel Dotson, representing Fittz & Shipman, 1405 Cornerstone Court, addressed the Commission. He stated that Mr. Boone had presented the information about the project well and he was willing to answer any questions. He added that they were just moving forward with developing the same plat with new updates. Chairman Nejad asked the applicant if he was aware of the ordinances mentioned and Mr. Dotson confirmed that he was aware. Commissioner Senigaur inquired about there being only one way in and out of the subdivision. The applicant stated that there are geographic constraints to adding another entrance, including a Drainage District 6 ditch and adjacent property being owned by another owner. He also added that this will be a gated community, which will be compatible with having only one entrance and exit. Commissioner Noyola moved to approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of Highpoint Subdivision, Phase II, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas, as requested in file PZ2021-16, with the requested waivers and one condition: 1. Change the address of Lot 36, Block 1 to 6698 Highpoint Avenue. Commissioner Quraishi seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7:0. Chairman Nejad requested a future workshop on the ordinances and waivers discussed. 2) PZ2021-46: Request for Preliminary Plat approval of Doguet’s Diamond “D” Ranch, Phase 7, Jefferson County, Texas. Applicant: Donald R. King, P.E. of Fittz & Shipman, Inc. Location: West of Diamond D Drive, south of Michelle Lane Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Donald R. King, P.E., of Fittz & Shipman, Inc. has requested Preliminary Plat approval of Doguet’s Diamond D Ranch, Phase 7. The project is located south of U.S. Highway 90 on the west side of Diamond D Drive in the Planning Area of the City of Beaumont's E.T.J. The 31.24 acre development is a thirty-six (36) lot, single family, residential subdivision. All lots will have frontage on the proposed Hercules Drive which has a sixty (60) ft. R.O.W. and twenty-eight (28) ft. wide paved, curb and gutter street. Water will be provided by Meeker Water Supply Corporation and sewer will be individual septic systems. Since the subdivision lies within the Planning Area of the E.T.J., Jefferson County construction specifications shall apply. Slides of the plat were shown. Staff recommended approval of the request. The applicant was present. Don King, representing Fittz & Shipman, 1405 Cornerstone Court, addressed the Commission. He stated that this was another development from the Doguet’s Diamond D Ranch and is a continuation of the pattern already developed. He added that it will have cul-de-sacs with curb and gutter streets. 3 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 Chairman Nejad commented that this development has been very successful and the applicant agreed. Commissioner Senigaur asked if all of the lots are the same size. Mr. King responded that they are the same size except for the cul-de-sac lots, which are a bit larger. Finally, he stated that the subdivision is a rural ranch type of development. Discussion followed concerning the size of the lots and the water and septic systems. Commissioner Makin moved to approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of Doguet’s Diamond “D” Ranch, Phase 7, Jefferson County, Texas, as requested in file PZ2021-46. Commissioner Senigaur seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7:0. JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Pro-Tem Feldschau called the Joint Public Hearings of March 15, 2021 to order at 3:18 p.m. and explained the purpose of the Joint Public Hearing process. Mayor Pro-Tem Feldschau then turned the meeting over to Chairman Nejad to conduct the Joint Public Hearings. 3) PZ2021-12: Request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a tool rental and equipment rental store in a GC-MD (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling) District. Applicant: Lars Anderson & Associates, Inc. c/o Janay Mommer Location: 3910 Eastex Freeway Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Janay Mommer, of Lars Anderson & Associates, Inc., is requesting permission to allow a tool rental and equipment rental store at 3910 Eastex Freeway, also known as Home Depot. Some of the equipment being offered is not currently available at the store. Items such as back hoes are more commonly used by contractors, therefore a Specific Use Permit is required. Ten (10) parking spaces will be utilized for equipment storage and display, leaving more than adequate parking. Slides of the subject property, site plan and surrounding area were shown. Nine (9) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. No responses were received in opposition or in favor. Staff recommended approval of the request. The applicant was not present. Chairman Nejad asked if this request was just an addition to the current store. Mr. Boone confirmed this and added that the larger equipment is what caused a specific use permit to be needed. Chairman Nejad asked if there was a fence proposed between the store and the tool rental area. Mr. Boone responded that a fence was not proposed or required. Commissioner Quraishi asked if there was a separate entrance and exit for the tool rental area. Mr. Boone replied that there is not a separate entrance proposed and that the City traffic engineer had reviewed the plans and did not think there would be a conflict. 4 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 Councilmember Neild inquired about the rental equipment being cleaned at this site and the possible negative impact on City drainage. Mr. Boone stated that this was not addressed in the request. Discussion followed about adding a condition to the request concerning the cleaning of equipment. The public hearing on this request was opened and closed without comment. Commissioner Senigaur moved to approve the request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a tool rental and equipment rental store in a GC-MD (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling) District, as requested in file PZ2021-12, with the following condition: 1. The cleaning and filtering process of the cleaning of the rental equipment be subject to approval of the Water Quality division of the City. Commissioner Makin seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7:0. 4) PZ2021-17: Request for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance concerning signage, Sections 28.01.004, 28.03.018, 28.03.020, 28.03.021, 28.04.003, 28.04.005, 28.04.006, and 28.04.008(22). Applicant: City of Beaumont, Planning Division Mr. Boone presented the staff report. As a result of court cases such as Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona and Reagan National Advertising v. City of Austin, Texas, most city sign ordinances and many state statutes regulating signs are now subject to challenges of being unconstitutional. The decisions relate to the heavy burden that cities have to justify regulating speech. The courts have essentially said that if a city or state has to read a sign to enforce their ordinance, it is may be unconstitutional. The issue for Beaumont and most cities’ sign ordinances is that being able to read a sign is critical to their enforcement. In an attempt to comply with these decisions, the Planning Staff is recommending amendments to Sections 28.01.004, 28.03.018, 28.03.020, 28.03.021, 28.04.003, 28.04.006 and 28.04.008(22) of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments offer new language that will allow a reasonable number, size and design of signs for differing uses in differing zoning districts while substantially retaining the established regulatory schemes of citywide sign rules as well as special sign rules specific to the historic and overlay districts. In addition, new definitions of advertising signs and on-premise signs will allow for the ongoing enforcement of billboards without the need to rely on the content of the sign to do so. Mr. Boone stated that the Beaumont City ordinance has not be challenged under this new court case as of yet, but the purpose of the proposed amendments would be to prevent being subject to challenge. He added that the proposed changes remove any reference to sign content, with some exceptions. He stated that the intent is to retain as much as possible from the current ordinance, while making changes to comply with the Supreme Court decision. Mr. Boone addressed several specific proposed changes including provisions for house numbers, real estate signs, construction signs, flags, garage sale and election signs. 5 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 Commissioner Senigaur asked about the penalties for signs being too large. Mr. Boone replied that penalties can be applied for any violations, as long as they are not based on the content of the sign. He added that the City procedure is normally to issue warnings first, but that charges can also be filed with Municipal Court. Chairman Nejad expressed displeasure with the proposed sign regulations, stating that they do not make sense to him. He stated if he had three (3) kids in three (3) different schools and wanted to put all of their flags up, he would not be allowed to under the proposed amendments. Mr. Boone responded that under the proposed amendments, he could have two (2) flags. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Boone reiterated that the number of flags and signs in the proposed amendments could be changed by City Council, with recommendation from the Commission. Chairman Nejad also questioned the proposal that house numbers must be affixed to a house. He stated that his house is three hundred (300) feet from the street and the house number would not be seen. Chairman Nejad added that he just does not see that the he should be in the business of telling people what they are and are not allowed to put in their yards. He also mentioned if large properties that are for sale adhere to the proposed amendments, that they would not be able to put multiple for sale signs, leaving much of the property unnoticed. Mr. Boone responded that the current ordinances are full of telling people what to do with signs on their property. He added that these proposed amendments are an attempt to maintain the current schemes that have been developed over decades, while adhering to the admittedly odd scheme requirements of the Supreme Court decision. Finally, he mentioned that even the Supreme Court struggled with the decision on this case. Councilmember Neild asked about construction signs. He stated that in the construction business, it is not uncommon to have ten (10) to fifteen (15) signs on a job site. He added that many of these signs are life safety issues so he doesn’t see how limiting those could be enforceable. Councilmember Neild also stated that nineteen (19) people are currently running for City Council and that if he wanted to put signs for all nineteen (19) candidates in his yard, he does not think the City has the right to tell him that he cannot. Mr. Boone stated that the number of signs would be up to Council. Councilmember Neild replied that he wanted to know from a legal standpoint if the limit could be enforced. Mr. Cooper replied that legally, the City can limit the size, number and location of signs. Councilmember Mouton asked how many complaints the City typically received about signs. Mr. Boone replied that complaints were not received very often, but that large political signs do tend to draw some complaints. Councilmember Mouton asked if signs could be dealt with by the City on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Boone expressed that the specifics of the number and size of signs proposed could be changed by City Council with recommendations from the Planning Commission, and that the proposed changes were simply an attempt to preserve as much as possible of what has been adopted in the current ordinances, while adhering to the Supreme Court decision. 6 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 Commissioner Noyola thanked the staff for their work on the proposal and stated that he sees it as a template, the specific details of which are negotiable, but that we need to have a standard to follow. Chairman Nejad stated that there is already a robust sign ordinance being followed and enforced. Commissioner Senigaur expressed that many construction signs are requirements and perhaps could be exempted. Commissioner Makin suggested that more time would be needed to make decisions on this proposal. Commissioner Noyola stated that the Commission could vote on it at this meeting, as City Council has the final decision on the request. Mr. Boone agreed that it was a lot of information to consider and suggested a possible subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Discussion from the Commission followed on whether to postpone the request, have a workshop or form a subcommittee. Councilmember Getz addressed his concerns about how this sign ordinance affects constitutional rights, particularly political signs. He stated that the proposed amendments may conflict with the Texas Election Code. Further discussion followed concerning the details of the ordinance changes and a possible workshop or subcommittee. Alternate Commissioner Harris expressed her concerns with excessive signs hindering the beautification of the City, especially in neighborhoods that are under development. She added that if the City is not able to regulate the content of signs, that regulation of the number and size is needed. Commissioner Senigaur moved to postpone the request for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance concerning signage, Sections 28.01.004, 28.03.018, 28.03.020, 28.03.021, 28.04.003, 28.04.005, 28.04.006, and 28.04.008(22), as requested in file PZ2021-17, for further review, including a special meeting of the Planning Commission with the City Attorney. Commissioner Makin seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7:0. 5) PZ2021-36: Request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a Crematorium in a GC-MD (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling) District. Applicant: Proctor’s Mortuary th Location: 3475 S. 11 Street Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Proctor’s Mortuary is requesting permission to allow a th crematorium at 3475 S. 11 Street. The property will function solely as a crematorium. Remains will be sent to this facility and returned. There will be no customers coming and going from this property, only staff. No changes are planned for the building or areas. The property to the east is zoned residential and requires screening by ordinance. There is an existing chain link fence along most of this boundary. The Zoning Ordinance requires an eight (8) foot wood or masonry fence along this property line. The alleyway across the middle of the property is still open. At some point concrete was poured, and a fence was installed across this 7 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 alleyway. There should be no further encroachment on this alleyway unless an abandonment has been granted. Slides of the subject property, site plan and surrounding area were shown. Twenty-six (26) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. One response was received in favor and one was received in opposition. Mr. Boone read the letters. The letter in favor did not provide any further comments, but the letter in opposition expressed concerns about health, safety and property values. Mr. Boone stated that this proposal was presented to the City Health Department, which had no objections. He added that staff had done some research on crematoriums and found that the Environmental Protection Agency has found that there is some heavy metal exhaust produced, but not enough to require regulation. He also added that other states, such as California, Connecticut, Florida and Georgia, do regulate the location of crematoriums. He stated that the state of Texas does not regulate crematoriums, other than requiring registration with the state and that the crematorium must be attached to a funeral facility. He stated that the applicant has indicated that they will comply with the state regulations. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Install an eight (8) foot wood or masonry fence along the east property line, a gate should be installed at the alley for future City access. 2. No new encroachment on the alleyway unless an abandonment has been granted. 3. Constructions plans must meet all requirements by Water Utilities for water and sanitary sewer improvements, including any requirements of the City’s backflow, pre-treatment and/or F.O.G. program. The applicant was present. Loshon Proctor, 3522 Washington Blvd, addressed the Commission. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak about the request. He discussed the state regulations of a crematorium being connected to a funeral home and confirmed their intent to comply with the regulations. He added that an embalming backflow will be attached that will comply with Texas Funeral Service Commission regulations. Chairman Nejad asked about crematorium emissions. Mr. Proctor replied that they will be using a company called US Cremations, based in Florida, which is regulated and there is no concern with emissions. He stated that people often do not even know when crematoriums are burning, due to their filtration systems. He stated that they have visited other crematoriums, including those near residential areas, and have not seen any concerns. Chairman Nejad asked how the applicant would reassure a neighbor who had concerns. Mr. Proctor stated that the facility will be safe, bring higher property values and beautify the neighborhood by improving a vacant building. Chairman Nejad asked the applicant if he would be willing to talk with the property owner who wrote the letter in opposition and Mr. Proctor agreed to do so. 8 Planning Commission March 15, 2021 Commissioner Senigaur inquired about the employment the crematorium would add. Mr. Proctor responded that they plan to employ two (2) to three (3) employees and that the facility will be open during the normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Proctor added that there are currently only two (2) crematoriums in the area, at Broussard’s and Claybar funeral homes. He stated that Broussard’s only uses their crematorium for their own customers, but that Claybar services all other funeral homes. He stated that the Proctor funeral home plans to only use their crematorium for their own customers at first, but may consider providing the service to others. Commissioner Makin asked if the applicant is purchasing or leasing the property and he replied that they are waiting to close on the purchase. Commissioner Beatty asked if the applicant knew the property owner in objection. Mr. Procter stated that he did not know her, but will reach out to her. Commissioner Javed discussed the property values of the area, as he owns property nearby. He also asked if there is a smell associated with the crematorium. The applicant replied that there is not a smell produced due to the filtration system. The public hearing was opened and closed without comment. Commissioner Quraishi moved to approve the request for a Specific Use Permit to allow a Crematorium in a GC-MD (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling) District, as requested in file PZ2021-36, with the following conditions: 1. Install an eight (8) foot wood or masonry fence along the east property line, a gate should be installed at the alley for future City access. 2. No new encroachment on the alleyway unless an abandonment has been granted. 3. Constructions plans must meet all requirements by Water Utilities for water and sanitary sewer improvements, including any requirements of the City’s backflow, pre-treatment and/or F.O.G. program. Commissioner Senigaur seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7:0. 6) PZ2021-45: Request for a Revised Specific Use Permit to allow the expansion of a school in a GC-MD (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling) District. Applicant: Stephen West for Randy Clark Location: 10255 Eastex Freeway Mr. Boone informed the Commission that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant. OTHER BUSINESS None. THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:19 P.M. 9