Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1992-10-22 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS October 22, 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 Members Dir Planning/I nsp Building Official PZ Coordinator James Brock David Barfield Victor Baxter Don Bowen Ron Lueck Paul Miller Wayne Moody Fred Wilson Barry LeBaron Steve Pence Clayton Husband CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 1992 Mr. Wilson made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Baxter, and the motion carried 6-0, with Mr. Lueck and Mr. Moody abstaining due to absence at the previous meeting. 1. PS 92-23 Public Hearing to consider the request of Herman Smith & Co. for a Replat of Lots 4 through 7, Lots 12 through 18, Richland Oaks Addition, First Filing; and Part of Lot 1, Block C, Part of Lots 3, 5, and 6, Block A, Richland Oaks Addition, Third Filing. This property is generally located east of Strummer Drive and north of Bedford Euless Road. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of the request to come forward. Mr. Ross Calhoun, of Herman Smith & Co., 1903 Central Drive, Bedford, came forward to speak. He stated they are platting approximately 23 acres of land in several lots. He stated the property is generally bounded by Strummer on the west and by Pace on the east. He stated they have revised the plat in accordance to the City engineer1s requests and have agreed to all engineering comments. Mr. Calhoun stated they have provided for additional right-ot-way on Strummer Drive tor a tive- lane road and a deceleration lane. He stated they are proposing a service entrance on the north property line. He stated that Terry Mitchell, P.E., ot Carter and Burgess, was here to answer any questions. Chairman Brock asked Mr. Calhoun if they have agreed to all the engineering comments. Mr. Calhoun stated yes. Mr. Barfield asked since the deceleration lane is about three hundred teet trom the north property line, did that mean there would be an entrance to the property three hundred teet trom the north property line. PZ Minutes - Page 2 22 October 92 Mr. Calhoun stated it would basically be like a fire lane, about 25-feet wide. Mr. Barfield asked if it would be three hundred teet trom the north property line or on the north property line. Mr. Calhoun stated that it will be in excess ot three hundred feet south of the north property line. He stated that city staff had requested that any entrance to the property be in excess ot three hundred feet. Mr. Barfield stated there was some concern from neighbors about headlights shining in people1s houses at night as shoppers exit. He stated he would like to see the exit trom that property located between houses. Mr. Calhoun stated they will look into that problem and check on the alignment of the exits. Mr. Barfield asked if the landscaped buffer on the property to the north is in the plans. Mr. Calhoun stated they have a fifty foot setback on the north, and they are prepared to meet the City codes and whatever the Council may require. Mr. Wilson asked if there were going to be power lines in the easement on the north. Mr. Calhoun stated there would be power, water, and possibly sewer. Mr. Wilson asked what the low point between the ground and the power lines would be. Mr. Calhoun stated he did not know. Mr. Baxter asked if they will be overhead power lines. Mr. Calhoun stated he believed that to be the case. He stated they have proposed to run the lines underground along Strummer since there will be a landscaped berm. Mr. Wilson stated his concern was how close the top of the fence would be to the power lines. Mr. Pence stated that there would be a minimum of 16 feet of clearance from the ground to the bottom of the line. Mr. Wilson stated his concern was that anyone climbing a 15-foot fence could reach up and grab one of the power lines. Mr. Calhoun stated they will do whatever the City code requires. He stated they will provided funds for someone to exceed what the city requires if that is the case. Mr. Barfield asked if the buildings would be facing Strummer or east into the shopping area. PZ Minutes - Page 3 22 October 92 Mr. Calhoun stated they did not know at this time since they do not know who the users are. He stated the general design has the buildings fronting to the south, lining up with the Pace building. He stated they have provided a front yard setback along Strummer in order to add another building and possibly another entrance. Mr. Barfield asked if the sides of the buildings would have the same appearance as the front, so it would be architecturally pleasing to the people across the street. Mr. Calhoun stated yes, they are very sensitive to that issue. He stated that when Circuit City was built, they were very concerned about the appearance when people entered North Richland Hills, and demanded that Circuit City screen their loading dock and landscape the area. Mr. Baxter asked what the plans were for the berm along Strummer. Mr. Calhoun stated the original plan had a 40-foot berm. He stated they have saved a large clump of pine trees for a sitting area. He stated the additional setbacks along Strummer may decrease the original plan somewhat. Chairman Brock called for anyone else wishing to speak in favor to come forward. There being none, he called for those wishing to speak in opposition or in general to come forward. Mr. Joe McCarthy, 5001 Strummer Drive, came forward to speak. He stated that he hopes this development is the most successful in the country . Chairman Brock stated that Mr. McCarthy has submitted a letter and a petition to the Commission, and that they have received and read. Mr. Harvey Greenwald, 5016 Strummer Drive, came forward to speak. He stated his property borders the entire north edge of the proposed shopping center. He thanked the Commission for being available to hear the citizen1s concerns. He stated his concern is the fence between the properties. He stated they were looking for a 15-foot chain link fence along the border to keep people from coming over onto their property. He stated they were also concerned about noise, vermin, and air quality. Mr. Greenwald stated that a chain link fence with extensive shrubbery would be the best solution. He stated they want their quality of life to remain as it is. Mr. Barfield asked why a chain link fence is more acceptable than a brick fence. Mr. Greenwald stated they have originally suggested a brick wall, but that they are very expensive, and Herman Smith would not want to spend that kind of money. He stated a chain link fence would not require a similar foundation. He stated to meet a compromise, they went along with a chain link tence with shrubbery. He stated the shrubbery would be about 12-feet high. Chairman Brock asked Mr. Greenwald if he had met with Mr. Calhoun about the fence. PZ Minutes - Page 4 22 October 92 Mr. Greenwald stated he had met with City staff and officials. He stated he did not meet with Mr. Smith. Chairman Brock stated the height of the fence concerned him. Mr. Greenwald stated the fence and the power lines are not directly under one another. Mr. Wilson stated his concern was a small child climbing the tence could reach up and touch it. Mr. Greenwald stated the wires are not directly adjacent to the fence. He stated the best solution would be to put the wires underground, for aesthetic and safety reasons. Mr. Lueck asked how the 15-foot height came up. Mr. Greenwald stated they were originally wanting a 24-foot fence. He stated the 15-foot was a compromise. Mr. Lueck asked if there was any reason for 15 feet. Mr. Greenwald stated police associations have stated that fence heights over 12 feet tend to deter people from climbing over. He stated the groups were the state police (Texas Rangers) and the National Police Association. Chairman Brock stated that since the Commission was not privy to all the discussions concerning this project and the location of the power lines, that they could make the recommendation that a screening fence be required, and the height to be determined by Council. Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Greenwald was wanting shrubbery or trees. Mr. Greenwald stated he was looking for a solid living fence. He stated he could not make any suggestions concerning plant types since there are people more qualified to do so. Mr. Moody asked about the expense of maintaining that shrubbery. Mr. Greenwald stated it depends upon the kind of shrubbery used. Mr. Alfred Stanford, 5101 Pearl, came torward to speak. He asked about the drainage along the unlined creek in the area. He stated a lot of silt builds up in the creek bed. Chairman Brock stated that the City staff and the Commission has spent a great deal ot time looking at the drainage on and off of this property. Mr. LeBaron stated the engineering department has looked at this problem extensively and are satisfied that the city·s requirements have been met. Mr. Stanford stated it drains really well, but where the concrete begins it tends to hold water back. PZ Minutes - Page 5 22 October 92 Mr. LeBaron stated that this particular project has provided a relief mechanism so that the water does not back up to the north. Mr. Stanford stated it has done a good job, but there are still areas prone to flooding. Mr. LeBaron stated that the project has been designed to accommodate the 1 OQ-year flood. He stated there is an escape mechanism just in case. Mr. Stanford asked who he could see about dredging tor silt. Mr. LeBaron stated to contact the Public Works department, or to contact him or Mr. Husband. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Barfield asked what could be done to put stipulations on architectural controls of the buildings facing Strummer, and what the current screening requirements are between commercial and residential properties. Mr. LeBaron stated a wood stockade fence of at least six feet in height is required to screen the commercial from the residential. He stated the proposed living fence is a sound idea, but the regulations only require a wood fence. He stated that the city has no mechanisms to control the architectural integrity of structures. Mr. Barfield asked if that could be put into the platting. Mr. LeBaron stated no. Mr. Lueck asked if the Commission could recommend that the developer look at the placement of the curb cuts to avoid lights shining into homes. Mr. LeBaron stated that is normally done at the time of building permit application, and the staff could look at that if desired by the Commission, but it cannot be attached as a stipulation to the plat. Chairman Brock stated that it is in the record, and it will be passed along to City Council. Mr. LeBaron stated that the building configuration was not set out at the beginning of this project, and that is why staff recommended a twenty- five foot building line along Strummer. He stated this would take into account any development that might come along. Mr. Wilson asked if the Ordinance stated a maximum height requirement for fences. Mr. LeBaron stated that eight feet is the maximum allowed by ordinance. Chairman Brock stated it may not be necessary to incorporate anything about the tence in the motion. Mr. Lueck stated it will be in the minutes. PZ Minutes - Page 6 22 October 92 Mr. Baxter asked what the width of the easement is at the north end of the property. Mr. Mitchell there is at least thirty feet of easements, one tifteen toot was required by the utility companies. Mr. Baxter stated the screening requirements sound similar to the discussions recently concerning Vehicle Storage Facilities. He stated it is possible to stick fairly close to the 600/0 coverage on this fence as well. Mr. LeBaron stated the ordinance also requires a greenbelt between these properties as well, in addition to the screening. Mr. Baxter asked what width of greenbelt is required. Mr. LeBaron stated it varies from five to ten feet depending on whether it is a rear or side property line. He stated it would depend upon the placement of the buildings on the lot, and the determination would be made at the time of the building permit application. Mr. Miller asked how tall the fence would need to be in the line of sight from the residence to the commercial buildings. Chairman Brock stated that he didn't think a motion was needed to stipulate the height of the fence. He stated that should be left to the Council. He stated they have more information than the Commission. Mr. Baxter stated he is concerned about the precedent being set by allowing very tall chain link fences. Mr. Barfield made the motion to approve PS 92-23, subject to engineer's comments. Mr. Barfield stated for the record that consideration of curb cuts be given to keep headlights from shining into homes across the street, that an architecturally pleasing facade along Strummer Drive be adhered to, and that an agreeable fencing arrangement be worked out with Mr. Greenwald. Mr. Lueck seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. 2. PS 92-22 Public Hearing to consider the request of the City of North Richland Hills for a Replat of Lots 1 and 32, Block G, Richland Oaks Addition. This property is located along Bedford Euless Road, between Nevada Trail and Eldorado Drive. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of the request to come forward. Mr. LeBaron stated these are two lots that were purchased by the City as part of the widening of Bedford Euless Road. He stated this replat is being made essentially tor the purpose ot dedicating an extra thirty feet of right-of-way. He stated that one of the houses encroaches the building line by 2.8 feet, and that Commission approval will essentially give the variance that the Board of Adjustment would be giving. He stated the Commission would be acknowledging them and recognizing them, and it will avoid any confusion on future loan closings on this property. PZ Minutes - Page 7 22 October 92 Chairman Brock called for those wishing to speak in opposition to the request to come forward. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve PS 92-22. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller, and the motion carried 7-0. 3. PZ 92-33 Public Hearing to consider the request of Springday Properties to rezone Lot 1, Block 6, Snow Heights North Addition trom its present zoning classification of C-1 Commercial to C-2 Commercial. This property is located on the east side of Rufe Snow Drive, between Lewis Drive and Meadow Crest Drive. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of the request to come torward. Mr. Baron Klofenstein, 7701 Ridgeway Ct, came forward to speak. He stated he was representing Discount Signs, a tenant in the shopping center. He stated the issue came up when he applied for a Certificate of Occupancy. He stated the shopping center is the only one nearby that is zoned C-1. He stated they are here to make things proper in the eyes of the City. Chairman Brock asked Mr. Klofenstein exactly what they do. Mr. Klofenstein stated they are a vinyl sign company. He stated they apply vinyl to different types of material. He stated there is no fabrication or chemicals in the business. Mr. Wilson asked if they were going to be fabricating 4x8 signs. Mr. Klofenstein stated not in that location. He stated there is one in the north side of Ft. Worth they are looking at. He stated this is basically a store front location. Mr. Wilson asked what type of equipment is in the shop. Mr. Klofenstein stated they have some computers that cut vinyl. He stated there is no chemicals involved in the process. Mr. Wilson asked if everything is assembled inside the shop. Mr. Klotenstein stated yes. Mr. Ken Cook, owner ot Discount Signs, came forward to speak. Mr. Cook stated they do some 4x8 signs, but they only apply vinyl to it. He stated they moved into the shopping center because they do a lot ot work for them. He thanked Mr. Pence and Mr. Husband for allowing them to do what they have been able to do. Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Cook if he had a business at a location near the current one. Mr. Cook stated yes, at the Kroger Shopping Center. He stated they ran out of space at that location. He stated they are concentrating on schools, churches, and other organizations. PZ Minutes - Page 8 22 October 92 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Bowen stated that the only question to consider is whether this center should be C-2 Commercial. He stated it would be unfair not to rezone it since the surrounding centers are C-2. Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve PZ 92-33. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller, and the motion carried 7-0. 4. PZ 92-34 Public Hearing to consider the request of Ronald Dromgoole to rezone Tract 6A3, William Cox Survey, Abstract 321 tromits present zoning classification of R-2 Single Family Residential to R-1-S Special Single Family. This property is located at 7001 Smithfield Road. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and asked for those wishing to speak in favor of the request to come forward. Mr. Ron Dromgoole, 7001 Smithfield Road, came torward to speak. He stated they bought the property about one year ago and have cleaned it up considerably. He stated they would like to have some livestock on the property. He stated the original property owners had livestock on the land. Chairman Brock stated this property was originally agriculture and was rezoned R-2. Mr. Dromgoole stated they have cleaned up the property. He stated there was some problems with weeds, but they have been taken care of. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, Chairman Brock called for those wishing to speak in opposition to the request to come torward. Chairman Brock stated they did receive a letter from the Hamptons. He stated they were concerned about roosters and chickens. Chairman Brock asked Mr. Dromgoole if they had any plans to put roosters or chickens on the property. Mr. Dromgoole stated they already have some on the property. Mr. Stephen Floyd, 7805 Briardale Court, came forward to speak. He stated his property backs up to the property under consideration. He stated his concern was that the fences were not suitable for cattle. He asked if the zoning would allow for an unlimited number of cattle. Chairman Brock asked Mr. LeBaron if there was a limit on the number of animals they could have on the lot. Mr. LeBaron stated not in the zoning ordinance, but there might be in the health code. Mr. Pence stated there are animal control ordinances that would deal with that. Chairman Brock asked if it dealt with chickens or roosters. PZ Minutes - Page 9 22 October 92 Mr. Pence stated it would only address the distances the animals must be trom other residential property. Mr. LeBaron stated the zoning ordinance states you must have at least one acre. Ms. Dromgoole stated they have many animals, including chickens, pot bellied pigs, and a tiger, and they have permits for all of them. She stated the roosters have been butchers. She stated this zoning is only for cows and horses. She stated she has two calves on the property. Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Dromgoole if she said she has a tiger. Ms. Dromgoole stated yes, and they have a permit from the State. Mr. Bowen stated the zoning ordinance says livestock or fowl, subject to Chapter 4 of the Code of Ordinances. Ms. Susie Gorbett-McGee, 6940 Briardale Drive, came forward to speak. She stated she is representing many of the residents on Briardale Drive, Briardale Court, and Noneman Drive. She presented a petition with 35 signatures. She stated that the Dromgooles have done a wonderful job of cleaning up the property. She stated they have many animals on only 5 acres of land. She stated it is not considered country anymore, it is part of the city. She stated she doesn't want any more animals on the property. She stated the chickens poke through the fence. She stated the residents don't need a tarm in that area. Chairman Brock asked Ms. Gorbett-McGee if she thinks what is there now is fine, but she does not want anymore. Ms. Gorbett-McGee stated yes, that should be enough for anyone in the confines of the city. Chairman Brock asked if there was a total amount of animals someone could have on their property. Mr. LeBaron stated he was not sure, but the zoning ordinance just refers to Chapter 4 of the Code of Ordinances. Ms. Gorbett-McGee stated she understands the request to be that they are requesting the zoning in order to have more animals than are already there. Mr. Bowen stated what they have there right now is illegal. He stated what they are asking for is to go to a legal zoning. Ms. Garbett-McGee stated that if the zoning will allow more than what is there, then that needs to not happen. She stated there are too many animals back there for five acres, and it is not tair to the animals. Chairman Brock asked Ms. Dromgoole if they plan to put any more animals on the property. Ms. Dromgoole stated no, and the property is 6.3 acres, not 5 acres. She stated there are tour dogs outside and one house dog, not six dogs. PZ Minutes - Page 10 22 October 92 She stated the dogs have kennels. She stated the Bengal tiger is regulated through the State, and the State and City come out every six months to inspect it. She stated the cage that the tiger is in is well above zoo qualifications. She stated the chickens are in the barn and have never been allowed to run loose. Ms. Dromgoole stated the animals on the property are treated very well. Mr. Bowen stated the petition has a standing with the City Council, but he is unsure of what the numbers are. Mr. Husband stated that if 20% of the property owners signatures in the 200-foot notification area are on the petition, then the vote by the City Council to pass the request would go from a simple majority to a 3/4 majority. Ms. Tammy Pucceralla, 7008 Briardale Drive, came forward to speak. She stated her house is directly behind the barn. She stated there have been many problems with insects and rodents since the animals have been there. She stated she was happy with the zoning of that property when they bought their house. She stated her concerns over the odor in the summer. She stated she chose to live in the city, not the country. Mr. Scott Carlson, 7024 Smithfield Road, came forward to speak. He stated he was not in opposition, but he wanted to address the fencing of the animals. He stated they have had a lot of dogs out on the road and in their trash. Chairman Brock stated that dog problems are not really the purpose of this case; everyone has dog problems. Mr. Carlson stated that if they have livestock, he wanted to ensure that the fencing was adequate for them. Ms. Barbara Polk, 716 Koen Lane, Euless, came forward to speak. She stated she is the owner of property at 7004 Briardale. She stated she is a real estate broker. Ms. Polk stated the property has been rental property. She stated she was unaware of the tiger. She stated the property has been vacant for three months. She stated her concern over the tiger. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Brock stated when considering this case, the tiger issue cannot come into play. It is not part of this request. Mr. Wilson asked what the fencing requirement for R-1-S is versus R-2. Mr. LeBaron stated there are none. Mr. Wilson asked if there were any fencing requirements for keeping animals such as livestock. Mr. LeBaron stated there are none that are regulated through the zoning ordinance. He stated if there were, they would be in the health code. Mr. Bowen asked about Chapter 4 of the health code. PZ Minutes - Page 11 22 October 92 Mr. Pence stated that the code says that any undomesticated animal must be kept at least 100 feet away from any residential structure. Mr. Bowen stated that is not an issue in this zoning, but if the zoning were approved, it would become an enforcement issue. Mr. Pence stated that would fall under animal control. Mr. Lueck asked Mr. Dromgoole if he knew there was an outstanding lien on the property. Ms. Dromgoole asked what the lien was for. Mr. LeBaron stated it is an outstanding mowing lien. Ms. Dromgoole stated that was done before they bought the property and she thought that it would be attached to that owner. Mr. LeBaron stated that the lien is attached to the property, and when you assume the property, you assume the lien as well. Ms. Dromgoole stated they bought the property with a barn and a stock tank. She stated they had to buy a large mower to mow it and farm equipment to take care of it. She stated if they go to sell the property, they would have to tell the buyer that they couldn1 keep a horse on it. She stated why would anyone buy almost 7 acres of land just to mow. Chairman Brock stated that most neighbors were not concerned with what was there now, they were concerned with more and more animals. Ms. Dromgoole stated they have no plans to add anything else. She stated the whole issue came up because of animal control and the two cows. She stated the cows will be gone in March. Mr. Baxter asked what the minimum lot size on R-1-S. Mr. LeBaron stated one acre. Mr. Barfield stated that this property was there before any of those houses, and at one time there was about 25-30 sheep on the property. He stated that this property was not zoned to R-2 at the owner's request, and they need to consider that when voting. He stated it was used for agricultural purposes for many years. Mr. Lueck stated that the number of animals or obnoxious odors are under a different rule of law than what is being considered tonight. He stated there is an avenue available tor taking care of those issues. Mr. Bowen made the motion to deny PZ 92-34. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson, and the motion carried 4-3, with Mr. Bowen, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Miller voting for denial; and Chairman Brock, Mr. Lueck, and Mr. Barfield voting against denial. Mr. LeBaron stated if the applicant wishes to appeal the decision to the City Council, they should come in and see the City Secretary. PZ Minutes - Page 12 22 October 92 5. PZ 92-35 Public Hearing to consider the request of Volkman Inc. to rezone Lots 19-R-3 and 19-R-4, Block 33, Holiday West Addition from its present zoning classification of C-1 Commercial to PD Planned Development. This property is located on the south side of Buenos Aires Drive, at the intersection of Westchase Drive. Chairman Brock opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in tavor of the request to come torward. Mr. John Volkman, representing Volkman Inc. and the Bank of Commerce, came forward to speak. He stated he was seeking some input on the property on Buenos Aires. He stated the property has an unworkable zoning. He stated there is a car wash to the west, apartments to the north and south, and single family homes to the east. Mr. Volkman stated they would like to zone it as a PD, and use it as a buffer between the car wash and single tamily. He stated they would like to put a duplex next to the car wash, and then several fifty-foot lots for single family homes. He stated the property is too far trom Rufe Snow to benetit as commercial, and surrounding uses make it unusable for any large single family lots. He stated that he is seeking input from the Commission to see if that is a workable project. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to the request, Chairman Brock closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Brock stated that the property is too far off of Rufe Snow for commercial use, and that the Planned Development approach may be the best one tor this property. Mr. LeBaron stated that the Planned Development proposal allows the Commission to consider developments that do not fit in the traditional zoning districts. He stated that the packet is not complete tor a normal planned development, since it does not have a site plan. He stated the Commission might recommend that Mr. Volkman come back with a more complete proposal, however the proposal is fairly spelled out. Mr. LeBaron stated that the Commission could waive the rest of the traditional planned development requirements. He stated the four-acre minimum could be waived. He stated the site plan requirement could also be waived since they are talking about a single duplex and tour or five houses. He stated Mr. Volkman would have to come back with a replat since the property is not subdivided to conform to the request. He stated the Commission would have to establish the development regulations on this property and spell it out in the ordinance. Mr. LeBaron stated that these could be worked out with Mr. Volkman, and he could come back next time with a full packet. Mr. Lueck stated he would be more comfortable with a full packet, but he has no problem with what is being presented. Mr. Barfield asked if the Commission approves this request, if they will see the final regulations. Mr. LeBaron stated no, but if the Commission could wait two more weeks, staff and Mr. Volkman could work out the details and present them to the Commission at the next meeting. PZ Minutes - Page 13 22 October 92 STAFF REPORT CITIZEN COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Mr. Barfield stated the planned development is probably the ideal approach, but he does not want to start a precedent by forgetting all the requirements in the ordinance. He stated he would like to tighten up as many as possible, but leave a good deal of flexibility in design. Chairman Brock stated that if anyone has any negative comments, to bring them up; otherwise, the Commission can give Mr. Volkman a general approval of the concept. He stated the Commission should table this item until next time so staff can work out the details. Mr. Lueck made the motion to table PZ 92-35 until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Barfield, and the motion carried 7-0. None. A person asked what the property on Lots 1 and 32 in Block G were going to be used for. Chairman Brock stated they will remain as single family homes. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.