Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1979-05-24 Minutes . . . CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 1979 NEt~ BUSINESS PZ 79-19 APPROVED ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, MAY 24, 1979 The Chairman, Mary Jo Shaunty, called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. PRESENT: CHAIRMAN SECRETARY ~1EMBERS Mary Jo Shaunty Forrest Grubb Warren Eckhardt Jack Knowles Marjorie Nash CITY STAFF PRESENT: DIRECTOR OF P.W. P & Z CLERK James Anderson ~'Janda Ca 1 vert Mr. Anderson stated there needs to be a correction on page 6, paragraph 2. It should read IIdid not agree with Mr. Swift but that------tl. - Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mr. Eckhardt, to APPROVE the minutes as read with this one correction. Motion carried 4-0 with Mrs. Nash abstaining since she was not present at this meeting. Request of The Cambridge Co. Dev. Corp. to rezone Lot 2, Block 2, Northpark Plaza Addition, from its present classification of Local Retail to a proposed classification of Local Retail-Specific Use-Sale of Beer for off premise consumption. This property is located at the Southeast corner of Rufe Snow Drive and Chapman Road. Mr. Jim McGary represented Cambridge Co. Dev. Corp. in their request. He stated they were not aware their zoning was not correct for the 7-11 store to sell beer until last month when Stop N Go on Watauga and Rufe Snow had to get a Specific Use zoning. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of this request. ~ Page 2 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . PZ 79-20 APPROVED Mr. Knowles moved, seconded by Mr. Grubb, to APPROVE PZ 79-19 as requested. Motion carried 4-1 with Mrs. Nash voting against. Request of J.E. Dunn to rezone Tract 2S, Abstract 1055, from its present classifi- cation of Agriculture to a proposed classi- fication of 1F-9-0ne Family Dwelling. This property is located on the West side of Walter Street, approximately 285 feet South of Amundson Road. PS 79-38 APPROVED PS 79-39 APPROVED Request of J.E. Dunn for preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 1, French Addition. Request of J.E. Dunn for final plat of Lot 1, Block 1, French Addition. Mr. Delbert Stembridge, Consulting Engineer, represented Mr. Dunn in his requests. Mr. Stembridge stated Mr. Dunn had already received the perk test approval from the County. He also stated he had reviewed the Engineer1s comments and have taken care of all of them. . Mr. Anderson stated he did not have a copy of the certification of the perk test from the County. Mr. Stembridge stated Mr. Dunn has if with him and will give it to Mr. Anderson after the meeting tonight. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of these requests. Mr. W.C. Autrey stated he lives on the corner of Amundson and Walter Street. He stated he was not here to oppose these requests, but just wanted to know how it would affect his property-if it would change his zoning and make his taxes go up. Mr. Grubb stated this would not affect his property, only Mr~ Dunn~s. Mre Grubb stated that taxes are based on what you have, not what your neighbor has. . ~ ~ Page 3 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . Mr. Autrey stated he felt the perk test should be looked at pretty close because the people across the street from him have problems with their1s. Mr. Anderson stated that before the County took control of this operation, several people built homes back in there with septic tanks and they did not go through the County nor did they comply with the Engineer1s criteria for septic tanks in that area. This is the reason for the problems. Mr. Autrey stated they have problems with his in damp weather. Mr. Anderson stated Mr. Dunn has complied with all the Engineer1s requirements for septic tanks in that area with this im- pervious soil. The Chairman asked if Mr. Stembridge had any more to say about this subject. . Mr. Stembridge stated the septic tank will be inspected by the County and it will have to meet their requirements. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mr. Eckhardt, to APPROVE PZ 79-20 as requested. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mr. Knowles, to APPROVE PS 79-38 subject to having the approval of the perk test filed with the city prior to going to council. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to APPROVE PS 79-39 subject to having the approval of the perk test filed with the city prior to going to council. Motion carried 5-0. PZ 79-21 APPROVED Request of C. Ramey, C. Owen, and J. Roseberry, to rezone Tract 9A, Abstract 130. from its present classification of Local Retail to a proposed classification of Commercial. This property is located on the West side of Ross Road and East of Cypress Gardens Apts. . ~ Page 4 p & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . Mr. Curtis Ramey, part owner of this property, presented this request to the Commission. He stated this property is on Ross Road, near the Cypress Gardens Apartments. He said they are requesting this zoning change for better use of the property and it would be in char- acter with the rest of the property in this area. Mrs. Nash asked what they plan to do with the property. Mr. Ramey stated they plan to develop it into "Store & Lock" mini-warehouses, tastefully planned and artfully done. Mr. Ramey stated they feel there is a real need for such and would be a benefit to the community. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Ramey if he was aware that they would have to install a fence next to the houses or apartments. Mr. Ramey stated they were aware of this and would be glad to comply. . Mr. Knowles asked if the Cypress Garden Apartments were west of this property. Mr. Ramey stated they were. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this request. Mr. Jack Roseberry, 7704 Bogart, stated he was co-owner of this property. He stated this would be mini-warehouses with offices in the front. He stated they have had a problem with this property in trying to find a us"e for it. He said they had it zoned Local Retail several years ago, but the area has not developed. He stated the College Hill Shopping Center across from them has had Local Retail spaces vacant ever since it was developed. He stated they also have a problem with one of their neighbors parking machinery and equipment on thir pro- perty. Mr. Grubb stated he had just asked Mr. Anderson to check into this as there is a mobile home parked there now. . .. . . ~ Page 5 p & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 Mr. Roseberry stated that was correct and also there is a catapiller tractor, a big trailer parked there. He stated this is the second time they had had problems trying to get them to move them. Mr. Roseberry stated he hated to have to impound the vehicle, but may have to. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Roseberry how soon they plan to build on this property. Mr. Roseberry stated this property has never been platted. He stated they have someone interested in the property when they get the platting completed. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Mr. Eckhardt moved, seconded by Mr. Grubb, to APPROVE PZ 79-21 as requested. Motion carried 5-0. PZ 79-22 DENIED Request of Elmer Allison to rezone Tract 3A, Abstract 1150, from its present classification of Agriculture to a proposed classification of 1F-9-0ne Family Dwelling with a minimum of 1500 sq. ft. floor space. This property is located on the East side of Eden Road, approximately 1900 ft. North of Amundson Road with portions fronting on Eden Rd. Mr. Elmer Allison presented his request to the Commission. He stated this property is presently zoned Agriculture, but the last 4 or 5 years the City and the Trinity River Authority have brought all the utilities to this area. He said he was requesting this zoning change so this property can be developed. Mr. Grubb stated the nearest land to it was zoned 1F-12. He asked Mr. Allison if he could change this to a larger house than the 1500 sq. ft. Mr. Allison stated he did not feel he could since the market is for 1500 to 1700 sq. ft. ~ Page 6 p & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . Mr. Anderson stated the larger area, Stoney- brook, is zoned IF-9. He told Mr. Grubb that the IF~I2 was a very small area near this property. Mr. Grubb stated that Crestwood was across the road from Stoneybrook is also IF~9. Mrs. Nash asked what he plans to construct the houses out of. Mr. Allison stated they would be brick and would be built to city sepcifications. . The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of this request. Mr. Charles Baker, 7308 Eden Road, adjacent on two sides of this property, stated he and nine other property owners on Eden Road are opposed to this request. He stated their property consists of at least one acre tracts and he does not believe any of the brick homes are just 1500 sq. ft. He stated the street is so deplorable, he would like to know what the City plans to do with the street. He stated it could not handle anymore traffic. He stated if there was an accessment for curb and gutter, it would cost him a fortune. Mr. Grubb asked which side his property was on. Mr. Baker stated it was on the North side. The Chairman asked Mr. Baker to show the Commission where his property is located on the map. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Baker how much land he has. Mr. Baker stated he has one acre. Mr. Grubb stated that since his property has not been platted, if he wanted to make any revision or improvements on his property, he would first have to have it platted, and then at this time, he would be required to pay the accessments. . ~ Page 7 p & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . Mr. Anderson stated if you are talking about the access into the new development, it would not be likely you would be assessed anything. The developer has to install the streets, then the City would accept the streets if they met the City·s requirements. Mr. Anderson stated if at some time in the future the City decides to develop Eden Road and curb and gutter, all property owners would be required to pay their portion for the curb and gutter. But he stated he feels this is not in the near future. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Anderson in the event there is a modification of Mr. Baker1s property that would require a building per- mit, the City would require him to plat his property, and at that time he would be re- quired to pay his pro rata share of the water, sewer, and streets. Mr. Anderson stated that was correct, but anything the developer does would have no effect on Mr. Baker1s property. . Mr. Baker asked if this development is to be supplied with sewer service. Mr. Anderson stated it is going to require a sizable development in order to get the sewer to this area. He stated this tract of land is fairly close to the sewer. Mr. Baker asked if they plan to put in sewage along Eden Road. Mr. Anderson stated that in time they plan to, but it would probably be 2 years before they do. Mr. Baker asked if there are plans for 60 homes in this development. Mr. Anderson stated there have been no plans submitted at this time. He stated this is only a zoning request, but at such time that plans are submitted, the City1s Engineer will review the plans closely regarding the drainage, lot size, etc. . . . . ~ Page 8 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 Mr. Baker stated in representing the property owners, they are against the building of 60 homes in this area with only 1500 sq. ft. floor space. They feel this will devaluate their property. Billy Wallace, 7401 Eden Road, stated his property is across the street from the property in question. He stated he has been in construction business for 15 years and have found out 1500 sq. ft. houses are too small for this area. He stated the homes in this area are large and are on from 1 to 5 acre tracts. Mr. Wallace stated that with the economy up, if you build these 1500 sq. ft. homes, then the economy drops, there will be repossession one right after another. He stated if you build 1800 sq. ft. homes, which we are requesting, people would be more likely to be permanent and take better care of their property. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Wallace how many houses that back up to this property that are above the 1500 sq. ft. minimum. Mr. Wallace stated he felt there was about 85% that are 1800 sq. ft. and above. He stated he has 2300 sq. ft., his next door neighbor has close to 3000, and the neighbor to the south has 2000. He stated there are only 2 farm houses that are smaller, but they were there long before the newer development. Mr. Grubb asked how many houses there are in this area, excluding the 2 farm houses. Mr. Wallace stated there were about 17 homes, and there might be 2 of them that are 1600 sq. ft., the others are larger. He stated they are not against the development of the property, but would like for them to be large enough to require people to invest more in the property and then they would not let it run down. He said if you build the small ones, and the economy drops, they would be lots that would become vacant. Then people would start dumping trash on them and make them an eye sore to the neighborhood. ~ Page 9 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . Mr. Anderson stated these homes would be in the $60,000 price range. He stated these homes would be considerably larger than the requirement in 1F-9 zoning. He stated the Council would rather have no smaller homes in the city than 1500 sq. ft. and he stated these would be substantially larger than in Stoneybrook. Mr. Wallace stated the Ordinance states they would have to be built of comfortable size to our homes. He stated he understands what a developer is faced with, but he said he has seen 1500 sq. ft. homes after they are run down, and it is deplorable. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Wallace if he was aware that they are setting in Agricultural zoning and you have no control on what size of home can be built. Mr. Wallace stated he knew that the minimum in Agricultural zoning was 1200 sq. ft., but there are no 2 acre tracts left in this area, so we do not have to worry about this. . The Chairman asked all that were opposed to this zoning request to stand and then she asked how many were within the 200 ft. of the property in question. There were approximately 12. Bill Hamilton asked if this is for only Mr. Allison1s tract of land, would it have any- thing to do with his land which is to the South of Mr. Allison1s. Mrs. Shaunty stated this zoning is only for Mr. Allison1s property. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Perry Wise, 7444 Eden Road, asked what size the lots would be. Mr. Grubb stated they would be 9500 sq. ft. Mrs. Shaunty stated the minimum width would be 70 ft. . Page 10 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . RECESS CALL TO ORDER . . ~ Mr. Wise stated that would be mighty small lots. He said you could not put a very large house on them. Mr. Anderson stated that is a fair size lot-it would be approximately 140 ft. deep if it is 70 ft. wide. Mr. Wise stated with all the others having acreage, this would make these lots look even smaller. The Chairman called a recess at 8:18 P.M. The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 8:29 P.M. Mr. Wallace asked if he could speak again. He stated that a while ago, something was said about Stoneybrook with 1500 sq. ft. house range being across the street-it is not close to this area and should have nothing to do with this area. Mr. Grubb stated that that is not what was said. He stated Crestwood was across the street from Stoneybrook and Stoneybrook is the nearest zoned area to this property. Mr. Wallace stated the 70 ft. wide lots would be very small. Mr. Anderson stated there is a 6 ft. side yard requirement so that ,would make 12 ft. between the houses. Mr. Wallace stated the property owners are requesting 100 ft. wide lots and 1800 sq. ft. houses. The Chairman closed the discussion. Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mr. Knowles, to APPROVE PZ 79-22 with 1F-9 zoning with a minimum of 1700 sq. ft~ houses. The vote was 2 for and 3 against, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Eckhardt, and Mrs. Nash voting against. The motion died. . . . ~ Page 11 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 Mr. Eckhardt moved, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to DENY PZ 79-22. Motion carried 3-2 with Mr. Grubb and Mrs. Shaunty voting against the denial. Mr. Eckhardt stated he would like to see larger homes built next to their homes and smaller ones in the back. Mr. Grubb stated there is a policy in North Richland Hills with the council that most land next to the railroad be left for Industrial purposes, not even for Commercial zoning. He stated that is the reason for his motion. The Chairman told Mr. Allison that he has the right to appeal to the City Council. PS 79-35 APPROVED Request of James Lee Rodgers for replat of Lot 1, Block 9, Richland Hills West Addn. Mr. John Lutz represented Mr. Rodgers in his request. He stated the purpose for this replat was to place on record the plat show- ing the bounds, shape, etc. of this property. Mr. Lutz stated 'J'Chicken and Fixin" is located on this property and they wish to remodel, but cannot without replatting. Mr. Anderson stated this property was platted several years ago as one block in Halton City. Mr. Anderson stated that he asked Mr. Lutz to run a check and furnish us with a letter stating there were no leins, assessments, etc. on the property, and he did. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of this request. Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to APPROVE PS 79-35 as requested. Motion carried 5-0. PS 79-36 APPROVED Request of Jack Roseberry for preliminary plat of Lot 7, Block 1, Mollie B. Collins Addition. PS 79-37 APPROVED Request of Jack Roseberry for final plat of Lot 7, Block 1, Mollie B. Collins Addition~ ~ Page 12 p & Z Minutes ~1ay 24, 1979 . Mr. Delbert Stembridge, Consulting Engineer, represented Jack Roseberry in his requests. He stated Mr. Roseberry has recently purchased this property and had it zoned Commercial at the last meeting. He stated they have reviewed the Engineer1s letter and Mr. Roseberry agrees to pay the pro rata for the water line. Mr. Stembridge stated the drainage calculation will be taken care of before going to the City Council meeting. He stated it seems the main question is where the water will go. He said there is a low spot in this property and the water flows down across the adjacent property just to the South into a pipe. Mr. Stembridge said they plan to approach the adjacent property owner and see if they can acquire an easement from him. In any case, when Mr. Roseberry builds on this property, he will grade the lot where there will be no drainage problem, but they will still try to obtain the easement from the adjacent property owner. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Anderson if he had any problem with this. . Mr. Anderson stated he basically agrees with the City Engineer1s comments. He said that ordinarily the sheet flow of water from one lot to another is not a problem-say in res- idential, but this is on Commercial property. And Commercial property has a way of getting paved and a parking lot does not soak up the moisture and the water sure gets there in a hurry. Mr. Anderson stated that frankly, he would prefer to have the water consentrated and handled in a manner acceptable to the adjoining property owner. Mr. Stembridge stated he agrees with the Engineer and they will continue to try to get the easement, but since his property extends on past this property, he may not agree. Mr. Stembridge stated they will get a commitment whether it is "yes'l or "noli and let the City kno~J . Mr. Grubb asked if they could force the water to Smithfield Road, would this be satisfactory. . ~ Page 13 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . Mr. Stembridge stated that this would be hard to do as this lot is kinda low, it would take an enormous amount of fill. He said that is what they wish they could do, though. Mr. Anderson stated we sure would like to get it into the nearest storm drain, but the adjoining property has been notified and is aware of the problem. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of these requests. Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to APPROVE PS 79-36 as requested subject to item #1 of the Engineer1s letter being completely resolved prior to going to the Council. Motion carried 5-0. . Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mr. Eckhardt, to APPROVE PS 79-37 as requested subject to item #1 of the Engineer~s letter being completely resolved prior to going to the Council. Motion carried 5-0. PS 79-40 APPROVED Request of C.D.H, Inc. for replat of Lot 6R, Lonsdale Addition. Mr. Delbert Stembridge, Consulting Engineer, represented Mr. Cary Hardin in his request. He stated Mr. Hardin has recently purchased two-l00 ft. lots on Davis Blvd. and would like to get them replatted into one lot. He stated the building Mr. Hardin wants to build is too large for one lot. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of this request. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Stembridge if this letter from Wendell Hancock, Surveyor, means all the Engineer1s comments have been answered. Mr. Stembridge stated the surveyor certifi~ cation did not match the foremat set out by the City Council, etc. . ~ Page 14 P & Z minutes May 24, 1979 . Mr. Anderson stated here is the case again of an old plat. He said, actually, we have no topography on it and we were not sure of an easement, but there is an easement, and he and the City Engineer are satisfied with the agreements. Mr. Stembridge stated the county plans to come in with a 30 inch storm drainage. But when Mr. Hardin starts to develop this, he will come in with a site plan and proper drainage plans. Mr. Eckhardt moved, seconded by Mr. Grubb, to APPROVE PS 79-40 as requested. Motion carried 5-0. PS 79-41 APPROVED Request of Tarrant Real Estate Co., Inc. for preliminary plat of Meadow Lakes, 2nd Filing. Mr. Lynn Kadlich with Spain-Ayres & Assoc. represented Tarrant Real Estate in their request. He stated he has gone over with Mr. Anderson all of the Engineer1s comments and after talking with him and the City Engineer, they will be able to have all of these comments resolved before submitting the final plat. . Mr. Grubb stated there were 18 items and he does not feel they have answered them. . Mr. Anderson stated this is a preliminary plat and in the old times, you would not have seen this many items. He stated he has requested the City Engineer give an extensive study on the preliminary plans so they can come in \\Iith a better final plat. Mr. Anderson stated there are not very many major problems, but would like to mention one or two which will need special attention: item #14 where we talk about side yards-our Ordinance requires a 25 ft. side yard on a corner. This is to keep one house from setting way up and one setting way back. The one on the corner lot gets a big eye full of his neighbor. Mr. Anderson stated if you will look at this arangement, they are separated by a lagoon. The developer assumes this would only need a 15 ft. side yard, and 'he is in agree- ment with him~ because it would be the same . . . ~ Page 15 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 as if we had an alley, but He said he knows we don It have alleys in North Richland Hills. Mr. Grubb stated that on Lot 4, Block 7, he can not see how the lagoon would have any effect on it with a side entry garage. Mr. Anderson stated this lagoon is for the protection of Lot 5, Block 7. Mr. Grubb stated the side yard requirement was also made to take care of the parking of cars at a house with a side entry garage. Mr. Anderson stated that is correct for a side entry garage. Mr. Grubb stated he was concerned with what we are to look at when there are 18 items in the Engineer~s letter. He said that usually they bring in the preliminary plat and final plat at the same time and they correct some, and then they come back, and there are several more to correct. Mr. Anderson stated this is the reason for having an extensive study on the preliminary- so they will know what to have corrected before coming in with the final. Mr. Jerry Stevens, Developer, stated one of the reasons for using the lagoons was so they could use more of the back yard. He said the using of the lagoons will make the lots and houses more expensive and there would not be that much parking on the street, Mr. Grubb stated he did not go along with that as he had lived in Diamond Oaks in a $150,000 house, and there was still parking on the streets. He stated he feels there should be some concern regarding these lagoons, the protection of the people, etc. Mr. Anderson stated he would like to speak regarding the lagoons. He stated that when he saw these lagoons being proposed, he was quite pleased. He said he thinks that any- one who knows about Fossil Creek, knows that we have a serious problem with that creek. Page 16 p & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 . I· *He said 2 children were nearly drown while he lived there. . ~ He stated the situation being caused by the developer in the Fossil Creek water shed, from Agricultural zoning with nice vegatation, it soaks up the rain, slows it up and allows the water to be absorbed into the ground. Mr. Anderson stated we have been developing this area for some- time in roof tops and pavement, which soaks up nothing. The net results is we are beginning to get peaks on our hydrograph on Fossil Creek that is going to result in substancial damage to the property on Fossil Creek. Mr. Anderson stated that in his opinion, the drainage on Fossil Creek is such that we ought to look very carefully at further development unless we can reduce the runoff peaking through the use of detention ponds. He stated that when he saw these ponds or lagoons here, and knowing we already have had substancial run off from Meadow Lakes, 1st Filing, the first thing he did was to call Mr. Kadlich and request at least 1 or 2 feet storage in each of these lagoons. Mr. Anderson stated he would like to ask for some design on these lagoons, in other words, a larger pipe end where the water goes in and a small pipe where it goes out. This way the storm water would stack up because it would go in faster than it goes out. This effect will mean you have held off the drainage chanel. It tends to take the peak off the water level. He stated if they do not give us this 1 or 2 ft., just having the lagoons will help. If they did not have the lagoons on the plans, Mr. Anderson said he would have to request the Commission deny their plan. Mr. Grubb asked Mr. Anderson if he really felt having the lagoons would help that much. He said the main problem was kids. He said when he lived in Diamond Oaks, they were responsible if a kid got hurt or drown on their property. * He said 2 children were drown while he lived there. Mr. Anderson stated these lagoons are connected in series and you get the net effect of all the lagoons. . . . ~ Page 17 P & Z Minutes May 24, 1979 Mr. Grubb asked if he felt this would not cause flooding if we had a 5 or 6 inch rain. He stated he was in a place the other day and they had a 4 inch rain in 35 minutes. Mr. Anderson stated that if we have a gully washer like we did 2 weeks ago today, there will be flooding. Mr. Kadlich stated this will deter from flooding. Mr. Grubb asked if this area is approved for flood insurance. Mr. Anderson stated he could not answer that. Mr. Kadlich stated they will have to have an approval from Austin on this plan before they can use it. He said they plan to widen Fossil Creek to about 200 ft. wide at the top. It will have a flat bottom and approximately 100 ft. across at the bottom. Then it will handle the 100 year flood. Mr. Grubb stated he was not negative to this plan. Mr. Anderson stated the City is concerned with the taking care of the lagoons, the silting, etc. Mr. Kadlich stated they plan to form a home- owners association to take care of this. He said they are doing extensive study to fix this where there would be very little silting. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of this request. Mr. Grubb moved, seconded by Mr. Knowles, to APPROVE PS 79-41 as requested. Motion carried 5-0. ADJOURNr1ENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. ~. 9- ~. CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING COM SECR TARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION