1. Call to Order a. City Council. b. Planning and Zoning Commission

Transcription

1 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING April 3, 2018, 5:30 P.M. Orange Public Library Auditorium (City Council Chambers) 220 N. Fifth Street Orange, Texas Call to Order a. City Council b. Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Public Hearing a. Case No. 18:04. Conduct a public hearing on a request from the City of Orange to rezone the following properties: Lot 9, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 10 remainder, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 11/12, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street;.4319 acres JM Spaulding Survey, Abstract #171 also known as th Street; of 3.67 TxDOT remainder (Orig ac James Enner Survey Abst 74);.0833 portion of Lot 10, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 13, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 14, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 15, Blk 4 Starlight Addition also known as th Street; and Lot 16, Blk 4 Starlight Addition also known as th Street from C-S Commercial Special zoning district to MUZD Mixed Use Zoning District. 3. Adjournment of City Council 4. Discussion/Action Items a. Case No. 18:04. Consider making a recommendation to the City Council on a request from the City of Orange to re-zone the following properties: Lot 9, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 10 remainder, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 11/12, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street;.4319 acres JM Spaulding Survey, Abstract #171 also known as th Street; of 3.67 TxDOT remainder (Orig ac James Enner Survey Abst 74);.0833 portion of Lot 10, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 13, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 14, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 15, Blk 4 Starlight Addition also known as th Street; and Lot 16, Blk 4 Starlight Addition also known as th Street from C-S Commercial Special zoning district to MUZD Mixed Use Zoning District. b. Consider making a recommendation to the City Council on an ordinance amending Chapter 3 Article Fence Construction and Alterations pertaining to fence 1 of 64

2 requirements for residentially zoned properties and amending Chapter 12 Article Zoning Districts and Other Regulations pertaining to the fence requirements for commercially and residentially zoned properties. 5. Approval of Minutes a. Approval of July 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes b. Approval of March 6, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes 6. Adjournment of Planning and Zoning Commission Texas Penal Code 30.06: Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun De conformidad con la Secci n del c digo penal (entrada de persona con licencia de portar o llevar armas de mano oculta), una persona licenciada bajo el subcap tulo H, cap tulo 411 del c digo de gobierno (ley de licenciaci n para portar o llevar armas de mano) no se permite entrar en esta propiedad con ninguna armas de mano oculta Texas Penal Code 30.07: Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly De conformidad con la Secci n del c digo penal (entrada de una persona con licencia de portar o llevar armas de mano visible), una persona licenciada bajo el subcap tulo H, cap tulo 411 del c digo de gobierno (ley de licenciaci n para portar o llevar armas de mano visible) no se permite entrar en esta propiedad con ninguna armas de mano visible No Firearms Allowed No se permite ninguna armas de fuego Public Hearing Policy (adopted on August 3, 2004) Public comment time limits The applicant s presentation is limited to fifteen (15) minutes. All persons wishing to speak in favor of or against any item shall be limited to three (3) minutes If a unified group wished to forfeit their three minutes per person a spokesperson can be selected and comments will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes All comments should be directed to the Commission on the case being discussed and comments should focus on the facts of the case and all speakers should refrain from comments based on personalities. 2 of 64

3 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Kelvin Knauf, Director of Planning and Community Development Conduct a public hearing on a request from the City of Orange to re-zone the following properties: Lot 9, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 10 remainder, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 11/12, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street;.4319 acres JM Spaulding Survey, Abstract #171 also known as th Street; of 3.67 TxDOT remainder (Orig ac James Enner Survey Abst 74);.0833 portion of Lot 10, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 13, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 14, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 15, Blk 4 Starlight Addition also known as th Street; and Lot 16, Blk 4 Starlight addition also known as th Street from C-S Commercial Special zoning district to MUZD Mixed Use Zoning District. Date: March 28, 2018 City staff is requesting that the property described above be re-zoned from C-S Commercial Special zoning district to MUZD Mixed Use Zoning District. This is a highly visible property that at one time had the Two Amigos restaurant located on one of the properties being requested for re-zoning. The restaurant has since been demolished and the properties all being requested for re-zoning are vacant properties. City staff believes that re-zoning the property to MUZD will stimulate interest in developing the property. The MUZD zoning district requires that a development plan be created for the district. A proposed development plan is included in your agenda packet. The Adjacent Uses and Zoning Districts are: Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Uses North C-S Commercial Special Vacant and Interstate 10 South C-S Commercial Special Commercial (convenience store) East IDC Interstate Development Corridor Railroad tracks, which shield single and R-3 High Density Residential properties east of the tracks from the properties requested for re-zoning West C-S Commercial-Special Commercial (tire dealer and professional offices) A map showing the re-quested re-zoning is included in your agenda packet. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to conduct a public hearing to receive comments on this re-zoning request. 3 of 64

4 4 of 64

5 5 of 64

6 6 of 64 Area proposed to be rezoned from C-S Commercial Special zoning district to MUZD zoning district

7 7 of 64

8 Development Plan This development plan is for property zoned Mixed Use Zoning District ( MUZD ) as shown on Attachment A. Mixture of Uses: The mixture of uses planned within the MUZD shall be complimentary in function, encourage complimentary use, and pose minimal impact of adjacent land uses. Development within the MUZD shall be visually and functionally compatible with surrounding developed property. The following uses shall be allowed within the MUZD: All uses allowed in the C-S Commercial-Special zoning district. All uses allowed in the IDC Interstate Development Corridor zoning district Setbacks for structures: Setback requirements shall be as follows: Front 30 feet Rear 10 feet Side 7.5 feet Corner side 15 feet Height limitations: There shall be no height limitations in the MUZD. Floor area ratio: There is no floor-to-area ratio. Fencing and screening: A six-foot (6 ) wooden or masonry fence shall enclose all dumpsters in the MUZD except for a gate to gain access to the dumpster(s). Fencing or landscaping may be used to screen mechanical equipment located on the ground and other materials located outside a building. Where the requirements of Chapter 12, Article Section (6)(C) of the City Code of Ordinances pertaining to fences in commercial uses adjacent to a residential zone conflicts with this development plan, the requirements of this development plan shall prevail. Landscaping: At least five percent (5%) of the developed area of the MUZD shall be landscaped. Development within the MUZD shall be functionally pleasing emphasizing professionally designed, construct, and maintained landscape areas using plants that are appropriate to the greater Orange area with shaded pedestrian gathering areas (if any), landscaping on the perimeter of parking lots, and landscaping which visually enhances all structures within the MUZD. Pedestrian circulation. All development within the MUZD shall encourage pedestrian circulation between structures and open spaces. Vehicular circulation. Vehicular circulation in the MUZD shall be pedestrian friendly, emphasize slow vehicular speeds and safe crosswalks. Signage: Signage regulations shall be as follows. All signage shall be visually pleasing and not compete with view of buildings, does not impede pedestrian or vehicular flow, does not create a traffic hazard and uses natural products to the extent possible. One pole sign shall be allowed for each parcel in the MUZD and may be placed off-premises so long as the pole sign is within the MUZD boundaries and not to exceed one hundred feet (100 ) in 8 of 64

9 height above grade and no more than four hundred square feet (400 s.f.) in size. A pole sign may be used along with a master sign. One master sign shall be allowed for the MUZD and may be placed off-premises so long as the master sign is within the MUZD boundaries and not to exceed one hundred feet (100 ) in height above grade and six hundred square feet (600 s.f.) in size. A master sign is allowed whether or not a monument sign(s) are also located in compliance with this development plan. One monument sign shall be allowed for each parcel within the MUZD and each monument sign shall be located as the same parcel as the business it is advertising. Monument signs shall not be more than one hundred square feet (100 s.f.) in size. Electronic reader boards and digital signs shall be allowed so long as they do not exceed six hundred square feet (600 s.f.) in size and one hundred feet (100 ) in height above grade and comply with the following: o The image or message shall be static or fixed and lasting no less than ten (10) seconds; o The image or message shall change to another image or message in a period of two (2) seconds or less; o o o The image or message shall not be animated, flashing, scrolling or contain video imagery; The image or message shall adjust its brightness as ambient light levels change so as not to be visually distracting; and The electronic or digital sign shall contain a default design that will freeze the sign s image or message if a malfunction occurs. Where the requirements of Chapter 12, Article Sign Regulations of the Code of Ordinances conflicts with this development plan, the requirements of this development plan shall prevail. Lighting. All lighting shall comply with the same regulations for lighting in the City s Code of Ordinances. Parking requirements. Parking requirements shall be the same as those in the Interstate Development Corridor zoning district. Unless otherwise specified in this development plan, all other requirements of the City s Code of Ordinances, as amended from time to time, shall apply to this MUZD. 9 of 64

10 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Kelvin Knauf, Director of Planning and Community Development Consider a request from the City of Orange to re-zone the following properties: Lot 9, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 10 remainder, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 11/12, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street;.4319 acres JM Spaulding Survey, Abstract #171 also known as th Street; of 3.67 TxDOT remainder (Orig ac James Enner Survey Abst 74);.0833 portion of Lot 10, Blk 4 Starlight Addition; Lot 13, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 14, Blk 4, Starlight Addition also known as th Street; Lot 15, Blk 4 Starlight Addition also known as th Street; and Lot 16, Blk 4 Starlight Addition also known as th Street from C-S Commercial Special zoning district to MUZD Mixed Use Zoning District. Date: March 28, 2018 City staff is requesting that the property described above be re-zoned from C-S Commercial Special zoning district to MUZD Mixed Use Zoning District. This is a highly visible property that at one time had the Two Amigos restaurant located on one of the properties being requested for re-zoning. The restaurant has since been demolished and the properties all being requested for re-zoning are vacant properties. City staff believes that re-zoning the property to MUZD will stimulate interest in developing the property. The MUZD zoning district requires that a development plan be created for the district. A proposed development plan is included in your agenda packet. The Adjacent Uses and Zoning Districts are: Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Uses North C-S Commercial Special Vacant and Interstate 10 South C-S Commercial Special Commercial (convenience store) East IDC Interstate Development Corridor Railroad tracks, which shield single and R-3 High Density Residential properties east of the tracks from the properties requested for re-zoning West C-S Commercial-Special Commercial (tire dealer and professional offices) A map showing the re-quested re-zoning is included in your agenda packet. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to vote on whether or not to recommend the property be re-zoned as requested. 10 of 64

11 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Kelvin Knauf, Director of Planning and Community Development Consider making a recommendation to the City Council on an ordinance amending Chapter 3 Article Fence Construction and Alterations pertaining to fence requirements for residentially zoned properties and amending Chapter 12 Article Zoning Districts and Other Regulations pertaining to the fence requirements for commercially and residentially zoned properties. Date: March 28, 2018 The Code of ordinances contains several sections that pertain to fences. Attached is a matrix showing the fence requirements in different sections of the Code of Ordinances. As you can see, two sections require that the fence in the front yard shall not be greater than five (5) feet in height and one section requires that the fence in the front yard cannot be more than four feet in height. The Historic Preservation Commission has completed a draft of the fence regulations for properties in the historic districts. Attached are their recommendations along with diagrams explaining the draft regulations. Also attached are copies of fence regulations from Beaumont, Nederland and Port Neches, and pictures of fences in Nederland and Port Neches (whose fence regulations are different from those in Orange and Beaumont). Copies of the sections of the Code of Ordinances that pertain to fences are also attached. Proposed changes are in red with proposed additions underlined and proposed deletions struck through. Line numbers have been added to make them easier to find during Commission discussions. Even though changes are proposed, I need direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission (and ultimately the City Manager and City Council) on the following policy questions: Should there be different fence height requirements for businesses along 16 th Street south of Interstate 10 than for businesses north of Interstate 10? For instance, a drive-in restaurant on 16 th Street south of I-10 has to build an 8 foot fence if next to a residential use (because it is in the C-S zoning district) whereas a drive-in restaurant north of I-10 has to build a 6 foot fence if next to a residential use. Should all commercial businesses be treated the same (current zoning ordinance) within the same zoning district? For instance, is a bank just as unsightly (and therefore required to build a 6-foot or 8-foot fence) as a convenience store (which may have more litter that blows onto adjoining residential property)? If not, where do you draw the line? 11 of 64

12 Should commercial property that has a trash cart (such as a professional office) be treated the same as a business that has a dumpster (such as a restaurant)? What happens if the property changes from one type of commercial use to another if the first use is not required to put up a fence but the second use requires a fence? There is a picture of the $25 Optical business included in your agenda packet. There are 8-foot opaque fences on either side of the property extending near the sidewalk. I personally think it looks terrible and I would like your comments on whether this is what the community wants. We get very few complaints about fences in residential areas but the ones we get generally has to do with the requirement that front yard fences cannot be more than 4 feet tall and have to be non-opaque. For neighborhood aesthetic and public safety reasons I would hate to see this requirement change. A residential property cannot build any fence higher than 4 feet and opaque in their front yard. However, if a commercial business develops next to them, the commercial business is required to build an 8-foot fence on the property line adjoining the residential property. Effectively, this gives the residential property an 8-foot opaque fence in their front yard the length of the property line (between the commercial and residential properties). This could cause a problem if the driveway at the residence is adjacent to the 8-foot fence and the residential owner is trying to back out of their driveway. Should the commercial fence extend past the front façade of the adjoining residential property? How much value should be placed on the 8 opaque fence (which helps keep litter from blowing from the commercial property onto the residential property), public safety (vehicle movements beside an 8-foot fence) and aesthetics (does an 8 opaque fence really look that good in front of a house? What if the homeowner doesn t like it?)? The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to discuss the inconsistencies in the Code of Ordinances and other issues pertaining to fence regulations. 12 of 64

13 Orange fence height zoning district comparisons Zoning District(s) R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-4 C-1 Light Commercial Front yard 4 max., nonopaque No fence allowed, if a commercial use Interior side Corner side yard Rear yard yard 8 max. 8 max. 8 max. 8 max.; 6-8 and opaque if adjacent to residential zone 8 max.; 6-8 and opaque if adjacent to residential zone 8 max.; 6-8 and opaque if adjacent to residential zone Commercial use adjacent to a residential zone C-2 Commercial Commercial use adjacent to a residential zone C-S Commercial- Special 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 8 non-opaque, with permission of Planning Director 8 max. 8 max. 8 max. 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque No fence allowed, if a commercial use 8 max. 8 max. 8 max. Commercial property which adjoins or abuts any residential property C-S Cove Commercial- Special Cove Screened along the entire perimeter of such lot or zoning district by a wood or masonry nonopaque fence being at least ten (8) feet in height. No fence allowed, if a commercial use Screened along the entire perimeter of such lot or zoning district by a wood or masonry nonopaque fence being at least ten (8) feet in height. Screened along the entire perimeter of such lot or zoning district by a wood or masonry nonopaque fence being at least ten (8) feet in height. 8 max. 8 max. 8 max. Screened along the entire perimeter of such lot or zoning district by a wood or masonry nonopaque fence being at least ten (8) feet in height. Commercial use adjacent to a residential zone OTC Old Town Center Commercial use adjacent to a residential zone 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 8 max. 8 max. 8 max. 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque 6-8 and opaque Blank spaces indicate that the Code of Ordinances does not have a requirement 13 of 64

14 Zoning District Front yard Interior side yard IDC Interstate No fence allowed, 8 max.; 6-8 and Development if a commercial opaque if adjacent Corridor use to residential zone Corner side yard 8 max.; 6-8 and opaque if adjacent to residential zone Rear yard 8 max.; 6-8 and opaque if adjacent to residential zone Property line abutting a residential zoning district 8 & opaque 8 & opaque 8 & opaque 8 & opaque I Industrial Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt MUZD Mixed Use Zoning District Fencing regulations written into HOZD Historical Overlay Zoning District (CURRENTLY) development plan 5 and non-opaque unless a taller fence is required to screen off-street parking or screen incompatible land uses as required in section (6) Fencing regulations written into development plan Fencing regulations written into development plan Fencing regulations written into development plan 8 max. Blank spaces indicate that the Code of Ordinances does not have a requirement 14 of 64

15 15 of 64

16 ARTICLE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OTHER REGULATIONS Section (6)A(n) (2) Fences. The commission may approve a fence not in compliance with this paragraph if the applicant establishes the fence is historically sensitive or unless the absence of said fence poses a significant hazard to life or property. a. Form. Fences must be constructed and maintained in a vertical position. b. Height and Location. The height and location of fences in the historic districts may be allowed as shown below. All setback requirements shall be from the property line. Front yard Corner Side yard 1 setback, 4 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque, and not within 2 of front façade 1 setback, 6 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque, and not within 2 of front façade Corner lot next to a sidewalk Corner lot not next to a sidewalk Interior lot 1 setback, 4 maximum above 1 setback, 4 maximum above 1 setback, 4 grade and non-opaque only grade and non-opaque only maximum above grade and nonopaque only N/A Interior Side yard 3 setback, 6 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque but in no case closer than two (2) feet from the front facade 8 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque except for portion that is adjoining, abutting, adjacent to or attached to primary structure, in which case is 6 maximum above grade and opaque or non-opaque but in no case closer than two (2) feet to the front facade Rear yard 1 setback (required), 4 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque, 3 setback, 6 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque and not within 2 of front facade 8 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque except for portion that is adjoining, abutting, adjacent to or attached to primary structure, in which case is 6 maximum above grade, opaque or nonopaque but in no case closer than two (2) feet to the front facade 1 setback (required), 6 maximum above grade, opaque or nonopaque 8 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque except for portion that is adjoining, abutting, adjacent to or attached to primary structure, in which case is 6 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque but in no case closer than two (2) feet to the front facade 8 maximum above grade, opaque or non-opaque except for portion that is adjoining, abutting, adjacent to or attached to primary structure, in which case is 6 maximum, opaque or nonopaque 16 of 64

17 (i). Within a front yard, no solid fence or wall shall be erected. A a non-opaque fence may be erected not to exceed a height of five (5) four (4) feet unless a taller fence is required to screen off-street parking or screen incompatible land uses as required in section (6) of the Code of Ordinances. Within a rear yard a fence may be erected not to exceed eight (8) feet. c. Location. (i) A fence in an interior side yard must be located no further forward on the lot than the front of the main building. (ii) A fence in a corner side yard must not be directly in front of the corner side facade, except that the director may allow a fence that is directly in front of the corner side facade if: 1. More screening is necessary to insure privacy due to unusually high pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and 2(ii). The fence does not screen all or any portion of a significant architectural feature of the main building. c.(iii) A fence must run either parallel or perpendicular to a building wall or lot line. d. Materials. A fence in a front or corner side yard must be constructed of wrought iron, wood or brick. Concrete block fences and chain link fences are not permitted. e. Masonry columns and bases. (i) The color, texture, pattern and dimensions of masonry and the color, width, type and elevation or mortar joints in a fence column or base must match the masonry and mortar joints of the main building as nearly as practicable. (ii) All exposed brick in a fence column or base must be fired brick as defined by the American Standard Testing Materials Designation C A, Type Grade FBS-SW. f. Metal fences. Wrought iron and metal fences must be compatible with the style and period of the main building. Chain link and, barbed and razor wire fences are permitted in back yards and must not be visible from abutting streets. g. Wooden fences. (i) All wooden structural posts must be at least four (4) inches by four (4) inches in diameter (normal nominal size). (ii) The side of the wooden fence facing a public street must be the finished side; railings shall be on the interior of the fence. (iii) Wooden fences may be painted or stained a color that is complementary to the main building. 17 of 64

18 DRAFT-Historic Overlay Zoning Districts Figure 1. Corner lot next to a sidewalk Street Sidewalk/City of Orange property line/street right-of-way max. fence height 3 4 max. fence height must be non-opaque 6 max. fence height Corner side yard 6 max. fence height Alley or adjoining property 8 max. fence height Primary Structure Rear Yard max. fence height must be non-opaque 1 Property line Front Yard Interior Side yard 6 max. fence height 8 max. Fence height 4 max. fence height must be nonopaque Property line Adjoining property Sidewalk/City of Orange property line/street right-of-way Street 18 of 64

19 DRAFT-Historic Overlay Zoning Districts Figure 2. Corner lot NOT next to a sidewalk Street Cityof Orange property line/street right-of-way (no sidewalk) max. fence height 4 max. fence height must be non-opaque Corner side yard 6 max. fence height Alley or adjoining property 8 max. fence height Primary Structure Rear Yard City of Orange property line/street right-of-way 4 max. fence height must be non-opaque Property line Front Yard Interior Side yard 6 max. fence height 8 max. Fence height 4 max. fence height must be nonopaque Property line Adjoining property Street 19 of 64

20 DRAFT-Historic Overlay Zoning Districts Figure 3. Interior lot Alley or adjoining property 8 maximum fence height Rear Yard Property line Adjoining Property (not a sidewalk or street) 8 max. Fence height Interior side yard Primary Structure Interior Side yard 8 maximum Fence height Property line Adjoining Property (not a sidewalk or street) 4 max. fence height must be non-opaque 6 max. fence height max. fence height 4 max. fence height must be non-opaque 1 Front Yard 4 max. fence height must be nonopaque Sidewalk/City of Orange property line/street right-of-way Street 20 of 64

21 21 of 64

22 1 ARTICLE FENCE CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATIONS 2 3 Sec Permit Required 4 (A) Any owner, authorized agent or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge or alter a fence, or to cause any 5 such work to be done, within the city limits, shall first make application to the building official of the city, 6 and obtain the required permit therefor. No permit shall be issued until the permit fee is paid. The fee's are 7 set out in Appendix A, "Fee Schedule" in the City of Orange Code of Ordinances. 8 9 (B) Fences in front yards of residentially zoned districts shall be no greater than five (5) feet in height and 10 shall be non-opaque in nature. 11 (Ordinance , (Exh. A), adopted 1/11/05) 12 Sec Plot Diagrams May Be Required 13 The building official may, if necessary, require a plot diagram showing the location of the proposed fence, with 14 property lines indicated thereon. If property line markers are not available, he may require same to be 15 established by a qualified surveyor, at the expense of the property owner (Ordinance , (Exh. A), adopted 1/11/05) Sec Fence Contractor's Bond Required 18 It shall be the duty of every contractor who shall make contracts for the construction, enlargement or alteration 19 of fences for which a permit is required to furnish a good and sufficient bond of five thousand dollars 20 ($5,000.00), conditioned upon conformance with this article, said bond to be in all other respects the same 21 as required for building construction under the building code. 22 (Ordinance , (Exh. A), adopted 1/11/05) of 64

23 (6)(B) Fences (Residential, Commercial, Commercial adjacent to Residential). (A) Residential. (i) Shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet in the rear or side yard. (ii) In the front yard, shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet on or within the property line, and shall be non-opaque. (iii) No fence on property used for a residential purpose shall contain barbed, razor or electric wire. (B) Commercial. (i) No fence shall be allowed in the front yard of a commercial use located within a "C-1", "C-S", or "C-S Cove" Zoning District. (ii) A non-opaque fence no higher than eight (8) feet in height may be placed within the front yard of a commercial use located within a "C-2" or "IDC" Zoning District with approval from the director of planning or his designee. (iii) If the fence request is denied by the director of planning or his designee and appeal can be made to the city council by filing a written request for such action with the city manager. (iv) Any fence erected within the front yard must be placed behind any required landscaping, so that the landscaping is totally visible from the street. (v) Shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet in the rear or side yard. (vi) Fence shall be maintained in good condition. (vii) The use of galvanized fencing is prohibited. (C) Commercial uses adjacent to Residential Zone. (i) Shall be opaque and not less than six (6) feet in height and not higher than eight (8) feet. (ii) An addition to a commercial use in excess of 50% or more of the existing floor area, where the commercial use is adjacent to a residential zone, shall require construction of an opaque fence not less than six (6) feet in height and not higher than eight (8) feet. (iii) All fences adjacent to residential zones shall be maintained by the owner of the commercial property to prevent unsightliness and shall be maintained to prevent openings in the fence. (D) Industrial. Fences on property used for industrial purposes are exempt from this section. 23 of 64

24 1 2 3 (E) Permit required. Before a fence can be constructed, the property owner or their representative shall meet the permit requirements as provided for in Article of the Code of Ordinances. 24 of 64

25 25 of 64

26 26 of 64

27 27 of 64

28 28 of 64

29 29 of 64

30 30 of 64

31 31 of 64

32 32 of 64

33 33 of 64

34 34 of 64

35 35 of 64

36 36 of 64

37 37 of 64

38 38 of 64

39 39 of 64

40 40 of 64

41 41 of 64

42 42 of 64

43 43 of 64

44 44 of 64

45 45 of 64

46 46 of 64

47 Port Neches/Nederland Commercial next to residential 6' Commercial next to residential 6' Residential 3' in front yard 47 of 64

48 Orange C-S zoning 8' Commercial next to residential C-S zoning 8' Commercial next to residential C-S zoning 8' Commercial next to residential C-S zoning 8' Commercial next to residential Residential 6' in side and rear, 4' non-opaque in front 48 of 64

49 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, July 6, 2017 The Orange Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council met for a joint session on Thursday, July 6, 2017, in the meeting room of the Orange Public Library with the following members present to-wit: Commissioners Present: Cullin Smith... Chairman Joe Love... Vice Chairman MaQuettia Ledet Commissioner Mary McKenna Commissioner Jamie Wilson Commissioner Michael Smith Commissioner Mary Ekene Commissioner Commissioners Absent: None City Council Members Present: Larry Spears, Jr. Annette Pernell Brad Childs City Council Members Absent: Jimmy Sims Patrick Pullen Bill Mello Terrie Salter Staff Present: Dr. Shawn Oubre, City Manager Kelvin Knauf, Director of Planning & Community Development Wendy Lloyd, Planning Secretary Chairman Smith called the P & Z meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - opened at 5:31 p.m. a. Case No. 17:13. Conduct a public hearing on a request by Cypress Bayou Industrial for a development plan for 402 Simmons Drive 1 49 of 64

50 Mr. Knauf stated property owned by Cypress Bayou Industrial is strange in that half of it is zoned industrial and half is zoned mixed use zoning district and under the mixed use zoning district regulations you have to have a development plan to use that property. He stated that he and Mr. Kevin Williams have been working on a development plan and it outlines the uses that are allowed and has the standards which are very similar to the industrial zoning district and the mixed use district is a more flexible than the industrial district because under mixed use you create the regulations for that district, whereas on industrial those are rigid standards and uses. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive public comments on the proposed development plan. Chairman Smith asked if that plan would be in existence as long as they are using the property. Mr. Knauf stated yes. Chairman Smith asked if they sold it if it would revert back to mixed use/industrial. Mr. Knauf stated they would have to amend the development plan. Chairman Smith opened the floor to public comments. Kevin Williams 6204 Soaring Forest Dr., Orange, Texas Mr. Williams stated he is the owner of Cypress Bayou Industrial and originally purchased the old Signal International warehouse and adjacent to the warehouse purchased about an acre and a half of property. He stated he is starting a pipe/steel fabrication inside the warehouse and will be using the lot for laydown storage to feed that warehouse - trucking, parking, equipment and everything that compliments the warehouse usage. He stated with that will go ahead and try to put up fencing more or less for security and safety for others and would like to adopt the industrial usage for the mixed use side of the property and with Kelvin s help have outlined that plan. Chairman Smith asked if the pipes on racks are the property line. Mr. Williams stated yes that is basically the property line. Chairman Smith asked for questions or comments. No Comments were made. b. Case No. 17:14. Conduct a public hearing on a request by the Orange Depot Board to abandon a section of 11th Street from West Green Avenue to West Elm Avenue Mr. Knauf stated the Orange Depot Board have done a good and diligent job of restoring the train depot and looks terrific and as part of their plans have approached the city about abandoning part of 11 th Street from Green Avenue to Elm Avenue and their plans are to use that for a parking lot and future parking lot and to help with visitors to the train depot and Mr. Rob Clark is here representing the board and has some handouts (see attached) to show their ideas for the area. Chairman Smith opened the floor to public comments at 5:41 p.m. Rob Clark 350 Pine Street, Ste 720, Beaumont, Texas Mr. Clark stated he is here to answer any questions regarding the requested abandonment and the property adjacent to it 2 50 of 64

51 or opposite to the street has been acquired and is part of the Save The Orange Depot organization so they are going to have absolute control over development in addition to reviews by the Historic Commission for that area and so covering this street permits them to control access to the development but also for different uses in children and buses coming in and they did not want as much circulation on that road. He stated it s a road that is not used a tremendous amount and also in conversations with the railroad right of way people, they were very concerned at how close that street was to the back up traffic that occurs when the rail goes down. He stated they felt like it was a viable opportunity for development for Orange something really good and there are some potentials of some things happening there that they are working with right now and do not feel like that it impedes access for the fire department as they have had discussions. He stated that the diagram shows the intention and many times when a street is closed off they build a bulk head or barrier but that s not the intention. They want to create and generate a soft curb and want to control visual access on Green Avenue. Chairman Smith asked if the own lots eleven through twenty-two. Mr. Clark stated a majority of the lots that entire block yes and thinks the owner of the gas station/convenience store across the street still owns a small parcel there. Chairman Smith asked if they own lots eleven through twenty-two then no one will be hindered by having access to the rear of the property. Mr. Clark stated correct. Mr. Clark stated there is no plan right now but will come before the board for some appropriateness as they start looking at development on site. He stated right now they are just asking for this closure of this portion of the street. Chairman Smith asked if the city needs to tear that road up to access the fourteen inch main, are they responsible for returning that property to the prior condition. Mr. Knauf stated yes and what we are looking at is just abandoning the surface only of that portion and retaining the property underneath and then also putting a utility easement that is the same width and length as the area being abandoned so that we have a utility easement and right to repair or move that fourteen inch sewer line. Mr. Clark stated the owner understands and it is traditional when doing a street closure, that the public utilities, the easements, right-of-ways are continuants and it s the owners resolve or loss if the city has to go in and do some repairs. Chairman Smith asked if the city would be required to repair it or the owner. Mr. Clark stated that the owner would have to make those repairs underneath those easements. Mr. Knauf stated if the city goes in and tears up to fix the line, then the city would restore it back. City Manager Oubre stated yes he thinks the city does if they cut or dig and make repairs, then the city returns it to the way it was before. Chairman Smith asked for any other questions or comments. No comments were made. Chairman Smith closed the public hearing at 5:44 p.m of 64

52 DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a. Case No. 17:12. Consider a request for preliminary plat submitted by David Hinds for the Oak Allie subdivision. Mr. Knauf stated this item is withdrawn as the plat is not ready to be considered. b. Case No. 17:13. Conduct a public hearing on a request by Cypress Bayou Industrial for a development plan for 402 Simmons Drive Chairman Smith asked for any comments. No comments were made. Chairman Smith motioned to accept as presented Commissioner Wilson 2 nd Vote: 7-0 Motion Carries c. Case No. 17:14. Conduct a public hearing on a request by the Orange Depot Board to abandon a section of 11th Street from West Green Avenue to West Elm Avenue Chairman Smith asked for any comments No Comments were made Chairman Smith asked for a motion Vice Chairman Love motioned to accept Commissioner McKenna 2 nd Vote: 7 0 Motion Carries d. Consider rules of procedure for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Smith asked for any comments Vice Chairman Love asked about once somebody submits a request and they can t submit again for six months. Mr. Knauf stated page four line 30. Vice Chairman Love stated his only problem is that we have had some recently where they have come in and they are not prepared and because of the time frame where we have to act once they have submitted to Kelvin, that the board has had to deny them and if they have to wait six months. Mr. Knauf stated the way it is written it really replies to a zoning request and if somebody comes in and requests a property to be rezoned and it gets denied and the council ends up denying it, then they would have to wait six months. He stated on 4 52 of 64

53 the next page regarding preliminary plats and final plats, they may be reconsidered at any meeting after the decision was made to recommend denial on the preliminary plat or final plat provided that changes requested by the commission have been made. Chairman Smith asked about how a legal conflict of interest is determined and who s job is it to point that out. Mr. Knauf stated that conflict of interest is dictated by state law there are certain state laws that if you own or have ownership of a property that is under consideration that you have a legal conflict of interest or if you are directly benefiting from a transaction monetarily, then that would be a conflict of interest. He stated usually it is staff that would catch that and would advise the member and ultimately you should know when you have a conflict of interest and if there is any doubt, go with the conflict of interest and recuse yourself from that discussion. Chairman Smith asked if there were any other questions or comments No comments were made Chairman Smith asked for a motion Commissioner Wilson made a motion to accept as presented Commissioner McKenna 2 nd Vote: 7 0 Motion Carries APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Smith made a request for the minutes of the April 18, 2017 meeting to be approved. Commissioner McKenna motioned Commissioner Wilson 2 nd Vote: 7 0 Motion Carries Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 5:49 p.m of 64

54 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018 The Orange Planning and Zoning Commission met on Tuesday, March 6, 2018, in the meeting room of the Orange Public Library with the following members present to-wit: Commissioners Present: Cullin Smith... Chairman Joe Love... Vice Chairman MaQuettia Ledet Commissioner Mary McKenna Commissioner Jamie Wilson Commissioner George Mortimer Commissioner Weldon Smith Commissioner Commissioners Absent: None City Council Members Present: Annette Pernell Patrick Pullen Brad Childs City Council Members Absent: Jimmy Sims Bill Mello Terrie Salter Larry Spears Staff Present: Dr. Shawn Oubre, City Manager Jay Trahan, Assistant City Manager & Director of Economic Development Kelvin Knauf, Director of Planning & Community Development Wendy Lloyd, Planning Secretary Chairman Smith called the P & Z meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. There was not a quorum of City Council members. Chairman Smith thanked and welcomed new members Weldon Smith and George Mortimer. PUBLIC HEARING 1 54 of 64

55 a. Case No. 18:01. Conduct a public hearing on a request for re-zoning from Lisa and Demetrius Hunter for Lots 7, 8 and 9 of Block A of the L.T. Grubbs Subdivision also known as 1402, 1404 and th Street from R-2 Medium Density Residential zoning district to C-1 Light Commercial zoning district. Public hearing opened at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Knauf stated that Mr. and Mrs. Hunter are requesting to take the three lots that are south of the barbershop on 10 th Street (near the intersection of Burton and 10 th ), to convert those from R-3 to C-1. He stated they are hoping to tear down the barbershop and build a new barbershop and this will give them more room to meet zoning ordinance requirements like landscaping, parking, disabled parking and all the different requirements and Mr. and Mrs. Hunter are here and this is the opportunity for the public and Mr. and Mrs. Hunter talk about their project and their request and for the audience to ask questions on the proposed request. Demetrius Hunter th Street, Orange, Tx: Mr. Hunter stated they are trying to build a new building for a new barbershop on 10 th Street and where the garage is at, the commercial starts right there and they bought the lot on the corner and need to extend the commercial to the next corner to be able to do what they have to do. Mr. Hunter stated the building is in old shape and need to put a new one up and they live in Orange and are trying to build it back up. Chairman Smith asked for any questions. No comments were made. Public hearing closed at 5:34 p.m. b. Case No 18:02. Conduct a public hearing on a request for re-zoning from Woody Dorman for re-zoning acres out of a acre tract or parcel of land conveyed to Woodrow W. Dorman III by deed, recorded in Volume 1106 Page 273, of the Official Public Records, of real property, Orange County, Texas located at the northeastern corner of Tulane Road and Old Timers Road also known as 325 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and 335 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive from R-3 High Density Residential zoning district to C-2 Commercial zoning district. Public hearing opened at 5:34 p.m. Mr. Knauf stated that Mr. Dorman owns vacant property at Tulane Road and Martin Luther King on one side and Old Timers Road on the other side. He stated that the property is one of these situations that is unusual for a zoning as it is split between commercial zoning and R-3 residential zoning and so Mr. Dorman is requesting that the little strip along Old Timers Road that is residential be rezoned to commercial zoning and Mr. Dorman is here and this is an opportunity for the public to make comments or ask questions of 64

56 Woody Dorman 4679 Old Highway 87, Apt. 105, Orange, Tx: Mr. Dorman stated he was here with his son, Woodrow Dorman III and asked to hand out an individual map to the commissioners (to be made part of these minutes). Mr. Dorman stated that they own this tract of land that is approximately fifteen acres out of the original twenty-six acres. He stated they have commercially developed this land and the land across the street on Martin Luther King - Webco, a printing press company and an electric motor repair facility shop. He stated the reason for coming today for the request is to change the zoning on the little yellow section of this six acre tract (on the hand out). He stated there is a yellow line around this whole six acre tract that is of interest and the one acre tract is highlighted all in yellow. Mr. Dorman stated that they have a company that wants to come to the city of Orange with a facility that is an industrial electric motor repair company and they re headquartered out of Shreveport and have a facility in Dallas and they want to come to the gulf coast. He stated Lake Charles was wooing them and they hired a real estate agent out of Jefferson County and she tried to get them to come to Jefferson County, however their main sales manager lives in Pinehurst and he was able to bring the owners down to look at this property and they liked it. He stated they liked that it bordered on Martin Luther King and Tulane and Old Timers Road and because it was virgin property and liked the price. Mr. Dorman stated that they want the whole six acres and want it to be commercial C-2 and from what they have told him they plan for a several million dollar facility with everything enclosed with no outside construction and all repairs to be done inside one or two big buildings. He stated there would be no carbon footprint, no environmental water problems or smoke stack all inside. He stated they expect to have possibly twenty-five to thirty-five good paying jobs, full time here in Orange and would be paying taxes on several million dollars worth of improvements along with the land and this is the reason for the request for zoning change and all but the one acre is already zoned commercial so he could go ahead and build without any problems but they wanted it zoned all the way from Martin Luther King over to Old Timers Road so that in the future, he would have access on all three sides. Chairman Smith asked for any comments/questions. Commissioner Wilson asked if they are not interested in just the five acres or is an all or none situation. Mr. Dorman stated no, it s all or none but anything could be negotiable but right now it s all or none as he wants to have access to Old Timers Road, but the main egress into and out of the property is going to be on Martin Luther King and Tulane but in the future there may be some need to exit out Old Timers and he wants to have that access. Cleve Halliburton 350 Old Timers Road, Orange, Tx: Mr. Halliburton stated that the house is currently owned by his mother, but she passed away six weeks ago, and her estate is being administered and he will be the executor and thought he would come speak on Mr. Dorman s proposed changes. He stated that looking at the map, the very first house seen is his mothers and the proposed changes he is wanting, his front door and window would look straight out at it. He stated back in 2006 when his mother bought the house from Mr. Dorman, he was developing at the time residential townhouses or garden homes and the sign that currently sits at the corner of Old Timers Road and the one at MLK, Mr. Dorman continues to market these lots as residential and Mr. Dorman told his mother back in 2006 that he had big plans for this land and develop houses but sounded like an attractive place to put a seventy year old lady to where she would have a nice house with a small yard and nice neighbors. He stated since then, no houses have been built and 3 56 of 64