MINUTES OF REGULARMEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF LUFKIN, TEXAS, HELD ON THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1987,AT 5:00 P.M.

On the 9th day of February, 1987, the Planning & Zoning Commissionof the City of Lufkin, Texas, convened in regular meeting in theCouncil Chambers of City Hall with the following members thereof,to—wit:

Samuel D. GriffinJoe FloydDr. Ned Barrett, Jr.Herbert CrossRobin MercerJim PartridgeHarvey WesterholmNick FinanRon WeschTommy DeatonAtha Stokes

being present and,

Drefus ThompsonBrian Boudreaux

ChairmanMemberMemberMemberMemberMemberCity ManagerCity PlannerPublic Works DirectorAssistant City AttorneyCity Secretary

MemberAssistant City Manager

being absent when the following business was transacted.

1. Meeting opened with prayer by Herbert Cross.

2. APPROVALOF MINUTES

Minutes of regular meeting of January 26, 1987 were approved on amotion by Dr. Ned Barrett, Jr. and seconded by Joe Floyd. A unanimousaffirmative vote was recorded.

3a. TEMPORARYMOBILE HOME PERMIT - DENIED - DENETTE CALHOUN-

1505 1/2 NORTH AVENUE

Chairman Griffin stated that the first item for consideration was aTemporary Mobile Home Permit renewal by Denette Calhoun located at1505 1/2 North Avenue. Applicant was not present.

City Planner Finan stated that he had tried to reach Ms. Calhoun bytelephone and a second letter and had been unable to reach her. CityPlanner Finan stated that he went out to the property, and the mobilehome had been removed.

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 1

Motion was made by Joe Floyd and seconded by Dr. Ned Barrett, Jr. thatTemporary Mobile Home Permit be removed from the City files and thatTemporary Mobile Home Permit renewal not be granted. A unanimousaffirmative vote was recorded.

3b. TEMPORARYMOBILE HOMEPERMIT - DENIED - MRS. A. C. MONROE -

1515 HIGGINS — _______ — ____ — — _______ —

Chairman Griffin stated that the next item for consideration wasTemporary Mobile Home Permit renewal by Mrs. A. C. Monroe located at1515 Higgins.

City Planner Finan stated that he had tried to reach Mrs. Monroe bytelephone and a second letter and had not been able to reach her. CityPlanner Finan stated that this piece of property had been clutteredwith junk and Mrs. Monroe stated that she would clean up the propertyprior to moving in the temporary mobile home. City Planner Finanstated that he had visited the property in an attempt to contact Mrs.Monroe, and there was no mobile home on the property.

Motion was made by Jim Partridge and seconded by Joe Floyd thatTemporary Mobile Home Permit be removed from the City files and thatTemporary Mobile Home Permit renewal not be granted. A unanimousaffirmative vote was recorded.

3c. TEMPORARYMOBILE HOMEPERMIT RENEWAL - APPROVED- MILDRED BRANSEN— 2313 MINNIE LOU

Chairman Griffin stated that the next item for consideration was aTemporary Mobile Home Permit renewal by Mildred Bransen located at2313 Minnie Lou.

Applicant was not present and motion was made by Jim Partridge andseconded by Dr. Ned Barrett, Jr. that item be tabled until the end ofthe meeting. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded.

Applicant did not appear and motion was made by Jim Partridge andseconded by Joe Floyd that item be tabled until next meeting. Aunanimous affirmative vote was recorded.

Mrs. Bransen’s granddaughter, Pernetha Bransen, arriving just priorto adjournment, stated that she was running late and would like torenew the Temporary Mobile Home Permit if possible.

Ms. Bransen stated that there had been no changes or problems with the

present location.

PAGE 2DATE 2/9/87

Ms. Bransen stated that the temporary mobile home was being used tocare for her grandmother who is in ill health.

The motion to table this item was withdrawn, and motion was made byJoe Floyd and seconded by Jim Partridge that Temporary Mobile HomePermit be renewed for six (6) months. A unanimous affirmative votewas recorded.

3d. TEMPORARYMOBILE HOME PERMIT RENEWAL- APPROVED- RITA AND AUBREYBERRY - HUBBARDSTREET — ________ — ____ — ______

Chairman Griffin stated that the next item for consideration wasTemporary Mobile Home Permit renewal located on Hubbard Street.

City Planner Finan stated that Mrs. Berry had contacted him by phoneand told him that she and her husband were both working out—of—townand were unable to attend the meeting.

City Planner Finan stated that the original request had been for theTemporary Mobile Home to be used for four to five years until a homecould be built. Mrs. Berry stated that this is the second time thepermit has been renewed, and because of problems with street con-struction, the mobile home has only recently been placed on the prop-erty.

Chairman Griffin stated that he would like for City Planner Finan toask Mrs. Berry to write a letter explaining her situation with themobile home so that it will become part of the official record.

Motion was made by Jim Partridge and seconded by Dr. Ned Barrett, Jr.that Temporary Mobile Home Permit be granted for a six (6) monthextension. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded.

3e. TEMPORARYMOBILE HOME PERMIT RENEWAL- APPROVED- JAMES D.— THOMPSON- 1319 BOWERSSTREET

Chairman Griffin recognized James D. Thompson in representation ofTemporary Mobile Home Permit located at 1319 Bowers Street.

Mr. Thompson stated that since last renewal the circumstances hadchanged on the temporary mobile home. Mr. Thompson stated both of hisparents had died, and the house was vacant and on the market for sale.Mr. Thompson stated that he lived in the mobile home and as soon asthe house was sold, he planned to move the mobile home.

PAGE 3DATE 2/9/87

In response to question by Robin Mercer, Mr. Thompson stated that thehouse was tied up between himself and two other heirs, and he did notwant to buy their part of the house. Mr. Thompson stated that bykeeping the mobile home on the property until the house sold, he wasable to keep up the maintenance and was also a deterrent to vandalism.

Motion was made by Jim Partridge and seconded by Dr. Ned Barrett, Jr.that Temporary Mobile Home Permit be granted a 180 day extension. Aunanimous affirmative vote was recorded.

4. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET CLOSING - HULEN SQUYRES- SANDY LANE

Chairman Griffin stated that the next item for consideration was dis-cussion of street closing request by Hulen Squyres for the northsection of Sandy Lane intersecting Loop 287.

Chairman Griffin declared Public Hearing officially opened and recog-nized Hulen Squyres in representation of request.

Mr. Squyres stated that at last meeting of this Commission he had re-quested a zone change and it had been brought to his attention thatthis street had not been formally closed. Mr. Squyres stated thatwhen he bought that portion of the property from Chester Mitchell, Mr.Mitchell told him that the street had been closed for some time. Mr.Squyres stated that this is not a through street, but only goes totwo houses.

Mr. Squyres stated that he was requesting that the City close thestreet since it hasn’t been used in over ten years.

Chairman Griffin stated that the City has prescriptive rights to thestreet.

City Manager Westerholm stated that the property will have to beappraised and a value affixed to same.

Mr. Squyres stated that since he had paid for five acres of land,he would like for the City to be as lenient as possible in theirappraisal.

City Manager Westerholm stated that the law states that the City can-not sell the property below the appraised value.

Dr. Ned Barrett, Jr. stated that he would agree with Mr. Squyres thathe would feel as though he had already purchased the property and hewould hope that the City would take into consideration that thestreet had not been used as a proper street all these years. Dr.

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 4

Barrett stated that since he had been a member of the Commission, anumber of streets had been closed and he remembered that the ap-praised value was very low. City Manager Westerholm stated thatit should be appraised at approximately 15 — 20 cents per squarefoot.

City Planner Finan stated that there are no water lines on the prop-erty, but there is a sewer line that runs up to the property line.

Mr. Squyres stated that the City extended the sewer line from LufkinAvenue north and stopped at the edge of the property.

Chairman Griffin closed Public Hearing due to lack of discussion.

5. STREET CLOSING/PERMANENTZONING - RECOMMENDEDTO CITY COMMISSIONHULEN SQUYRES- SANDY LANE - APARTMENT, SU (NU~ING HOME)

Chairman Griffin stated that the Commission would now consider recom-mendation to City Commission of Street Closing and Permanent Zoning ofApartment, Special Use (Nursing Home) request by Hulen Squyres for thenorth section of Sandy Lane intersecting Loop 287.

In response to question by Chairman Griffin, Mr. Squyres stated thatingress and egress had been discussed at the last meeting. CityPlanner Finan stated that he had talked with the highway department,and they have approved ingress and egress.

Motion was made by Jim Partridge and seconded by Dr. Ned Barrett, Jr.that recommendation of street closing and permanent zoning ofApartment, Special Use (Nursing Home) request by Hulen Squyres for thenorth section of Sandy Lane intersecting Loop 287 be made to CityCommission. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded.

6. ALLEY CLOSING - RECOMMENDEDTO CITY COMMISSION - FRANK & MANTOOTHKELLY & THOMPSON

Chairman Griffin stated that the next item for consideration wasrecommendation to the City Commission of alley closing between Frankand Mantooth extending from Kelly to Thompson as requested by sur-rounding residents.

Chairman Griffin recognized Joe Pickard, who stated that he lived at701 Mantooth. Mr. Pickard stated that all of the property owners werein agreement about closing the alley. Mr. Pickard stated that thealley is not being used by anyone and is growing up in switch caneand the residents would like to clean it up. Mr. Pickard stated that

PAGE 5DATE 2/9/87

the residents would also like to see the alley closed for securityreasons. -

Chairman Griffin stated that there might be some discussion on theutility lines that might still be in place and what their disposaland use will be.

Chairman Griffin stated that Mrs. Anderson had recommended that herwater meter be placed in a more convenient place. City ManagerWesterhoim stated that he would look into the matter and see whatcould be done. City Manager Westerholm stated that the City willprobably have to maintain a utility easement down the alley.

In response to question by Chairman Griffin, City Manager Westerholmstated that it is a twenty foot alley and a value has been made ofthe property.

There was no opposition present.

Robin Mercer stated that she would like to know if all the residentswere aware that they would have to buy their part of the alley fromthe City and if they are in agreement to do so, or are they just inagreement to have the alley closed.

Mr. Pickard stated that he would like to know if it were possiblejust to close the alley without the agreement to buy.

City Manager Westerholm stated that the City assumed that everyonewanted to buy their half of the alley and if one property owner didnot want to buy, the other property abutting his property could buyhis share. City Manager Westerholm stated that some alleys have beenclosed where not all the property owners purchased the property.

Mr. Pickard stated that a petition had been presented to the City andonly one person did not agree to buy.

City Planner Finan stated that the person Mr. Pickard was referring towas Dr. Wade, and he had spoken to him and Dr. Wade is now willing topurchase his half. City Planner Finan stated that he explained toDr. Wade that the City’s appraised value was seventeen cents persquare foot, and if he were to work with the other neighbors by havingone surveyor and one attorney do the legal work, it would be lesscostly for everyone.

Motion was made by Robin Mercer and seconded by Joe Floyd thatrecommendation be made to the City Commission that alley between

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 6

Frank and Mantooth extending from Kelly to Denman be closed and theproperty be sold to the abutting property owners as requested.

Mrs. Anderson stated that there was an error in the description ofthe property and instead of Denman the street should be Thompson.

Ms. Mercer stated that she would amend her motion from Denman toThompson. Amended motion was seconded by Joe Floyd. A unanimousaffirmative vote was recorded.

Assistant City Attorney Tommy Deaton stated that as a point ofcorrection, at last meeting he had stated that it would require allof the property owners to close the alley and City Manager Westerholmspoke to the contrary, and the City Manager was correct. Mr. Deatonstated that in a General Law City it does take all the property ownersbut in a Home Rule City, such as Lufkin, apparently any person can re-quest the alley be closed to the exclusion of the others and there isa possibility that the City might have to pay that non—joining prop-erty owner for the right of access or use that he would have had fromthe alley had it not been closed.

7. ZONE CHANGEREQUEST - PERMANENTMOBILE HOME - TABLED - MARCOS— RODRIGUEZ - BERRY ROAD AND HIGHWAY 94 - RL TO RS — ______

Chairman Griffin stated that the Commission now had for considerationrecommendation to the City Commission of Permanent Mobile Home andZone Change request by Marcos Rodriguez covering property located onBerry Road near the intersection of State Highway 94 and John ReddittDrive from Residential Large to Residential Small.

