Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1982-09-23 Minutes . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 23, 1982 - 7:30 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, George Tucker, at 7 : 40 P. M. PRESENT: CHAIRMAN MEMBERS George Tucker Don Bowen Mark Hannon Mark Wood ROLL CALL ABSENT: SECRETARY ALTERNATE MEMBER OTHERS PRESENT: COU NC I LMAN DIRECTOR PW/U P & Z COORDINATOR Marjorie Nash John Schwi nger Richard Davis Gene Riddle ~landa Ca 1 vert CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 1982 Mr. Bowen moved to approve the minutes as written. 1. PS 82-2 POSTPONED 8-26-82 PS 82-24 POSTPONED 8-26-82 This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and the motion carried 3-0 with Mr. Hannon abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. Request of Lyle Cherry for preliminary plat of Lot 9, Block 7, Clearview Addn. . 2. Request of Lyle Cherry for final plat of Lot 9, Block 7, Clearview Addition. . Elaine Talbert with Stembridge Engineers came forward to represent Mr. Cherry in his requests. She said they had received the City Engineer's comments and made a response on August 19th. She said Mr. Cherry agreed to pay his pro rata. Mr. Tucker said at the last Planning and Zoning meeting, they were uncertain of the Specific Use zoning, but since then they found this platting can be passed even though the zoning was tied to the land. He said, however, since this is onl~1 a portion of a lot, the Commission does not feel it legal to only plat a portion of this lot. . . . Page 2 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 Mr. Hannon said this should not be a preliminary and final plat, it should be a replat. He said there is a State law which states you cannot replat a portion of a lot without platting the other part. Ms. Talbert said Mr. Cherry does not own the other part. . Mr. Hannon said our Subdivision Ordinance also requires you to replat the entire lot. The Chairman read Section 1-05-A, Page 24, of the North Richland Hills Sub- division Ordinance: IIA. OWNERSHIP-In order to re-plat a tract of land for which a final plat is filed of record in the Plat Records of Tarrant County, the tract must be either (a) fully owned by the person desiring to re-plat, or (b) the person desiring the re-plat must furnish the City the written acknowledge- ment and consent by all other property ownersll. t1r. Tucker said this property must have been sold by metes and bounds. PS 82-2 and PS 82-24 BOTH DENIED Mr. Hannon said the current owner must get the other owner to sign the dedication. He said Mr. Cherry would have a recourse since you are not supposed to sell off land that has not been replatted. Mr. Hannon made the motion to deny PS 82-2 and PS 82-24. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion to deny carried 4-0. 3. PS 82-26 Request of Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. for preliminary plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Richland Terrace Addition (previously submitted as Racetrac Addition). 4. PS 82-34 Request of Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. for final plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Richland Terrace Addition (previously submitted as Racetrac Addition). Page 3 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Ken Langley, Racetrac Petroleum Co., Atlanta, GA., came forward. He said they had received the City Engineer1s comments and have responded to each comment. Mr. Hannon asked if this was a part of a platted subdivision, the same as they were discussing earlier, or was it just acreage. Mr. Riddle said this property has never been platted. Mr. Hannon asked Mr. Riddle if they had complied with the Engineer1s comments. Mr. Riddle said what they have not done, they will; they have agreed to all. PS 82-26 and PS 82-34 BOTH APPROVED Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve PS 82-26 and PS 82-34 subject to the Engineer1s comments. . This motion' was seconded by Mr. Hannon and the motion carried 4-0. 5. PS 82-27 Request of Charles Owen Company, Inc. for final plat of Lots IDA-19B, Block 30, College Hill Addition. Chuck Owen came forward. He said he felt this final plat meets the require- ments which were spelled out by the City Engineer. Mr. Wood asked if the question regarding an easement on the south side of Watauga Road for future expansion of Watauga Road had been resolved. Mr. Riddle said it was still in the Engineer's letter. Mr. Wood said there was some question as to where it would be needed on the south side or if it would all be taken off the north side. . Mr. Riddle said at this time, we don't know, there are no definite plans at this time. Page 4 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Owen said they thought the right- of-way would be taken off the north side because of the existing houses on the south side of Watauga Road. Mr. Riddle said that it would get too close to those existing houses. PS 82-27 APPROVED Mr. Wood made a motion to approve PS 82-27 as presented, subject to the Engineer's comments. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 4-0. 6. PS 82-30 Request of John M. McBroom for preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 3, Mollie B. Collins Addition. 7 . PS 82-31 Request of John M. McBroom for final plat of Lot 1~ Block 3, Mollie B. Collins Addn. . Elaine Talbert.with Stembridge Engineers came forward to represent Mr. McBroom. She said this was a .76 acre tract on Odell Street. Ms. Talbert said they had received the City Engineerls comments and have responded to them. She said there was a shallow drainage ditch mentioned, but she said there was not going to be any change in the drain. Ms. Talbert said item #2 was in regard to fire protection and the need for a fire hydrant. She said the City Engineer suggested putting a fire hydrant at Hewitt Street and Briardale Drive~ but she was not sure if this had been worked out. Ms. Talbert said Mr. McBroom agreed to sign a covenant to extend a 6 inch water line out to his property in the future. She said there is an existing 2 inch water line and a 6 inch sewer line to his property. Ms. Talbert said the additional utility easements which were requested have been added to the plat. . Page 5 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Bowen asked Mr. Riddle if the request for a fire hydrant had been worked out. Mr. Riddle said he took a look at the area of Hewitt and Briardale, and if you did not go across someone else IS land, it would be 2 blocks from Mr. McBroomts property. He said he did not feel putting one at Hewitt and Briardale would benefit this lot. Mr. Riddle said he talked with Mr. Stem- bridge and the owner and said the city would go ahead and charge him pro rata for the water line and put the fire hydrant at Hewitt and Smithfield Road, and a fire hydrant is already there. Mr. Riddle said he would suggest the city charge him pro rata for the water and sewer lines, and when the 6 inch line is installed, we will put in another fire hydrant. . PS 82-3D and PS 82-31 BOTH APPROVED Mr. Hannon made the motion to approve PS 82-30 and PS 82-31 subject to the EngineerJs comments with the exception of item #2 in his letter of August 31, 1982. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 4-0. 8. PS 82-32 Request of Martin Development Corporation for final plat of Meadow Ridge Estates. John Levitt, Levitt Engineers, came forward to represent Martin Dev. Corp. Mr. Levi'tt said they had received the City Engineer's comments and have responded to them. He said at the request of the Commission and the City Staff, they came before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and received approval of 2 variances. . Mr. Bowen asked Mr. Levitt if he had seen the letter from Mr. Riddle regarding the name of the street being changed to Marilyn Lane. Pa ge 6 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Levitt said he had not seen the letter, but he had discussed this with Mr. Riddle. He said he had also discussed the matter with the Fire Chief, Stan Gertz, who wishes the name be changed. He said if we use Marilyn Lane, this would be having 3 different sections of Marilyn Lane in this city; one sect10n located east of Holiday Lane, one located west of Holiday Lane, and then this one located west of Rufe Snow. Mr. Levitt said by using Meadow Ridge Court, it would not only distinguish it being in the Meadow Ridge Addition, but would also keep people from wondering which Marilyn Lane you live on. He said he felt the Police Chief would go along with this also. Mr. Levitt sand Martin Development has agreed to pay for any sign changes this might incur. He said if Marilyn Lane was going through to Rufe Snow, they would keep the Marilyn Lane name, but it is not going through. Mr. Riddle said what Mr. Levitt has failed to tell is that the Fire Chief is also opposed to the street name of Meadow Ridge. He said there are already too many streets beginning with the name "Meadow" in the city. . Mr. Levitt said most of these streets are in the Meadow Lakes Addition, next to this area, which would key it to this area. He said if the police get a call on Meadow Ridge, they would know it was in the Meadow Lakes area. Mr. Riddle said there are several outside this addition. He said there is Morgan Meadows Addition with Meadow Road and Me~dow Creed Road up north of the city. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Riddle if the naming of a street was a council approval. Mr. Riddle said they approved this short block as Marilyn Lane. . Mr. Levitt said there are no houses facing on this short block of Marilyn Lane which is only 125 feet. "1 Page 7 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Tucker said the Council would have to be the one to change the name of that short street, and it would have to be by Ordinance. Mr. Hannon asked what would be an acceptable name. Mr. Wood said he feels there are problems with 2 Marilyn Lanes which are completely cut off from each other. He said he has a sister who lives on Marilyn Lane and he has to always give directions as to which section she lives on. Mr. Wood said he feels this is a valid point, it would create more problems if it was named Marilyn Lane. Mr. Wood asked about the size of these hou·ses. . Mr. Levitt said they would deed restrict them to a minimum of 2,000 sq. ft., but most of the house plans are from 2,200 to 2,800 sq. ft. Mr. Hannon asked if we ever got a corrected preliminary plat showing the ownerships. PS 82-32 APPROVED Mr. Levitt said they did and the final plat has the correct property owners on it. He read the individual property owners who are under contract with Martin Dev. Corp. to purchase if this plat is approved. Mr. Wood made the motion to approve PS 82-32 as presented, subject to the Engineer1s comments. . Mr. Bowen asked if this should be amended to add that the street name be changed to City Staff approval, or to satisfy the City Staff, or should they leave that to the City Council. Mr. Hannon said he felt they should make them change it to Marilyn Lane and when and if the City Council wants to change the name of that short street, they could do it all at one time. ~ Pa ge 8 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Levitt said they would be happy to take the necessary steps to take that before the council for a change. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Riddle what the procedure was for changing a street name. Mr. Riddle said you used to change it by Ordinance, but with the new platting laws, he was not sure if the property owners in the subdivision would have to be contacted or not. Mr. Wood said his motion was lias presentedll which would create one street with 2 names, and asked if that was possible. Mr. Tucker said you could do that. Mr. Bowen said he seconded Mr. Woodis motion. This motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Hannon voting against. . 9. PS 82-33 Request of Alfred A. St. Arnold for replat of Lot 1-R, Calloway Acres Addition. Tom Vogt came forward to represent Mr. St.Arnold. He said they had one request from TESCO for an additional easement along the westerly line of this property, and they talked with TESCO and they agreed to just half of what they had requested and Ms. Calvert has a letter to that. Mr. Vogt said the Engineerls comment requested a vicinity map be put on the plat; this will be done prior to going to council. Mr. Hannon said we have the same situation here as we had earlier in the meeting where we have a replat on portions of various plots. . Mr. Vogt said that was true. He said Calloway Acres Addition was platted before there was a Richland Hills or a North Richland Hills. He said this property was platted in 1939 at the County and there is no way you can force these people to sign ~ Page 9 p & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . anything. He said these plots were bought by metes and bounds, which was legal at that time. Mr. Vogt said he talked to an attorney and this is the only way they can do this legally. Mr. Hannon asked when this one was bought. Mr. Vogt said this particular one was bought 3 years ago, but the people to the west of this property purchased theirls by metes and bounds in the 1940's. He said he felt this would fall under the Grandfather clause. Mr. Hannon said the reason for replatting was because you can not build over a lot line. . Mr. Riddle said that was correct. He said he did not feel the Grandfather clause would apply here, it is only in zoning. Mr. Riddle said we upgrade the building codes and Subdivision Ordinance by Ordinance and just because this was platted in 1939, he would still have to meet the Subdivision Ordinance of today. Mr. Wood said it was platted and was accepted by North Richland Hills and he feels the present ordinances would apply. Mr. Vogt said at that time it was legal to purchase property by metes and bounds. He said they realize they must plat, but he did not feel they should be dependant on what your neighbors do. Mr. Vogt said the city issued a building permit on the north side of this property in the last few years without requiring a replat. Mr. Wood asked if they built across 'lot 1 i nes . . Mr. Vogt said Mr. St.Arnold has an existing building on this property and it is across a lot line now, he was not sure when this was done, but the city did allow it. Mr. Vogt said he discussed this with the City Manager and he agreed this was the only way to do it. ~ Pagep ~D p & Z M-i nl:rte,$ September 23, 1982 . Mr. Vogt said the city could refuse an occupancy permit on these plots until each replats. Mr. Tucker said this was done a long time ago and at that time, it was done legally. He said this is the first effort to conform to the law we have now. Mr. Tucker said as the owners sell or move, \tIe can at tha t time (' require each to replat. Mr. Hannon said we have 2 simular, but different situations; one was created back in òbscurity and the other was really forming ~t this time. He said the only question was the legality of platting a portion of a lot. . Mr~ Tucker said in a sense, this is unplatted property, it is not platted under our Subdivision Ordinance, it is abstract land, bought by metes and bounds. He said it should be platted, not replatted. Mr_ Riddle said this is a legal plat; if a city will not plat a piece of property, you can take it to the County Commissioners and they can approve it and tt becomes a legal plat recorded at the court house. He said it does not matter if the City Fathers approve it or the County Commissioners, it is a legal platH . Mr. Wood said he just wanted to state the Commission is not tryi'ng to get out of doing thi"s, they just want to be sure they do it properly. Mr~ St.Arnold came forward. He said he feels this is an example of trying to rectify the old ways and in doing so, the little man gets caught in the middle. He said he bought this property legally, and all he wants is a building permit. Mr~ St~Arnold said there are 4 or 5 owners that he would have to try to contact, and he would be at the mercy of these people, they might be out of town, out of the country, or just might refuse to sign. ~ Page 11 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. St.Arnold said he was suffering because he can not put a small structure on his property because of this situation. He said since he was the first one trying to fulfill the law as it was put to him, whether it be platting or replatting, as the property changes hands, you could require the same thing. He said he has owned this property over three years. Mr. Hannon asked if this property was taken out of another piece of land when Mr. St.Arnold bought it. . Mr. Vogt said this was done many years ago. Mr. St.Arnold said it was prior to his purchase in 1979. Mr. Wood made a motion to approve PS 82-33 as presented, subject to the Engineer's comments and subject to a written legal opinion presented to the City Council stating that what the Commission is doing i s 1 eg a 1 . Mr. Tucker asked if he was requesting a legal opinion be given the City Council by the City Attorney at the time this is presented to the City Council. Mr. Wood said that was correct. Mr. Hannon asked if he meant this was not to be put on the City Council agenda until this written opinion was in Mr. Riddle's ha nd s . Mr~ Wood said that was correct, it should not take that long. The"motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Wood made the motion to approve PS 82-33 as presented, subject to the EngineerJs comments. !. This motion was seconded by Mr. Tucker, and the vote was 2-2 with Mr. Bowen and Mr. Hannon voting against. "1 Page 12 p & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . The Chairman stated this motion failed; you must have 3 affirmative votes. PS 82-33 POSTPONED Mr. Hannon made the motion to reconsider this vote and postpone action on this item, PS 82-33, pending the receipt of a legal brief from the City Attorney on this matter. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion to postpone PS 82-33 carried 4-0. 10. PS 82-35 Request of Sue K. Fugate & Ray Singuefield for preliminary plat of Lot 4, Block 1, A. G. Walker Addition. 11. PS 82-36 Request of Sue K. Fugate & Ray Singuefield for final plat of Lot 4, Block 1, A. G. Walker Addition. . Elaine Talbert, Stembridge Engineers, came forward to represent Ms. Fugate and Mr. Sun9uefield in their requests. She said this is a .59 acre tract with an existing strip shopping center on the property, and they need to get a building permit for some remodel i ng. Ms. Talbert said they had received the EngineerJs comments and on item #1 regarding a drainage study, we felt it was not necessary since there would be no alterations to the existing drainage; item #2, the radius of fire coverage, the 300 ft. did not cover the entire property, but there is a fire hydrant that covers the 500 ft. radius; and item #3 , regarding the 12 inch water line in Grapevine Hwy., these owners will be willing to pay their shares as the other owners do along Grapevine Highway. Ms. Talbert said the owners request that an easement not be required by TESCO along the back of the lot since there is an existing air conditioner there and there are other easements adjacent to the property. . Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Riddle if he had any problem with Mr. Stembridge's letter. ~ Page 13 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Riddle said he did not. He said if the Short Form Process for Platting gets initiated, then the main thing we would look for is if they had water service and proper drainage. Mr. Wood asked how this would affect the pro rata share for the 12 inch water line, would they still be required to pay their share. Mr. Riddle said no, there was no way they could get the money. He said it would not be like putting in a street where we can assess the owner. Mr. Tucker asked if he had any problem with the lack of fire coverage. . Mr. Riddle said there was a hydrant at Daley and Grapevine Hwy. and there might be one at Glenview and Grapevine Hwy., he was not sure. Mr. Riddle said he had no problem with it, but the Fire Department would. Mr. Hannon asked Mr. Riddle on item #3 of the City Engineerls letter regarding pro rata for the proposed 12 inch water line on Grapevine Hwy., did he say they would or would not require this. Mr. Riddle said they could sign a covenant stating they would pay for it, but the city can not assess them like they do for a street. He said on a water line, you either have to collect now or have them sign a covenant stating they will pay when it is installed. Mr. Bowen asked Ms. Talbert if the owners would sign a covenant. Ms. Talbert said they would. PS 82-35 and PS 82-36 APPROVED Mr. Hannon made the motion to approve PS 82-35 and PS 82-36 subject to receiving a covenant from the developer agreeing to participate in the cost of the proposed 12 inch water line in Grapevine Hwy. . This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried 4-0. ~ Page 14 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . 12. PZ 82-24 Request of Claude Byrd to rezone Lot 6, Block 23, Clearview Addition, from its present classification of Commercial- Specific Use-Parking Lot to a proposed classification of Commercial. This property is located on Maplewood Drive and is bounded on the Southeast by Byrd Automotive. Claude Byrd came forward. He said they have been in, business for 23 years and previously in Richland Hills. . Mr. Byrd said they are requesting their zoning be changed from Commercial- Specific Use-Parking to Commercial~ He said last year they were granted the Commercial-Specific Use-Parking and they still need it because that is the primary use of this property. Mr. Byrd showed some pictures taken prior to purchasing this property and some made after their purchase of the property. He said they had not lowered the property value, instead they have increased it by cleaning it up and keeping it neat. Mr. Byrd said they primarily use the property for parking their customer1s cars and their rental cars. Mr. Byrd said sometime back, they took out a permit and poured some concrete adjoining their shop, which is about 10 feet behind their shop; there was also an existing piece of concrete there. He said with the bad weather, they poured enough to park about 12 cars on the back, there. He said since then, they have finished the lot out with crushed stone. . Mr. Byrd said a few months ago, he purchased and installed a hydrolic lift to be able to service their cars without realizing he would be in violation of the City Ordinance. He said he has a $5,000 lift setting there not being used. Mr. Byrd said he could move the lift to the other end, which would be on the old property, but it would cost approximately $10,000 to move it. Page 15 p & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Byrd said that is why he is here, he is requesting this specific area, 19 ft. by 25 ft., where they wash and service cars, be changed to Commercial. He said there would not be any noise created by this, and their hours are 7:30 P. M. to 5:30 P. M. Monday through Friday. Mr. Byrd said they previously requested Comme.cial zoning, but was turned down, and received the Specific Use zoning. Mr. Wood asked if he was just asking for the 191 x 251 section to be zoned Commercial. Mr. Byrd said no, he wanted the whole lot zoned Commercial, it would be less confusing, but he says he does not plan to put a shop on the lot. . Mr. Tucker said with Commercial zoning, you could put one there if you wanted to. Mr. Hannon asked if it would be adequate for Mr. Byrdls needs to just zone that small portion. Mr. Byrd said it would. He said they previously had to flush radiators out in the street, so they put water back there and the concrete so they could get out of the street to do their work. Mr. Hannon asked if the house next door was a residence. Mr. Byrd said as far as he knew, it was. . The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Myrtis Byrd came forward. She said when they first requested the Commercial zoning, she had no idea they would have a problem in getting the zoning. She said she is very proud of this city and they would never do anything to make the city look unsitely. Ms. Byrd said in 1971, they bought 2 lots so they would not have to park on the street. ~ Page 16 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Ms. Byrd said the gate they now have on Maplewood is very seldom open. Ms. Byrd said they are asking for Commercial and she thinks it should be Commercial. She said there is residential property in the neighborhood that has been used as a business for 4 years, she was not sure what kind of business, but cars from out of state are there all night. Ms. Byrd said there was another house in the neighborhood where they work on cars. Mr. Riddle said the city had never been able to prove that. Ms. Byrd said another house in the neighbor- hood has room and boarders and gets money for it. . Ms. Byrd said they have always obeyed the law and feel they have been treated bad. She said she spot-checked the neighbors before they purchased the lot and they had no objections, so she told her son