MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LUFKIN, TEXAS, HELD ON THE NOVEMBER 25, 1991 AT 5:00 P.M.

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LUFKIN, TEXAS, HELD ON THE NOVEMBER 25, 1991 AT 5:00 P.M. On the 25th day of November, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Lufkin, Texas, convened in regular meeting in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members thereof, to-wit: Jim Partridge Herbert Cross Robert McGee James Slack Ronnie Robinson Tommy Deaton C. G. Maclin Darryl Mayfield Stephen Abraham Sharon DeLoss Chairman Vice Chairman Assistant City Attorney City Manager Asst. City Manager/Finance City Planner City Planning Secretary being present, and Robin Mercer ~ Dale Green being absent when the following business was transacted. 1, Meeting was opened with prayer by Herbert Cross. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 1991 were approved on a motion by Ronnie Robinson and seconded by James Slack. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded. 3a. TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME PERMIT RENEWAL - EVELYN TIMS OLD MILL ROAD - APPROVED is the request for Temporary Mobile Home Permit renewal for Evelyn Tims located at 2440 Old Mill Road. (The Temporary Mobile Home Permit is being used to provide residence for mother in ill health, so she can be near daughter, Mrs. Lanell Ballard.) Mrs. Lanell Ballard stated that there have been no changes or problems with the present location of the mobile home. There was no opposition present. DATE: 11/25/91 Page 1

2 - Motion was made by Herbert Cross and seconded by James Slack that the Temporary Mobile Home Permit renewal for Evelyn Tims located at 2440 Old Mill Road be granted a 180-day extension. An unanimous affirmative vote was recorded. 4. VACATE FINAL PLAT - SABINE INVESTMENT COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. CROWN COLONY SUBDIVISION, SECTION VII-B-1 - APPROVED is a request by Sabine Investment Company of Texas, Inc. for approval to vacate the final plat of Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VII B 1. Mr. Elmo Taylor, appearing in representation of the request, stated that this request is to vacate the final plat which was previously approved by the Commission on October 14, Mr. Taylor stated that since the final plat approval, Sabine Investment Company has reconsidered the lot layout and wishes to increase the size of Lots 1 & 2. Motion was made by James Slack and seconded by Herbert Cross that the request of Sabine Investment Company of Texas, Inc. to vacate the final plat of Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VII-B-1 be approved. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded. 5. REPLAT - SABINE INVESTMENT COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. - CROWN COLONY SUBDIVISION, LOT 14 OF BLOCK 1 - APPROVED is a request by Sabine Investment Company of Texas, Inc. for approval of a replat of acres of land out of Lot 14 in Block 1 of the Crown Colony Subdivision to be added to an additional acres of land to be known as Crown Colony Subdivision, Section Vu-B-i. Chairman Partridge stated that the Commission would like to consider Items #5 and #6 as one request. Mr. Abraham stated that these items are a replat of Lot 14 which is being subdivided into two different sections, Mr. Abraham stated that there are some colored maps on the table - the green outline is the existing Lot 14 of Section Vu A, the pink outline is VII-A-l which contains four lots, and the yellow outline is Vu-B-i with the additional land from the vacated plat. Mr. Abraham stated that Lot 14 in Block 1 consists of acres and the replat will divide acres of Lot 14 into four lots which will be designated as Section VI I-A-i. In response to a question by Ronnie Robinson, Mr. Taylor stated that Sabine Investment Company first came to the DATE: 11/25/91 Page 2

3 - Commission with the two lots that were going to be enlarged by an administrative plat, but since that time Sabine Investment Company has not been able to do an administrative plat, so it required Sabine Investment Company to come back and replat to add additional property. Mr. Abraham stated that the State law requires that any subdivision of an already platted lot that is zoned one-family or two-family residential within the preceding five years go through public hearing with required notific.ation to all owners within the subdivision. Mr. Abraham stated that an administrative plat could not have worked if you subdivide such property. Motion was made by Ronnie Robinson and seconded by Herbert Cross that the request of Sabine Investment Company of Texas, Inc. for a replat of acres of land out of Lot 14 in Block 1 of the Crown Colony Subdivision to be added to an additional acres of land to be known as Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VII-B-i be approved. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded. 6. REPLAT - SABINE INVESTMENT COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. - CROWN COLONY SUBDIVISION, SECTION VI I-A-i - APPROVED is the request by Sabine Investment Company of Texas, Inc. for a replat of acres of land out of Lot 14 in Block 1 of Crown Colony Subdivision to be known as Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VII A-i. The Commission discussed this request on the previous Item #5. Motion was made by Ronnie Robinson and seconded by Herbert Cross that the request of Sabine Investment Company of Texas, Inc. for a replat of acres of land out of Lot itt in Block 1 of the Crown Colony Subdivision to be known as Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VII-A-1 be approved. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded. 7. FINAL PLAT - KENNETH RYAN/MR. & MRS. KESTER W. DENMAN, JR. CROWN COLONY SUBDIVISION, SECTION VT-A REVISED - APPROVED is the request by Kenneth Ryan on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kester W. Denman, Jr. of the final plat of Lot 1 in Block 1 of Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VI-A Revised. Mr. Kenneth Ryan stated that Mr. Denman had bought Lot 1 in Block 1 of the Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VI-A. Mr. Ryan stated that when Mr. Denman purchased this land, the irregular portion to the west had already been purchased with that lot, and since then Mr. Denman purchased additional property at the northwest corner of the lot and would like to DATE: 11/25/91 Page 3

4 . replat all land purchases into one lot. Mr. Abraham stated that Mr. Denman would like to make an addition to his house. Mr. Abraham stated that the proposed plat without the northwest corner (highlighted in yellow) is how Mr. Denman s property exists now, and the 15 foot building line follows that angle. Mr. Abraham stated that in purchasing the northwest corner, the 15 foot building line will move out of the way of the proposed addition. Mr. Abraham stated that Mr. & Mrs. Denman have already purchased property to the west of Lot 1 of Block I (highlighted in green). Motion was made by James Slack and seconded by Ronnie Robinson that the request of Kenneth Ryan on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Kester W. Denman, Jr. for the final plat of Lot 1 in Block 1 of the Crown Colony Subdivision, Section VI-A Revised be approved. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded. 8. PERMANENT MOBILE HOME PERMITS - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO TABLED is a Public Hearing to consider approval of an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Lufkin, Texas with regard to the location of mobile homes by repealing Ordinance No Chairman Partridge stated that the Commission has been allowing permanent mobile homes to be placed in Residential Small zoning districts in certain instances, however, according to the City Attorney, the Commission cannot handle permanent mobile homes this way any longer. The Commission may either allow the mobile homes in Residential Small in every instance or not allow them in Residential Small at all. Mr. Abraham stated that it is the opinion of the City Attorney and the Planning Department that a change is necessary to bring the permitting process for permanent mobile homes into compliance with regulatory authority deemed acceptable by the courts. Mr. Abraham stated that the authority to deny a request that meets all of the regulations of a Residential Small zoning district, based on the objections of the neighbors probably would not meet the test that would be applied by the courts. Mr. Abraham stated that as previously discussed at the last meeting, there are two options available to the City at this time: (1) Allow permanent mobile homes which meet the minimum standards on all property zoned Residential Small without appearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and without notifying surrounding property owners; or (2) limit mobile homes to mobile home parks. Mr. Abraham stated that the Planning Department recommends DATE: 11/25/91 Page 4

5 adoption of the proposed ordinance limiting mobile homes to mobile home parks. Mr. Abraham stated that the City Staff would look at creating a new zoning district which would allow a mixture of both permanent- structures and mobile homes - then evaluate all existing Residential Small zoning districts to determine their suitability for a new zoning classification. Mr. Abraham stated that he would like to present a couple of visual aids to the Commission so that they can understand the magnitude of what is being discussed. Mr. Abraham stated that the scaled drawing is at 1 inch = 500 feet and is a tracing of all the Residential Small zoning districts in the City. Mr. Abraham stated that the information memo indicates that there are approximately acres zoned Residential Small, which amounts to approximately 25% of the land area within the City which is zoned for single-family residential uses. On the other side of this map is a location map indicating where the Residential Small zoning districts lie within the City. Mr. Abraham stated that he made contact with some of the mobile home parks to find out about vacancies. Mr. Abraham stated that there are a total of 19 mobile home parks in the City with a total of 666 spaces. Mr. Abraham stated that he was unable to contact all of the mobile home parks, but contacted most of the parks which amounted to 466 total spaces and 138 vacant spaces. Mr. Abraham stated that this total comes out to be 29.6 vacancy rate, and if this rate was extended to all 666 mobile home spaces, it would leave the City with 197 vacant mobile home spaces. Mr. Abraham stated that since 1973 the City has approved 142 permanent mobile homes. Mr. Abraham stated that within the last 3 years, the Commission has approved 14 Permanent Mobile Home Permits and denied 6 others. Mr. Abraham stated it is clear that the City has plenty of space at this current rate to accommodate any permanent mobile homes that might be needed in the next few years to meet lower income housing demands. Mr. Doug Thompson, with Pineywoods Mobile Homes, stated that the spaces that Mr. Abraham is talking about would vary from $80 to $125 per month. Mr. Thompson stated that there are alot of people in the City who own property that would not have to live in a mobile home park. Mr. Thompson stated that there are many places in the City that have manufactured housing and the part on the mobile home disturbs him, because the City allows modular homes which are factory built into the City with a permit. Mr. Thompson stated that there is also a Texas modular building that is nothing except a regular mobile home with 8 perimeter beams around the house which is allowed in the City. Mr. Thompson presented pictures to the Commission of properties that were enhanced by placement of mobile homes. Mr. Thompson stated that most of the mobile homes today are not built to a minimum standard like the Southern Building Code. Mr. Thompson stated that you can go and build a house in the City on 24 centers with the minimum DATE: 11/25/91 Page 5

6 standards and installation but you can t put a superior built manufactured home in the City. Mr. Thompson stated that he feels that mobile homes are being discriminated against. Mr. Thompson stated that due to the economy, some people are unable to purchase a house. Mrs. Nelda Childress stated that she agrees with Mr. Thompson and explained that there are several young families and individuals that will not ever be able to afford to purchase their own home. Mrs. Childress stated that the Commission is not being fair to the needs of the people. Mrs. Jessie Boydkin stated that she lives in a double wide mobile home on Persimmon Street. Mrs. Boydkin stated that she is enjoying the conveniences that she has been receiving since the Commission granted her a Permanent Mobile Home Permit. Mrs. Boydkin stated that the neighborhood was improved when she moved her mobile home on her property. Mr. Bo Letney, with R & H Manufactured Housing, stated that regardless of what the City Attorney happens to find out about the current permitting system, he feels that the rights of the people will be violated. Mr. Letney presented pictures of the last five mobile homes that they sold that were within the City limits.. Mr. Letney stated that the pictures are stapled in two s, so that he can show the Commission the differences between a manufactured home compared to an older home on a Residential Small lot. Mr. Letney stated that he has received alot of feedback from his customers, newspaper articles, Planning Department, and others and would like to state these concerns. Mr. Letney stated that the first concern is that most people like to place mobile homes on property they already own; Second, the public has no alternative but to rent spaces from certain limited individuals in parks; Third, the landowners rights to apply to an unbiased Commission for a permit to put a mobile home in the City is being done away with. Mr. Letney stated that he was concerned that this makes the mobile home seem to be an inferior product and one that is not suitable for our City. Mr. Dave Bole), on behalf of A-i Self Storage, stated that he has a Temporary Mobile Home Permit on their property for security reasons. Chairman Partridge stated that temporary mobile homes are not being discussed at tonight s meeting, but has been tabled until the first meeting in January. Chairman Partridge stated that all persons that have temporary mobile homes will be notified of the scheduled meeting. Mr. Thompson asked the Commission why they want to get rid of permanent mobile homes. Chairman Partridge stated that the neighbors, under the way the ordinance reads now, cannot have a say in whether a mobile home can go in their neighborhood or not. Chairman Partridge stated that the Commission has two options: First, without a permit they can go to a mobile home DATE: 11/25/91 Page 6

7 park; and Second, a new zoning district could be created. Mr. Maclin stated that what Mr. Abraham is proposing - a mixed use zoning district is the most logical, tangible, appropriate way to continue what the Commission has been doing all along, but does it in a legal manner rather than handling it like it is now, which involves subjectivity as opposed to objectivity.. Mr. Maclin stated that with a mixed use zoning district all of the Residential Small zoning districts (areas that are highlighted in pink on the map) could be technically accomplished with a Permanent Mobile Home Permit process that we have had in the past. The public hearings and the notifications to property owners and the neighborhood would decide if they felt comfortable with mobile homes being in their neighborhoods. Mr. Abraham stated that the City will make that decision on a block by block or neighborhood by neighborhood basis rather than case by case. Mr. Abraham stated it is his opinion that the permitting process is outside of the scope of what the Commission is allowed to do. Mr. Lester Adkison stated that with the explanation that Mr. Maclin gave, he agrees that this new zoning district should work for the City. In response to a question by Chairman Partridge, Mr. Abraham stated that he did not know what the time frame would be if it is the desire of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Commission to go and look at a new zoning classification. Mr. Abraham stated that he would like to take property owners that are not within Residential Small as requests are received to see if they might fit this new zoning classification. Mr. Abraham stated that he would work with the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Commission to come up with objective criteria that can be applied to each and every block and make a recommendation on which areas would be most benefitted by a mixed use zoning district. Mr. Abraham stated that once areas are identified, then the zoning process will apply, therefore, all property owners will be notified within that new zoning district and 200 feet surrounding the district. Mr. Abraham stated that according to the State Law, if 20% of the people within that area object, or 20% of the people within 200 feet of that area object, then it requires a 3/4 vote of the City Commission. The City requires a 4/5 vote of the City Commission. Mr. Abraham stated that everyone within an area subject to the new zoning classification would have a voice in whether or not the whole neighborhood would change over to the new zoning district. Mr. Abraham stated that it gets the City away from a property owner at one end of the block getting a permanent mobile home because all the property owners approve and somebody that might be 301 feet away from those people not getting one because they have neighbors that may object. Mr. Abraham stated that this would treat everyone on that block DATE: 11/25/91 Page 7

8 the same. Chairman Partridge stated that he did not think the Commission would expect the Planning Department to go to every area in the City and make that determination beforehand, and stated that he thought that the Planning Department may want to take it as the request is being received. Mr. Abraham stated that the Planning Department recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance limiting mobile homes to mobile home parks. Mr. Abraham stated that this is the first step. If the City wishes to pass an ordinance that allows mobile homes every place in a Residential Small the problem would be solved and everybody would be treated the same and not on a case by case basis determined by objections of the neighbors. Mr. Abraham stated that according to the structure of the zoning ordinance, one of the two options can be taken, either do not allow mobile homes other than in mobile home parks or allow them on each and every lot that is zoned Residential Small. Mr. Abraham stated that if mobile homes are limited to mobile home parks at this time, then he will start the process of evaluating which areas he feels are right for zoning reclassification, and that zoning district will not prohibit people from placing a permanent mobile home in the new district. Mr. Boley stated that he has a problem with the permanent mobile home permit being done away with without having this new ordinance in place. In a response to a question by Chairman Partridge, Mr. Deaton stated that there could be a proposed ordinance that would not necessarily serve other areas, but feels that Mr. Abraham may have a problem with a blanket ordinance. Mr. Deaton stated that legally the City can draft an ordinance. Mr. Abraham stated that we would have to find defined areas and look at the characteristics and determine whether the whole area is right for a new zoning classification. Mr. Abraham stated that when the Commission comes up with objective criteria, he will make a recommendation to the Commission for an ordinance. Mr. Mayfield stated that he suggests that discussion with the City Planner and Asst. City Attorney on the proposed ordinance should be discussed in workshops. In response to a question by Chairman Partridge, Mr. Deaton stated that the Commission cannot put~a moratorium for one month on mobile homes. Mr. Deaton stated that there is no objective criteria in the Permanent Mobile Home Permit application and basically the Commission has reacted on public sentiment among the neighbors. Mr. Abraham stated that in the future the requests for a permanent mobile home will be a zoning case which will allow public input. Mr. Abraham stated that in the opinion of himself and the City Attorney, the City DATE: 11/25/91. Page 8 I

9 may be operating outside the law. In response to a question by Herbert Cross, Mr. Abraham stated that all existing Permanent Mobile Homes will actually be conforming uses under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Abraham stated that under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, all uses of land that were in existence prior to the zoning ordinance and used for single-family or two-family dwellings become conforming uses rather than nonconforming uses so they could add onto their mobile homes as long as the did not violate the setbacks. Motion was made by Ronnie Robinson and seconded by Herbert Cross that the amendment of the zoning ordinance of the City of Lufkin, -Texas with regard to the location of mobile homes by repealing Ordinance No be tabled for sixty days and direct the Planning Department to write an ordinance establishing a new zoning district which would allow a mixture of traditional single-family dwellings and mobile homes. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded. 9. COMMENTS Mr. Abraham stated that he is presenting a copy of the proposed restrictive zoning district to each of the Commissioners. Mr. Abraham stated that this new zoning district would fall between Apartment and Neighborhood Retail although this district would not be a cumulative zoning. Mr. Abraham asked the Commissioners to take their time and look at the proposed zoning district and make their comments for the next Planning and Zoning Commission workshop. 10. There being no further business for consideration, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. ATTEST: Atha Stokes, City Secretary DATE: 11/25/91 Page 9