Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1992-01-09 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JANUARY 9, 1992 - 7:30 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman James Brock at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary Members Dir. Community Dev. Building Official P & Z Coordinator James Brock David Barfield Don Bowen Ron Lueck Don Collins Pat Marin Paul Miller Barry LeBaron' Steve Pence Wanda Calvert ABSENT: Wayne Moody CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 1991 Ms. Marin made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 5-0 with Brock and Miller abstaining since they were not present at the meeting. Chairman Brock moved item #14, Election of Officers, to the first of the Agenda. 14. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The same officers were unanimously elected for another year. They are as follows: Chairman - James Brock Vice Chairman - David Barfield Secretary - Don Bowen. 1. PZ 91-27 Review of Draft Comprehensive Master Plan for the City of North Richland Hills. Ann Zada with Planning Resourses Group came forward. She said they have been working on this for about a year. She showed the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Master Plan. Ms. Zada stated they started out by doing an inventory of all the existing land use Page 2 P & Z minutes January 9, 1992 in North Richland Hills. She said they divided the city into 5 sectors with a map of the existing zoning in each sector. There were Public Hearings held for each sector. Ms. Zada stated they had a joint meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in November and out of that meeting, there were 14 changes requested. She showed each change on the map. They were: 1. In Little Bear Creek Sector, it was felt that most of the northern section of the city would be residential and felt there was too much commercial. Ms. Zada said the consensus at the last meeting was that the intersection of Davis and North Tarrant Parkway and the intersection of Smithfield and North Tarrant Parkway would be the two locations on this road for commercial development. She said that previously there had been some commercial along Wilson Road and North Tarrant Parkway with a bank of moderate density residential; that has been removed and changed to single family residential. 2. On Smithfield Road, on the previous map, this road intersected with Bursey Road at two locations causing two "T" intersections. She said it was felt this should be smoothed out into a smooth curve. 3. South of North Tarrant Parkway, this was previously shown as moderate density residential, but now feel this would be more appropriate as single family residential. 4. North of Starnes Road, there are two locations for some future retention ponds to try to deal with some of the flooding problems in this sector. Previously the pond to the north was to be made larger, but due to the development of single family residential in the area there is not adequate space for it to be as large as it had been proposed. Page 3 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 5. In the College Sector, there is a piece of land noted as moderate density residential, but they feel this would be more appropriate along Davis as commercial. 6. The property shown in this area, owned by E-Systems, has mixed uses; the AEGON Office area has some commercial; off Davis, it shows some moderate density residential; this should be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. There is a small subdivision here that was previously known as moderate density residential which has recently been rezoned and is being developed as single family residential. 8. This change has to do with the collector street, Holiday Lane. Previously on the map, we realigned Holiday Lane to go directly north intersecting with Watauga Road. There was concern at the last meeting that Fort Worth Christian School needed a collector road in order to service that area. Ms. Zada said on the original Thoroughfare Plan Holiday Lane does go up around the school, so they put it back on the map the way it was originally planned. 9. This change is in the area next to Iron Horse Golf Course just at the edge of the city limits. This land was previously shown as high density residential, but they felt it would be more appropriate as a commercial use. 10. Southeast of Industrial Park Boulevard, there was some industrial land which is now being developed as commercial. 11. The church property next to Northeast Loop 820 had previously been shown as commercial. It was noted it should be shown as church property. 12. Below the church property and adjacent to the golf course property, the Park Plan shows 10 acres for a future site for a park. It was the consensus at the last meeting that there was not 10 acres there to be Page 4 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 developed as a park so this was taken off of the future plan. 13. At the last meeting it was noted there was a park next to Northeast Medical Center. This has been noted on this map. 14. Last change was a collector street just above Glenview was shown further south. It was requested this be moved back up to where it was shown on the Thoroughfare Plan in the mall area. Chairman Brock stated we are not approving this plan tonight. Ms. Zada said they would have a Public Hearing in the future and all the people who attended the sector meetings will be contacted about this Public Hearing. Chairman Brock said we need to set a date, January 30th at 7:00 P.M., for this Public Hearing. PZ 91-27 Mr. Barfield made a motion to schedule a Public Hearing for January 30th, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. This motion was seconded by Ms. Marin and the motion carried 7-0. 2. Discussion with Mr. Charles Dooley regarding proposed changes in Zoning Ordinance #1080 to allow a LPG filling station within one or more zoning districts. Mr. Dooley was not present. Mr. LeBaron stated he and Mr. Pence had talked with Mr. Dooley about having a LPG filling station in North Richland Hills. He said Mr. Dooley would like for P & Z to consider changing the Zoning Ordinance to allow a LPG filling station somewhere within the ordinance. Mr. LeBaron said, at this time, one is not allowed. He Page 5 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 said people are having to go to other cities to get their propane tanks filled for charcoal grills, for recreational vehicles, and for swimming pools. Mr. LeBaron said recently there was some State Legislation passed that requires public entities such as cities, schools, and counties, that within the next few years, a certain percent of their fleet become energy efficient and Mr. Dooley would like to be ready to take care of that demand. Chairman Brock said there would have to be a Public Hearing in order to make this change. Mr. Lueck said he felt there was no reason not to have this allowed. Mr. Barfield said he felt this is a fire issue. He said since these tanks are above ground, he felt they would be more hazardous than regular gas stations. Chairman Brock said the Fire Code would also have to be amended. Mr. Miller asked if there would be trucks there. Mr. LeBaron said Mr. Dooley plans to have a 1,000 gallon tank. Mr. LeBaron said he would contact Mr. Dooley to see if he could come back in two weeks at our next meeting to discuss this with P & Z and in the mean time, maybe we can come up with a proposed ordinance. Chairman Brock asked if we could schedule a Public Hearing. Mr. LeBaron said there would not be enough time for the notice in the newspaper, but we could schedule it for the first meeting in February. Page 6 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 3. PZ 91-25 Public Hearing for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding R-8 Zero Lot Line Single Family Residential Zoning. Chairman Brock stated this was an issue the City Council put a moratorium on. He said a new ordinance has been drafted for the R-8 zoning classification. Mr. LeBaron said this came about as a result of the moratorium passed by the City Council in November in regards to the zero lot line zoning which allows, in addition to zero lot line houses, R-3 type uses. He said R-3 zoning district allows a 6 foot side yard and there was concern that there was a loop hole in our zoning ordinance as it relates to the zero lot line district which might allow a sliding scale of zero lot line up to 6 feet, and that loop hole could continue to create problems in the future as it relates to the different types of housing units that could be constructed in a zero lot line zoning district. Mr. LeBaron said in other cities, zero lot line districts require that one of the walls of the house be placed precisely on the property line and they generally require, as our proposed ordinance requires, that that wall not have any openings at all. He said this is because it is so close to the adjacent property. Mr. LeBaron said one of the purposes for having zero lot line is the lot cost, because the lots are small and you have eliminated one side yard. It allows for single family detached homes to be built at a lower unit cost. He said, also, that traditionally you find that zero lot line is an infill development meaning you do not find it out on the edge of undeveloped property; you would find it in pockets where 3 or 4 acres have Page 7 been left over because of the shape of the property where the market would not substantiate R-2 zoning. Mr. LeBaron said the proposed ordinance would require in the future that any homes built must be on the property line or 3 feet, not 1~ or 2 feet; it would be either on the line or 3 feet off. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this proposed ordinance to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this ordinance to please come forward. John Volkman came forward. He said he currently owns the remainder of the R-8 lots in Holiday West Addition. He said one concern he has, would this be retroactive to subdivisions that already exists. He said he would ask that his subdivision be exempted from this ordinance. Mr. Volkman said they have already built, in the last 30 days, a model home which is at least 3 feet away from the property line. He asked about windows. Mr. LeBaron said the proposed ordinance would not allow windows on the side designated as the zero lot line side whether it is on the property line or 3 feet off the property line. Mr. Volkman said they have spent almost $100,000 building a model home which has windows on both sides. He said if you change this ordinance and have it affect his subdivision, he would have a model home that could not be offered to prospective buyers. Mr. Volkman stated that his company has just completed a 65 lot development in Grapevine, zero lot line homes. He Page 8 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 said they had been there for 3 years and have seen an average of 25 prospective home buyers a week which would compute to nearly 4,000 prospective home buyers. Mr. Volkman said almost never do they have anyone wanting the windows blocked out on one side of their house. He said when you remove the windows on one side of the house, you eliminate the possibility of having bedrooms on that side of the house because of the fire code. He said you have put grievous limitations on design possibilities in your zero lot line subdivision. He said in the current economic situation they don't need any limitations on their design possibilities. He said they need to provide what the prospective buyer wants. Mr. Volkman said the prospective buyer wants the maximum amount of distance they can get between the houses. He said there would be only 6 feet between the houses. Chairman Brock stated that is a 6 foot minimum. Mr. Volkman said most buyers want the maximum size house for the lot. He said the last thing you want is to be jammed up against another house. He said he hates to see limitations that would tie the builder's hands behind their back. Mr. Volkman said what you have done with this ordinance is to make the product harder to sell. He said zero lot line is difficult to sell as it is. He said one of the problems you have putting the house on the property line is when you want to do maintenance, you have to go on the guy's property next door. Mr. Volkman said if you set 3 feet back, you can get in there to paint your house. Mr. Volkman said he could not see any benefits to the changes in this ordinance. Page 9 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Chairman Brock said that is why we are having this Public Hearing. Mr. Volkman said they want to build something that does not look like zero lot line. He said they never mention to the public anything about zero lot line. He said if you mention a zero lot line home, the public will say they do not want a zero lot line home. Mr. Volkman said they do not realize it is zero lot line because they have maintained a normal distance on each side of the property. Chairman Brock asked how far he was from the property line. Mr. Volkman said they will always be a minimum of 3 feet on one side and 6 feet on the other side because of the access easement. He said they will attempt to have a minimum of 3 feet, but they try to have 4 or 5 feet. Mr. Volkman stated that FHA requires you have a minimum of 10 feet between houses and almost all these houses will be financed through FHA or VA. He said if you put a house just 6 feet from the other house, you have just eliminated the possibility of getting the most popular financing. Mr. Volkman said he feels the City Council over reacted, but after they checked into the type homes they were building, the City Council were satisfied and approve their plat. Chairman Brock called for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposed ordinance to please come forward. There being no one, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lueck stated this was a good presentation, but if no one likes zero lot line, maybe he should come in for a zoning change. Page 10 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Mr. LeBaron stated that zero lot line allows lots with a minimum width of 40 feet, but if you go up to an R-3, you would have to go with a wider lot and a larger house. Mr. Barfield asked are we building a zero lot line or a small R-3. He said it looks like we are creating another zoning classification. He said this is sort of a detached town house which was popular 10 to 15 years ago. Mr. Barfield said he has no problem with setting off the lot line, but he does have a problem calling it R-8 zero lot line and allowing them to have windows on both sides. Mr. Pence said you cannot have windows unless the wall is set back at least 3 feet from the property line. Mr. Barfield said the Commission has eliminated R-3 zoning except for transitional zoning areas because we wanted larger and nicer homes built in our city. Mr. Collins said he felt they needed to table this for further study. PZ 91-25 TABLED Mr. Collins made the motion to table PZ 91-25 to see if P & Z can study this issue and get something worked out. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 7-0. 4. PS 91-19 Consideration of an ordinance for Detention/Retention/Decorative Ponds. This case was postponed at the October 10th, 1991 meeting. Chairman Brock stated this is a draft ordinance that P & Z postponed back in October. He said they requested the staff to work on this and to contact Dan Boutwell with Planning Resourses Group for his opinion as to how to handle these ponds. Chairman Brock Page 11 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 stated there was discussions at previous meetings about different parts of the ordinance such as fencing. He said P & Z felt that sometime fencing would be needed and sometimes not. Mr. LeBaron stated this is an item that P & Z has discussed and tabled several times and each time you have not come to a consensus. He asked that they decide whether they want to make an amendment to the ordinance or what alternative they wish to consider. He said the city staff is waiting for your direction. Mr. Barfield said he would like to see the staff prepare an ordinance that would allow and encourage the use of detention or retention ponds at the review process of the plat or site plan of the property. He said he felt they need to look at them on a case by case basis. Mr. Barfield said sometimes they could be decorative, but sometimes there could be a need for a fence. Warren Hagan, Land Developer at 500 Grapevine Highway, Suite 472, Hurst, Texas, came forward. He said he does not have any problems working with the ordinance, but there are certain areas within the ordinance he would like to discuss with P & Z and make some suggestions. Mr. Hagan stated he had been doing the work on The Lakes of Summerset in Colleyville for Herman Smith. He said there are 4 lakes which are decorative lakes; in Summertree, there are 4 small lakes which are also decorative lakes. Mr. Hagan said he is also working on Monclair Park with Herman Smith which will have 4 lakes which will be a combination of detention pool and permanent pool water. Mr. Hagan stated he is also working with the Page 12 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 City of Colleyville on the Colleyville Business Center which will have 5 lakes on either side of a main street where they plan to put their library, community center and municipal building. He said those lakes will be a combination of permanent pool of water as well as detention capabilities. He stated he has also worked with the City of Keller so he has had plenty of experience. Mr. Hagan stated he has gone through the ordinance and has some comments. He said on page 4, Parameters, D.2 where you talk about the outlet structure, he would suggest you not limit that to just the requirement that you control this discharge to that increase in discharge resulting in development of the land. He suggests you leave that open so that you, the city, can require a more stringent requirement if the situation warrants it or less stringent. He said it should be more flexible. Mr. Hagan stated that item D.11, "All retention basins and decorative ponds will require aeration systems be installed" should have added "or have a continuous flow of water." Mr. Hagan said regarding fencing, if you have a detention pond out in an undeveloped area, it would be appropriate to have a 6 foot high chain link fence around it, but at a golf course, it would be ridiculous. Mr. Hagan stated that in The Lakes of Summerset and Summertree, they put a wall all the way around, then they kept the ground adjacent to the wall a foot below the top of the wall and put a wrought iron railing along the top of the wall which gives them about a 3~ foot protection against someone falling into the lake. He showed pictures of the different areas. Page 13 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Chairman Brock asked Mr. Hagan if all the developments he had been involved with had some type of fencing. Mr. Hagan said they did not. He said some have combinations of the wall with wrought iron and on the other side a natural flow. He said in Summertree there is a little different approach, on one side you have the wall and on the other side you have this little 2 acre park area where the ground is sloping down to the water. Mr. Hagan said the builders were required to install a wall back about 10 feet from the edge of the lake and there is a concrete walkway and the builders then installed their own stone and wrought iron railing. He said all these seemed to work very well. He said it would be a crime to put a 6 foot chain link fence in the middle of that beautiful setting. Chairman Brock said P & Z agrees with Mr. Hagan that each case warrants a review with different ways to handle it. Mr. Lueck asked Mr. Hagan if he was working under any city regulations. Mr. Hagan stated that the City of Colleyville goes on a case by case basis, they review each case separately. He said he felt the ordinance should say "the plans shall include proper installation of walls for proper protection." PS 91-19 APPROVED Mr. Barfield made the motion to approve PS 91-19 with the exception that it say that this ordinance be heard on a case by case basis, that to fence or not to fence be decided at that time, and that detention or retention ponds be a part of the platting process. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 7-0. Page 14 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 5. PS 91-29 Request of Stanley Peskind with Rufe Snow/Loop 820, A Texas General Partnership for Final Plat of Lot 2, Block 4, Tapp Addition. This property is located on the west side of Rufe Snow Drive and north of Northeast Loop 820 Service Road. Mr. Stanley Peskind came forward. He said he was here for this and the next case also. He also had his engineers present if there were any questions. PS 91-29 APPROVED Mr. Miller made the motion to approve PS 91-29 subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 7-0. 6. PS 91-28 Request of Stanley Peskind with Rufe Snow/Loop 820, A Texas General Partnership for Final Plat of Lot 1, Block 6, Tapp Addition. This property is located on the west side of Rufe Snow Drive and north of Northeast Loop 820 Service Road. PS 91-28 APPROVED Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve PS 91-28 subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 7-0. 7 . PS 91-27 Request of Texas Commerce Bank for Replat of Lot 3R, Block 16, Snow Heights North Addition. This property is located at the northwest corner of Thaxton Parkway and Northeast Loop 820 Service Road. Chairman Brock stated that the developer has agreed to all the engineer's comments and the replat will reflect a 7~ foot utility easement. He said the water and sewer lines currently exists. PS 91-27 APPROVED Ms. Marin made the motion to approve PS 91-27 with the addition of the 7~ foot utility easement. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 7-0. Page 15 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 8. PS 91-25 Public Hearing for request of Carol Trevino & Joan Lapointe for Replat of Lot lR, Block 2, Meacham Addition. This property is located on the west side of Smithfield Road between Arthur Street and Guy Street. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this replat to please come forward. Oscar Trevino came forward. He stated they received the engineer's letter requesting some changes. He said there are some changes they do not wish to do. Chairman Brock asked if he agreed to signing a covenant for future street improvements on Arthur Street and a covenant for the sidewalk on Arthur Street. Mr. Trevino stated he agrees to both. Chairman Brock asked if he had agreed to put in the sidewalk on Smithfield Road. Mr. Trevino said he will put the sidewalk in along Smithfield Road. Chairman Brock asked if he was asking for a waiver on the sewer line extension. Mr. LeBaron asked Mr. Trevino if he had talked with the Public Work's Department regarding this. Mr. Trevino said he had. He said he would like to tie on to the sewer line in Arthur Drive. Mr. LeBaron asked if they had discussed extending the sewer line up Smithfield Road. Page 16 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Mr. Trevino stated the sewer line already runs across Smithfield Road and on the other side of the road. Mr. Barfield said we don't usually have sewer lines run on both sides of the street. Mr. Barfield asked if he agreed to the additional right-of-way on Smithfield Road. Mr. Trevino said if they had a variance on the building line, they would have no problem granting the 6~ foot right-of-way. He said right now they are one foot over the set back line. Mr. Trevino said if he builds the sidewalk on Smithfield Road and they come in and widen Smithfield Road, they would be in the way. Mr. Bowen said he should set the sidewalk back on Smithfield Road. Mr. Barfield asked about the water line. Mr. Trevino said they already have water. Mr. Barfield asked if he has fire coverage. Mr. Trevino said they have fire coverage. Chairman Brock called for anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this replat to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Barfield said when this property was rezoned, P & Z stated there would be no access to Arthur Drive. Page 17 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Mr. Trevino said the access would be from Smithfield Road. PS 91-25 APPROVED Mr. Barfield made the motion to approve PS 91-25 subject to the following: the construction of Arthur Drive and the sidewalk on Arthur Drive be waived at this time and a covenant signed; that the building line along Smithfield Road be changed and adjusted to his building; the right of way for Smithfield Road be obtained; the 2 inch water line upgrading to 6 inches be waived; that the relocating of the sewer line be waived. Chairman Brock said the sewer line is to be worked out with the city staff. Mr. Barfield said instead of waiving the relocating of the sewer line that he work with the city staff on relocating it; and that sidewalks be installed on Smithfield Road and all other engineer's comments be complied with. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 7-0. 9. PS 90-34 Public Hearing for request of David & Linda Watson for Replat of Lot 5R, Block 3, Valley Park Estates. This property is located on the north side of Valley View Drive. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this replat to please come forward. Mark Long with Owen D. Long & Associates, came forward. He stated they had answered most of the engineer's comments. Chairman Brock said they had asked to sign a covenant for future street improvements and defer the sidewalk until the street improvements are made. Page 18 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Mr. Long said that was correct. Chairman Brock asked about the fire hydrant. Mr. Long said it is not covered under the 500 foot umbrella but it is covered by the hose line length and they request you waive this requirement since he is covered by the hose length. Chairman Brock said the city usually requires a 7~ foot utility easement on each side and the back of the property. Mr. LeBaron said he felt that since there was already an easement across the back, he would recommend not requiring the 7~ foot along the west side. Mr. Barfield asked if they would agree to sign a covenant to pay his share of a fire hydrant when and if the city installs one. Mr. Long said they did not wish to be out the entire expense for the whole subdivision. Mr. Barfield said it would just be for his share. Mr. Long said they would agree to that. Mr. Long said they would also like for you to waive the requirement for the neighbor to join in replatting the remainder of lot 5. He said she does not wish to do this. David Watson, 501 Emerson, Euless, Texas, owner of the property, came forward. He stated he is looking forward to working with the city. Page 19 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Chairman Brock called for anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this replat to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this replat to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Collins asked about item 2, the replatting of the remaining lot. Mr. LeBaron said we could not force this on the adjacent property owner, we could not hold up this gentleman's replat because of this. He said we are splitting lot 5 and there will be a sliver of lot 5 left with the neighbor. Mr. LeBaron said it would be nice to have it all replatted, but we can not force this. Mr. Lueck asked if she would be willing to replat it if there was no charge. Mr. LeBaron said there would be surveying cost. PS 90-34 APPROVED Mr. Collins made the motion to approve PS 90-34 subject to the engineer's comments; to waive the fire hydrant and ask for a covenant; a covenant for the upgrade of the street; waive the 7~ foot utility easement on the west side; waive the sidewalk until the street is improved; and waive item #2 of the engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 7-0. 10. PS 91-30 Request of VLMC, Inc. for Replat of Lot 16A1, Block 5, North Richland Hills Addition. This property is located at Grapevine Highway and Blaney Avenue. Page 20 p & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 Chairman Brock stated this is the Winn-Dixie on Grapevine Highway and they are replatting their property out of a large lot. He said all utilities and streets are in and they have agreed to the engineer's comments and they have plenty of parking. PS 91-30 APPROVED Ms. Marin made the motion to approve PS 91-30. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 7-0. 11. PZ 91-26 Public Hearing for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080, Section 24.12 regarding the sale of household effects and personal belongings. Mr. LeBaron said the city has regulations that control citizen's use of garage sales throughout the city. He said at times we have some who abuse that such as having sample sales, a commercial venture in a residential area. Mr. LeBaron stated that the city has been asked by neighbors if this was not stretching the garage sale use. Mr. LeBaron stated the staff has prepared a draft ordinance for your consideration and would welcome input. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this amendment to please come forward. There being no one, the Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this amendment to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. , . Page 21 P & Z Minutes January 9, 1992 PZ 91-26 TABLED 12. STAFF REPORT 13. CITIZEN COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Don Bowen, Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission Mr. Barfield stated he felt this is too complicated to make a decision tonight, he feels there needs to be more study. He said he wants to make sure it does not cover tupperware parties, Mary Kay sales, etc. He said that is all new merchandise and this ordinance states used merchandise. Mr. Lueck said there is a question, what is used. He said if there is a tag on it, but it has been tried on a time or two, is it new or used. He said he realizes there are going to be abuses, but he is not sure the abuses merit this. Chairman Brock said he knows there is concern, but there is also concern from the enforcing officers of the ordinance. Mr. Barfield made the motion to table PZ 91-26 until we can have further study on it. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 7-0. Mr. LeBaron reminded all about the Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Master Plan on January 30th at 7:00 P.M. at the City Hall. He said it will be a draft document and we welcome input from the citizens. None. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.