it would be okay to purchase the lot. Bill Howe, 5109 Colorado, came forward. He said he had lived here 23 years and feels this request is no real encroachment into the residential area. He said he feels the improvements the Byrds have made are beneficial to the neighborhood. He said he would like to add his support to the Byrds in improving that area. The Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. . Kenneth Fickle, 7908 Maplewood, came forward. He said he lives 2 houses down from this property. Mr. Fickle said the many wrongs of running businesses in residential does not make it right to put another business in right down the street, it just means we need to get the others closed down. Mr. Fickle said there is a business operating next door to Byrd Automotive, it is a company which does typing and filing for a doctorJs office. He said he did not know which doctor. ~ Page 17 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . Mr. Fickle asked if any of the pictures that Mr. Byrd showed the Commission showed the lift sticking up above the fence, and with a car on it, it sticks way above the fence. He said it was very much an eyesore. Mr. Fickle said he and some of the neighbors spoke against this in December of 1981 in which they and the City Council were told by the Byrds that they intended to do nothing but have a parking lot. He said at that time the request was denied and then he was called and came down to the Byrdls and was shown what they wanted, and was told all they wanted was a parking lot. Mr. Fickle said he would agree to that and he would help them. He said he told them they should ask for Specific Use zoning for parking only. Mr. Fickle said the Byrds requested the Specific Use and was granted it. He said he did not oppose it, he did not even come to the meeting. . Mr. Fickle said shortly after that, they put out a sign announcing their car rental business; soon after that, they opened a car wash or grease rack. Mr. Fickle said he called Ms. Calvert and she put him in touch with one of the City Inspectors who came down and told the Byrds they could not use that lift and if they did use it, they would be fined. He said the Inspector said it was against the ordinance to put the lift in, and they also put it in without obtaining a building permit. Mr. Fickle said if the lift cost the Byrds $5,000 and it is going to cost $10,000 to have it moved, if it was him, he would just buy another lift, it would be $5,000 cheaper. . Mr. Fickle said he remembers the lot next door and the trouble they had with it. He said it has a huge slab in the back yard, which is the remains of a huge building that was built by a construction company under a Specific Use-Parking lot permit. He said they had no permission to build the building; they were told to tear the build- ing down; the Company went out of business and the building stood there for 4 years, but they finally got the building torn down Page 18 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 . PZ 82-24 DENIED . RECESS BACK TO ORDER 13e CONSIDERATION OF SHORT FORM PLATTING ORDINANCE . and the zoning back to residential. Mr. Fickle said the neighbors are trying to not allow this to happen again. He said if a parking lot is what they wanted, why not keep it Specific Use. Mr. Fickle said if it goes Commercial, they can put any business they want to there. Mr. Fickle said he and the neighbors request the Commission deny this request and make them move whats been put there unlawfully. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Bowen made a motion to deny PZ 82-24. This motion was seconded by Mr. Hannon and the motion carried 4-0. The Chairman stated the request was denied. Mr. Byrd sa id he requested a rebuttal" but was denied this. Mr. Tucker said he did not know he wanted to speak. He said Mr. Byrd could appeal this request to the City Council. There was a disturbance by Mr. Byrd. The Chairman called for order. The Chairman called a recess at 9:25 P. M. The Chatrman called the meeting back to order at 9:35 P. M. with the same members present. The Chairman asked if all members had read this Ordinance. All members said they had. All points of the ordinance were discussed. Mr. Hannon asked about the cut off date in item #2. Mr. Riddle said that since that date, the city had better control over the property in the city. . . . Page 19 P & Z Minutes September 23, 1982 The members felt there should be a change in the wording of items 1 and 5 which are shown in the motion. Mr. Hannon made a motion to recommend approval of the Short Form Platting Ordinance to the City Council subject to the following changes: #1 should read-There must be an existing building on the lot capable of being occupied as a legal residence or business; and #5- strike out lIasphalt type" and add lithe right-of-way shall be dedicated if neededll. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 4-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P. M. ¿:£:l¿¡.e C ~r CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION