Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-21 PC Minutes * M I N U T E S * JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers October 18, 2021 A Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Commission and City Council was held on October 18, 2021 and called to order at 3:03 p.m. with the following members present: Commission Members present: Acting Chair Lauren Williams Mason Commissioner Johnny Beatty Commissioner Darius Linton Commissioner Taher Quraishi Alternate Commissioner Erika Harris Commission Members absent: Chairman Sina Nejad Commissioner Bill Little Commissioner Lynda Kay Makin Commissioner Tom Noyola Commissioner Eddie Senigaur Commissioner Roy Steinhagen Alternate Commissioner Marty Craig Councilmembers present: Mayor Robin Mouton Mayor Pro Tem Audwin Samuel *Arrived at 3:26 p.m. Councilmember Randy Feldschau Councilmember A.J. Turner Councilmember Taylor Neild Councilmember Mike Getz Councilmember Chris Durio Also present: Chris Boone, Director of Planning & Community Development Adina Josey, Senior Planner Tyrone Cooper, City Attorney Catherine Allen, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Quraishi moved to approve the minutes of the Joint Public Hearings held on September 20, 2021. Alternate Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes carried 5:0. 1 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 1) PZ2021-322: Request for Preliminary Plat approval of Barrington Heights, Phase XIII, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. Applicant: Joe Pattie of Arceneaux, Wilson & Cole, L.L.C. Location: 6500 Block of Claybourn Drive Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Arceneaux, Wilson & Cole has requested Preliminary Plat approval of Barrington Heights, Phase XIII. This development is located in the 6500 block of Claybourn Drive. The 8.0729 acre development is a twenty-three (23) lot residential subdivision in an R-S (Residential Single-Family Dwelling) District. Trenton Lane and Wakefield Lane will have 50' right-of-ways and 34' pavement widths. The extension of Claybourn Drive will have 60' wide right-of-ways with 37' pavement widths. Water and sewer will be provided by extension of City utilities. Slides of the proposed plat were shown. Staff recommended approval of the request. Commissioner Quraishi asked if this was the final phase of Barrington Heights and Mr. Boone stated that he believed this to be the case, but that the applicant was present to confirm. The applicant was present. Joe Pattie, representing Arceneaux, Wilson & Cole, 3120 Central Mall Drive, Port Arthur, TX, addressed the Commission. He stated that he did not have much to add other than that the residential street will be twenty-eight (28) feet wide, not thirty-four (34) feet as stated in the staff report. Acting Chair Mason asked Mr. Pattie if this was the final phase of Barrington Heights and he confirmed this to be the case. Commissioner Quraishi asked about the length of the lots and Mr. Pattie stated that they vary, but that the smallest lots are ninety (90) feet wide. Commissioner Quraishi moved to approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of Barrington Heights, Phase XIII, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas, as requested in file PZ2021-322. Alternate Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 5:0. 2) PZ2021-325: Request to abandon a portion of Delta Street. Applicant: Arthur Limbrick th Location: West of 11 Street and north of Washington Boulevard Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Arthur Limbrick is requesting the abandonment of Delta th Street, east of 11 Street. The owner of 3575 Delta would like to develop his property. The only access to the property is through the undeveloped Delta right-of-way. By abandoning the right- of-way, a driveway can be constructed instead of a street built to city standards for one property. 2 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 The water department has responded that there are two (2) sewer lines located in this easement and Drainage District Number 6 uses the right-of-way for access. Both have stated that they will need an easement. Slides of the property and site plan were shown. Mr. Boone explained that normally when a City street is improved within a City right-of-way, it must be up to the City standard, which can be expensive. If the abandonment is granted, the developer could meet a lesser standard for the driveway. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Retention of the right-of-way as an easement. 2. Any construction of a driveway on this easement will require permission from the City of Beaumont Water Department and Drainage District Number 6. 3. If approved, applicant shall obtain an appraisal and Title Commitment for the property to be abandoned at their expense. Appraisal and Title Commitment must be submitted to the Planning office along with proof that payment has been arranged prior to the item being placed on City Council’s agenda. Commissioner Quraishi asked about the size of the property and about the abandonment process. Mr. Boone stated that the property is 0.815 acres and explained the abandonment process. Commissioner Linton asked if this was for a street or a development. Mr. Boone explained that this is an unimproved area and that a developer could construct to City standards, but that it would be very expensive. The other option would be the abandonment, so that the driveway could be built at a lesser standard. Mr. Boone also explained that the abandonment would not be for the whole street, but just the right-of-way, which the City has set aside for a potential future street. He then explained the options and abandonment process again. The applicant was present. Arthur Limbrick, 5806 Chapel Lane, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is trying to put a small fast food restaurant with a drive-thru at the subject property and that it will be convenient and beneficial for the neighborhood. Acting Chair Mason asked Mr. Limbrick if he understood the conditions and he confirmed his understanding. Commissioner Linton asked if the new business will interfere with current businesses nearby and Mr. Limbrick replied that that it will not interfere and that it will be behind the other businesses. Mr. Boone explained that the decision to make is whether or not the City needs to maintain this portion of Delta Street or if it can be sold to the applicant, so that he can provide access to his business through Delta Street with a driveway. Alternate Commissioner Harris moved to approve the Request to abandon a portion of Delta Street, as requested in file PZ2021-325 with the following conditions: 3 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 1. Retention of the right-of-way as an easement. 2. Any construction of a driveway on this easement will require permission from the City of Beaumont Water Department and Drainage District Number 6. 3. If approved, applicant shall obtain an appraisal and Title Commitment for the property to be abandoned at their expense. Appraisal and Title Commitment must be submitted to the Planning office along with proof that payment has been arranged prior to the item being placed on City Council’s agenda. Commissioner Beatty seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 5:0. JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Mouton called the Joint Public Hearings of October 18, 2021 to order at 3:22 p.m. and explained the purpose of the Joint Public Hearing process. Mayor Mouton then turned the meeting over to Acting Chair Mason to conduct the Joint Public Hearings. 3) PZ2021-243: Request for the conveyance and dedication of private streets and infrastructure to the City of Beaumont. Applicant: Scott Hollemon and the heirs of the A.J. Fasulo Estate (Fig Acres Addition) Location: 2405 – 2499 Wescalder Road Mr. Boone presented an overview of the street conveyance and dedication history and process and the staff report. Scott Hollemon and the heirs of the A.J. Fasulo Estate have requested that the City of Beaumont accept maintenance of the private drive east of Wescalder Road and north of Baker Road, and its infrastructure. The City recently adopted a process for the conversion of private streets and other infrastructure to public ownership and maintenance. Also attached is an analysis of the condition of the existing private infrastructure, conducted by the Public Works Department. An analysis of the request was considered with the following responses: Public Works/Engineering – Engineering did a survey and analysis of the streets and drainage infrastructure. The existing pavement was found to be composed of a mixture of gravel, chunks of concrete, milling material and asphalt. The entire pavement is in very poor condition and requires a full rehabilitation. The drainage infrastructure is comprised of an open ditch and driveway culvert network. The ditches have been poorly maintained and not graded properly to drain. A majority of the driveway culverts are not set properly to drain water effectively. There are several buried culverts that are impeding drainage. A preliminary estimate from Public Works on the cost to bring the road up to City standards would be $455,630. Water Utilities – a review of the plat and construction plans shows the water lines are not located within a utility easement dedicated to the City of Beaumont. Due to the unknown condition of the water and sewer lines, it is recommended to delay acceptance until water meters are relocated to meet city standards and sewer services are verified to not run within private property. Fire Department – Fire Marshal Condina reviewed the site and the Fire Department has concerns about the width and load limits of the current private street. City streets must have a 75,000 4 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 pound load limit rating and be wide enough for a fire apparatus. A majority of these streets are narrow being approximately 10’-12’ wide. Solid Waste – Solid Waste provides garbage service to 2425 Wescalder Road. If the City provides solid waste services, improvements to the roads will be required to maintain the weight of the garbage trucks. Due to the narrow width of the streets, having no fire hydrants along the streets and load limit concerns, it is recommended by Public Works to reject the request until upgrades to the streets have been completed. Mr. Boone stated that staff believes the area was annexed into the City in the 1950’s and platted in the 1920’s. He reviewed a historical aerial view showing housing in 1938 and stated that it was unknown if the housing was related to the nearby oil facilities or not. He further explained the private street conveyance and dedication process and the need for the streets to meet the City standards. Slides of the property and surrounding area were shown. Based on the condition of the infrastructure and history of the street, staff recommended denial of the request. Eighteen (18) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. Six (6) responses were received in favor and none were received in opposition. Mr. Boone stated that the responses in favor were from the applicants of the request. Alternate Commissioner Harris stated that the flooding is serious issue and that she has compassion for the homeowners. She added that the cost for the City to take over this property would be tremendous and asked Mr. Boone if there is any advantage to the City in granting the request. Mr. Boone stated that there would not be any direct advantage to the City, but that it might be a consideration that the street is in the City limits of Beaumont. Acting Chair Mason asked if there is any process by which the street could be brought up to City standards and Mr. Boone answered that there is not such a process under current policy. He added that the request could be approved with a condition that the streets be brought up to City standards or the request could be sent back to the Public Works department to determine the standards that might be expected. Alternate Commissioner Harris stated that those standards could not be determined by the Planning Commission today and Mr. Boone confirmed this to be correct. Commissioner Linton asked about City services on the street, such as garbage, police and fire. Mr. Boone replied that the City does not provide garbage service to each dwelling in the subdivision, but he expects that police and fire do service the streets if needed. He added that the comments from the Fire department related to heavy pumper trucks and ambulances being able to turn around in the subdivision. Mr. Boone reiterated the need to decide if the request is reasonable for the City to take over the street. 5 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 Commissioner Beatty asked for a further explanation of the definition of a private street. Mr. Boone explained that a private street can restrict access for additional security, while a public street can be accessed by all. He reviewed the private street dedication history and process and added that new developments now have to developed in a way that if they ever did decide to become public, they would already be up to a certain standard. Alternate Commissioner Harris asked if the City were to take over maintenance of the street, where the funds would come from. Mr. Boone replied that it would be unbudgeted and come out of the Capital Program. Commissioner Beatty asked if when the new street dedication process was adopted if a money amount cap on needed improvements was set and Mr. Boone replied that there is not a specific money amount cap and that it is judged on a case-by-case basis. Acting Chair Mason stated that if the request was denied, the applicants could speak to Public Works, make improvements and apply again and Mr. Boone confirmed this to be correct. Commissioner Linton asked if there were plans for future development in the subdivision. Mr. Boone replied that he believed their primary goal is to seek improvements and that the lots could not be subdivided for any additional development. The applicant was present. Scott Holleman, 2499 Wescalder Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that there are twelve (12) homes and sixteen (16) properties in the subdivision. He stated that they would not be dividing any of the lots because they are small lots. He added that this property has already been developed for years and that the properties were given the right to build without being advised of it being an illegal subdivision. Mr. Holleman stated that he bought his home in 2017 and at that time he was told that the streets were private, but that they were in the process of becoming public streets and that the process was bogged down in red tape. He was shocked to find out that this was considered an illegal subdivision because taxes are being paid, but no improvements have been done. He admitted that the initial cost would be expensive, but that the maintenance would not be. He stated there are several elderly residents who cannot afford flood insurance and that City improvements could prevent flooding. He also added that as soon as the City annexed the street or the Planning Commission came to be, the road should have been made public. Finally, he stated that the City has the opportunity to prevent future flooding by accepting the streets and providing improvements. Commissioner Linton asked the applicant if the survey he received at the time of purchase indicated that it was a private street. Mr. Holleman stated that he was told by the residents in the neighborhood that the streets were private, but that they were in the process of getting the City to take over maintenance of the streets. Alternate Commissioner Harris asked if he received anything in writing to that effect and Mr. Holleman stated that it was through word of mouth. Alternate Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Boone if the process had ever begun for the City to take over the street. Mr. Boone stated that a resident of the street, around five (5) to seven (7) years ago, inquired about the private street dedication, but the first step in the process had never been completed. 6 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 Commissioner Linton asked if there was any alternative for the residents. Mr. Boone stated that the options would be to deny the request, approve it as is, or ask Public Works for an acceptable standard. He stated that legally a private street is more like an apartment complex, that the City cannot make improvements on private property and that the decision would ultimately be up to the City Council. Mayor Mouton asked to confirm that if the request was granted, the street would give up its private road status and Mr. Boone confirmed this to be the case. Councilmember Getz asked if there were any documents showing that this request had been applied for previously and Mr. Boone stated that there were not and again mentioned that six (6) or seven (7) years ago, there was an inquiry about the process. He added that in 1969 and 1979, there was paperwork filed at the County Courthouse that stated that the residents conveyed the streets to the public, but that there is no indication that the City was participating and that it was just recorded documents and did not go through the private street dedication process. Councilmember Getz stated that if the City does approve this request, it does not obligate the City to immediately fund and make improvements to the street, but that as long as it is private, the City is unable to make improvements. Mr. Boone confirmed that this is correct, but stated that given the condition of the street, the City may feel compelled to make improvements if it is made public. The public hearing on this item was opened. Kevin Adkins, 2411 Wescalder Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that not until after he purchased his property did he ever hear of it being in an illegal subdivision. He stated that he does understand the expense the improvement would cause the City. He added that he put up the private road signs himself to keep people from driving through the neighborhood, but that he would be glad to be a public street if it meant receiving needed services. Mr. Adkins asked the Commissioners to come and visit the neighborhood. He questioned if it is considered an illegal subdivision, why permits have been issued for building. He added that the City should accept responsibility if they are issuing permits. Finally, he stated that the residents have been fixing the street themselves with bags of rock and that they need help from the City. Anthony Fasulo, 2465 Wescalder Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had lived there since 1965 and that the streets were in good condition at that time, but that the weather has taken its toll on them. He added that another addition to the north was in a similar state and that the City has improved them. He questioned why that neighborhood was given the advantage and stated that he is just asking for equality. James Favre, 2437 Wescalder Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that he built his home in 2003. He added that there are many roads in the south end of Beaumont that are in similar condition but are maintained by the City. He stated that he was never told that his property was in an illegal subdivision until he requested street repair from the City. Mr. Favre stated that the residents have been purchasing materials and hiring people to fix the roads and that he has spent 7 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 at least $1,500 in the past year. He added that it is not their fault that the City annexed the street and never made it right. He also added that they have gas and electrical services, but that their water meters are all out on Wescalder and the water lines are run from there. Mr. Favre stated that they pay taxes and would like equal representation. Finally, he stated that DD6 will not help with their drainage issues because they are in the City limits. Commissioner Linton asked Mr. Favre about the water meters and water line. Discussion followed concerning the water line and other utilities. Catherine Favre, 2437 Wescalder Road, addressed the Commission. She stated that she has talked with someone from the City that came out to the neighborhood. She added that she has lived there all of her life. She said her main concern is flooding and drainage in the area and that it can be considered a health hazard. Councilmember Neild asked about when this property was annexed and for the reasoning of it remaining a private street. Mr. Boone replied that it was platted in 1925 and annexed in 1957 and was private at the time of annexation and remained private. Pat Guidry, 2415 Wescalder Road, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had been a resident on the street for fifty-five (55) years. She stated she was told that the housing there was originally built for the employees of Humble Oil Company. She stated that there are places on her lawn that don’t grow because it has shell under it. Ms. Guidry asked what could be done about their situation. She stated that she bought the home when she was twenty-five (25) years old and was not told about it being an illegal subdivision until three (3) years ago. Finally, she stated she should not be punished for something she knew nothing about since she has been paying her taxes. Mr. Boone stated because the platted lots were present at the time of annexation, even though the streets were not public, houses could be built there because they were grandfathered in. He added that it would have been a buyer beware situation. Acting Chair Mason stated that the current staff and Commission are not able to address why the residents were not told sooner. Mr. Cooper stated that there is nothing illegal about the private street development and that many developers choose to make driveways private. He added that the residents have reached the point where they want to turn it over to the City for maintenance because it is too expensive to maintain. The public hearing was closed without further comment. Acting Chair Mason stated that in her experience on the Commission, similar cases had been heard and that it was always the concern of the Commission that developments not request to be private and then decide to become public when it becomes inconvenient. She stated that this particular situation seems to be different, as it has been a private road for so long. Commissioner Quraishi stated that for the City to take over the street would be very expensive, but that it will ultimately be up to the City Council. 8 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 Alternate Commissioner Harris stated that she hears the concerns of the residents, that everyone deserves a good quality of life in Beaumont and that is sounded like there had been many misunderstandings in the past. Alternate Commissioner Harris moved to send this request back to the Public Works department to define an acceptable improvement standard for public street acceptance. Commissioner Linton seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 5:0. 4) PZ2021-284: Request for a Rezone for a portion of the property from RS (Residential – Single-Family Dwelling) to GC-MD-2 (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling-2), with a Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store and gas station. Applicant: George Carlton Location: 4050 Magnolia Mr. Boone presented the staff report. George Carlton is requesting a rezoning and Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store and gas station at 4050 Magnolia Avenue. The proposed building would be approximately 6,000 square feet. Half would be occupied by a convenience store with deli and would be open from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday. The other half would potentially be occupied by a restaurant. Once the property is rezoned to (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling – 2), a Specific Use Permit would be required for other uses. No landscaping is shown on the submitted site plan. An eight (8) foot wood or privacy fence and ten (10) foot wide landscaped buffer would be required along the east and south property lines. Along the Magnolia Avenue frontage and along the portion of La Salle next to the parking and fuel pumps, a six (6) foot wide landscaped buffer will be required. All landscaping will be required to meet City Ordinances including irrigation. A sanitary sewer easement crosses the property and will need to be maintained. Slides of the subject property, site plan and surrounding area were shown. Twenty (20) 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 letter in opposition, which stated there were enough convenience stores and gas stations in the area already. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping required to meet City Ordinance requirements. 2. Construction 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. 3. No permanent structures allowed to be constructed on top of the sanitary sewer easement. 9 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 Acting Chair Mason asked if the access to the property will be from La Salle or Magnolia and Mr. Boone replied that it would be one access point from La Salle. The applicant was present. Rahil Maredia, 4519 Sterling Wood Way, Houston, TX addressed the Commission. He stated that he was at the meeting on behalf of the applicant George Carlton. He stated that there is a proposed entry off of Magnolia. Mr. Maredia added that the rezoning would be needed to meet the conditions of the Planning Department. He addressed the letter in opposition by stating that the other gas stations in the area are in bad shape and not well maintained. Finally, he added that this gas station, along with the planned restaurant and washateria, will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Councilmember Getz stated that the surrounding neighborhood of the subject property is considered a food desert and encouraged the applicant to consider selling fresh produce. The applicant replied that there will be a restaurant, but the convenience store will also provide groceries. He stated that they will be applying to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamp) benefits and that this requires them to have certain grocery staples. Councilmember Turner asked how many rent spaces will be available in the shopping strip. Mr. Maredia replied that it will depend on the square footage available after the store is developed and how many rental inquiries they receive. Mayor Pro-Tem Samuel asked if there will be open ditches or culverts and the applicant replied that he will comply with whichever the City requires. Acting Chair Mason asked if the applicant understood the conditions and he confirmed his understanding and willingness to comply. Brief discussion followed about the applicant’s other business experience. Mr. Maredia explained that he did not have any other projects in Beaumont, but did in Houston and Sugarland. Further discussion followed concerning the issue of the neighborhood being a food desert. Mr. Maredia appreciated the feedback and stated he would be glad to provide essential services with the square footage they have available. Councilmember Durio and Mayor Mouton asked if the applicant would be having a game room in the convenience store and the applicant stated that he would not. The public hearing on this item was opened and closed without further comment. Alternate Commissioner Harris moved to approve the request a Rezone for a portion of the property from RS (Residential – Single-Family Dwelling) to GC-MD-2 (General Commercial – Multiple-Family Dwelling-2), with a Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store and gas station, as requested in file PZ2021-284 with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping required to meet City Ordinance requirements. 10 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 2. Construction 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. 3. No permanent structures allowed to be constructed on top of the sanitary sewer easement. Commissioner Quraishi seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 5:0. 5) PZ2021-304: Request for a Revised Specific Use Permit to allow a new driveway in a GC- MD-2 (General Commercial – Multiple-Family – 2) District. Applicant: Brian Dunigan Location: 622 W. Lucas Drive Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Brian Dunigan is requesting a Specific Use Permit to allow a new driveway at 622 W. Lucas Drive. Given the multiple iterations of the proposed layout of this site, it is important to provide a chronology of the history to the project. In February of 2011, Darlene Hanna was approved for a revised Specific Use Permit at this location. The approved site plan did not have any driveways accessing the residential cul-de-sac to the east. In 2016, a driveway was poured for Quinchies without approval from planning. In December 2020, plans were submitted for preliminary review for the interior build-out of the cookie shop in question but did not reflect any additional driveways or curb cuts to the street to the east. The plans for the cookie shop were approved but conditioned as “Interior Only-SUP 2011.” In February 2021, plans for a new driveway were submitted to Engineering staff for design review. The plans received a favorable review from Engineering, but were never reviewed by Planning or Building Codes and no permit was ever issued for its construction. Later in February 2021, the plans for the cookie shop were formally submitted with a permit application for construction, with no indication of a new drive, curb cut or drive-through included in the request. The plans submitted with the permit application were reviewed and approved by all departments, but with the condition that the work would be “interior only” due to the SUP being site-plan specific. This information was also verbally conveyed to the applicant. The “interior-only” permit was issued on March 9, 2021. In July of this year, Mr. Dunigan was completing the buildout of a new cookie company, when he submitted plans for a permit for an additional driveway onto the north cul-de-sac behind the building for a new drive-through window. This permit for the new curb cut was denied as it was not shown on the approved 2011 SUP site plan. The applicant then applied for an amendment to the 2011 SUP to request approval of the new, second driveway way along with the Quinchies driveway. In August, City Council approved the amended SUP with the existing Quinchies driveway to the north but denied the new driveway. Mr. Dunigan is now requesting an amendment to the August 2021 SUP to reconfigure the interior parking and access drives and to build a driveway that will circle around the rear of the existing building, providing access to a new drive-through window on the rear of the building. No new curb cut to the residential street to the east is proposed but will utilize the existing curb cut. Engineering has reviewed the proposed layout and has no objections, provided the layout is 11 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 designed to minimize traffic conflicts within the site. Mr. Boone also provided further comments from the Engineering department. Slides of the subject property, historical aerial photographs, site plan and surrounding area were shown. Sixteen (16) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. One response was received in favor and four (4) were received in opposition. Mr. Boone summarized the letters in opposition. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Drive way for drive-through must be one way only and parking lot should be marking with on-way arrows. 2. Pavement at the intersection of the two drives should be marked and signed to discourage the blocking of traffic coming from the new driveway. 3. Driveway shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width and that the plan be surveyed by a licensed surveyor. Commissioner Linton asked about the how far the driveway needed to be from the building and Mr. Boone replied that there are no setback requirements for a driveway, so it could be right against the building. Commissioner Linton asked if the letters in opposition were from the property owners on the residential cul-de-sac and Mr. Boone confirmed this to be the case. Brief discussion followed about the placement of utilities and how the driveway might affect this. Acting Chair Mason asked if the Traffic department was concerned about traffic congestion and Mr. Boone replied that the proposed conditions are an attempt to mitigate any traffic problems. Councilmember Getz asked for clarification on the proposed traffic pattern and Mr. Boone indicated the traffic pattern on the slide. Councilmember Feldschau stated that the plan would rely on people following the signs and being polite to each other and questioned if that would be successful. Councilmember Turner asked when the applicant speaks, if he could answer if he will have a staff member outside directing traffic. Commissioner Beatty asked if the letters in opposition were from the same property owners who had been opposed the last time this case was before the Commission and Mr. Boone confirmed this to be the case. 12 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 st The applicant was present. Brian Dunigan, 1910 21 St, addressed the Commission. He stated that any traffic problems will be on his property not on the City’s street. He added that the average order takes about three (3) minutes so people will be in and out quickly. He gave examples of other businesses with traffic congestion and cross traffic, such as Chick-fil-A. In response to Councilmember Turner’s question, he stated that he cannot have employees directing traffic and cannot force people to move their cars. He reviewed his version of how the previous permits had gone, with clarifications from Mr. Boone. Mr. Dunigan stated that this business was designed as a drive-thru and they are just trying to open. Finally, he stated that they opened up the Friday before the meeting and have had over a thousand (1,000) customers so far, so his business will be successful for Beaumont. Acting Chair Mason pointed out that the current request is different than previous approved plans and Mr. Dunigan stated that the only thing different was the Quenchie’s drive-thru. Alternate Commissioner Harris asked if customers are also able to come in to the business and he confirmed that they can, even though that is not how he originally designed it. The public hearing was opened on this item. Eugenia Coffin, 3999 North Street, addressed the Commission. She stated that this request does affect her properties on the cul-de-sac behind the business. She pointed out which properties she owns. Ms. Coffin added that she has put money into these properties to improve them to be nice places to live. She also added that whether you are a renter or homeowner, a view of the back of a commercial business is not what you want to look at and asked for a fence or landscape buffer, if the request is approved. She added that the applicant added a sign for a drive-thru already, even though it has not been approved. Finally, she questioned whether this sign would be lit and the hours of operation. Councilmember Getz asked if this was a commercial property why it was not already required to have a fence. Mr. Boone replied that it would only be required if the property abutted residential property, but since these properties are separated by a street, it is not required. He added that it could be added as a condition of the specific use permit. Councilmember Feldschau asked if there was room for landscaping and Mr. Boone replied that a survey is needed to be able to confirm. The public hearing on this item was closed without further comment. The applicant was given an opportunity to speak in rebuttal. He stated that the hours will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., six (6) days a week. Mr. Dunigan stated that the sign he put up was for walkup orders until a drive-thru is approved and will not be lit. He stated that there are many areas of Beaumont with traffic and that traffic is a sign of Beaumont growing. Commissioner Beatty asked the applicant if he would be amenable to a buffer and he confirmed that he would be and will work with the City. 13 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 Alternate Commissioner Harris moved to approve the request for a Revised Specific Use Permit to allow a new driveway in a GC-MD-2 (General Commercial – Multiple-Family – 2) District, as requested in file PZ2021-304 with the following conditions: 1. Drive way for drive-through must be one way only and parking lot should be marking with on-way arrows. 2. Pavement at the intersection of the two drives should be marked and signed to discourage the blocking of traffic coming from the new driveway. 3. Driveway shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width and that the plan be surveyed by a licensed surveyor. Commissioner Linton seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 4:1(Mason). 6) PZ2021-321: Request for a Specific Use Permit to allow an auto repair shop in an NC (Neighborhood Commercial) District. Applicant: Guadalupe Bernal Location: 1109 Harriot Street Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Guadalupe Bernal would like to operate an auto repair shop at 1109 Harriot Street. An automotive shop is not permitted in NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning without a Specific Use Permit. Staff received a complaint that so many vehicles were parked at this location, you could not see around them at the intersection. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the business was operating without a Certificate of Occupancy and had not been used continuously as an auto repair shop so it was not grandfathered. Parking should be limited, to allow for proper maneuvering of vehicles on the property. As an example, storage of junk motor vehicles, for a wrecker service, is limited to ten (10) vehicles without a Specific Use Permit. In addition, Section 28.04.008(b)(9)(C) of the Ordinance states, “. . . auto repairing, etc., shall be conducted within a building enclosed on at least three (3) sides.” Slides of the subject property, site plan and surrounding area were shown. Nineteen (19) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. One response was received in favor and three (3) were received in opposition. Mr. Boone summarized the letters in opposition. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Maximum of twenty (20) vehicles to be on the property at any given time, including customer and employee parking. 2. All auto repair must be conducted inside the shop. Commissioner Beatty asked if there were complaints about the subject property before the property owner notices were sent and Mr. Boone confirmed that a complaint led to an investigation, which found that this business had been operating without a Certificate of Occupancy. 14 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 Commissioner Linton asked when the photograph of the property was taken and Mr. Boone and Ms. Josey replied that it was taken the week before the meeting. Commissioner Linton stated that that was not usually how it appeared. Mayor Mouton agreed and asked if they had cleaned it up overnight. Ms. Josey reported that staff had told the business that they could either clean up the area or apply for a specific use permit and it appears that they had done both. Discussion followed concerning the history of the business and the specific use permit process. Further discussion followed about the condition of a maximum of twenty (20) vehicles and how this number was determined. Mr. Boone stated that staff attempts to select a reasonable number of vehicles based on the number of bays for car repair. Acting Chair Mason asked about what happens if the conditions of the specific use permit are violated. Mr. Boone and Mr. Cooper explained that violations of the conditions can lead to the specific use permit being revoked. The applicant was present. Dolores Cantu, 4625 Prairie Street, addressed the Commission. She stated that she is the property owner and will speak for herself and the applicant. She stated that there are three (3) bays inside and one outside. She stated that she and her husband owned the shop for eighteen (18) years and never had any complaints, but she began renting it out in 2015 after her husband passed away. Finally, she stated that the renters had a lot of cars there, but that they had cleaned it up about a month ago and were awaiting the result of this process. Acting Chair Mason asked the applicant if she understood the condition of the twenty (20) cars includes employee parking and asked how many employees worked there. Ms. Cantu replied that she understood and that there are five (5) employees. Commissioner Linton asked if she owned the vacant lot beside the property and she replied that she did not. The public hearing was opened on this item. Roosevelt Frank, 4135 Bob Street, addressed the Commission. He stated that he owns the vacant property next to the subject property. He stated that he did not have a problem with there being a mechanic shop, but stated that there are too many cars there now and that it was never that way when Ms. Cantu’s husband was operating the shop. He added that he has to ask them to move the cars and that they take their time doing so. The public hearing on this item was closed without further comment. Commissioner Linton asked about the business operating without a permit and Mr. Boone confirmed this to be the case and reiterated the process that led to the request before the Commission. 15 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 The applicant was given an opportunity to speak in rebuttal. Ms. Cantu stated that she never knew that they did not have a permit because when they applied for their business at the county courthouse, they were told they were free to start their business. Commissioner Quraishi moved to approve the request for Specific Use Permit to allow an auto repair shop in an NC (Neighborhood Commercial) District, as requested in file PZ2021-321 with the following conditions: 1. Maximum of twenty (20) vehicles to be on the property at any given time, including customer and employee parking. 2. All auto repair must be conducted inside the shop. Commissioner Beatty seconded the motion. Alternate Commissioner Harris stated that she had concerns with the number of cars allowed and requested an amended motion to change the maximum number of cars to fifteen (15). Commissioners Quraishi and Beatty chose not to amend their motion or second. The motion to approve carried 4:1(Harris). 7) PZ2021-324: Request to rezone a property from NC (Neighborhood Commercial) to RS (Residential – Single-Family Dwelling). Applicant: Kellie Hardy Location: 4475 Raven Street Mr. Boone presented the staff report. Kellie Hardy would like to rezone the property at 4475 Raven Street. The property is located just north of the convenience store located at 4490 Bob Street. Previously these lots and the convenience store were all part of the same property. The property owner would like to rezone the lot to RS (Residential Single-Family Dwelling), in order to build a new house. All of the surrounding property, except for the convenience store, is residential. Slides of the subject property, and surrounding area were shown. Twenty-eight (28) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. One response was received in favor and zero were received in opposition. Staff recommended approval of the request. The applicant was present. Wesley Thomas, representing Camelia Homes, 8110 Eastex Freeway, addressed the Commission. He stated that the area is primarily residential, that the lot already has a driveway and he would just like to build a residential home there. Commissioner Quraishi asked the applicant to confirm that this would be a single family residential home and the applicant confirmed. The public hearing was opened on this item. 16 Planning Commission October 18, 2021 Lori Rochelle, 4525 Winston Avenue, addressed the Commission. She stated that she is trying to build a home for herself and her elderly mother to live in and thanked the Commission for their consideration. The public hearing on this item was closed without further comment. Alternate Commissioner Harris moved to approve the request to rezone a property from NC (Neighborhood Commercial) to RS (Residential – Single-Family Dwelling), as requested in file PZ2021-324. Commissioner Quraishi seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 5:0. OTHER BUSINESS None. THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:29 P.M. 17