Chairman Griffin recognized Marcos Rodriguez in representation of re-quest.

In response to question by Chairman Griffin, Mr. Rodriguez stated thathe had not received a copy of the Mobile Home Ordinance. Mr.Rodriguez stated that he owned a l4x60 Schultz mobile home.

City Planner Finan stated that he had gone over all the requirementswith Mr. Rodriguez emphasizing concrete steps, skirting and tie—downs.

Chairman Griffin stated that Mr. Rodriguez’s request had two parts -

a need to change the zone to Residential Small so that a permanentmobile home permit can be granted. Chairman Griffin stated that ifthe Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the zone change, Mr.Rodriguez will still have to wait for two readings of the Ordinance bythe City Commission and then the permanent mobile home permit can bewritten.

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 7

Mr. Oscar Millican stated that he lived on Berry Road, and he wantedto know if Mr. Rodriguez was going to live in one of the trailersalready on the property. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he had bought atrailer and wanted to move it on the property. Mr. Millican statedthat Mr. Rodriguez’s brother and mother and sister already have twotrailers which they moved in before the City annexed the property.Mr. Millican stated that two years ago they moved another trailer inand did not get a permit for it. Mr. Rodriguez stated that thetrailer is being used for storage.

Mr. Rodriguez stated that his family owned their lot, and he hadbought this property for himself.

Mr. Milljcan stated that the trailer on the North side of the lot ison the property illegally. Mr. Rodriguez stated that this trailer isfor storage only.

City Planner Finan stated that Mr. Rodriguez had recently purchasedthe lot from Mr. Lovett and has a clear title to it, and that thereare no other mobile homes on the lot.

In response to question by City Planner Finan, Mr. Rodriguez statedthat he did not have water or sewer hooked up to the trailer he wasusing for storage.

City Planner Finan stated that as far as the City is concerned, themobile home would have to remain empty and not hooked up. CityPlanner Finan stated that if it is being used for storage, it willhave to be brought up to the Standard Building Code, or if it is notbeing used for anything, it can remain on the lot. City Planner Finanstated that as long as a mobile home is not habitable or being usedfor any purpose, the City has not been able to force anybody to move amobile home off their lot.

City Planner Finan stated storage is a use.

Chairman Griffin stated that the City requires that a house be so manyfeet back from the property line on the side, and from the street, andbe in line with other houses, and he would like to know if thisapplied to mobile homes as well.

Mr. Millican stated that the two mobile homes owned by Mr. Rodriguez’sfamily were placed length wise on the property and the mobile homeused for storage was placed the other way.

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 8

Mr. Rodriguez stated that approximately 1 1/2 years ago his brotherhad presented a sketch of how the mobile would be placed on the lot tosomeone at the City and was told that as long as the mobile home wasonly used for storage it was okay.

Mr. Millican stated that Mr. Rodriguez also runs a mobile home busi-ness from his home, and that in the summer there is a lot of noisewhen the trucks are being loaded in the early morning hours.

Mr. Lupton stated that he lives next to the property and has neverbeen bothered by any noise. Mr. Lovett stated that he had sold aquarter of an acre lot to Mr. Rodriguez to place a mobile home on.Mr. Lovett stated that the mobile home used for storage was 60 to 75feet away from the lot where Mr. Rodriguez will place his mobile home.

In response to question by Joe Floyd, City Planner Finan stated thatMr. Rodriguez could park his vehicles on the property, and can receivebusiness calls.

Chairman Griffin stated that, in his opinion, the important thing hereis in determining if the mobile homes are too close together or notproperly set on the lots. Chairman Griffin stated that it sounds asif the existing mobile homes are non—conforming.

In response to question by Mr. Millican, Chairman Griffin stated that,in the future, Mr. Rodriguez can place another mobile home on an in-dependent lot and a permanent home permit can be granted, but apermanent permit will not be granted until the Planning and ZoningCommission is sure that the permit conforms to the requirements of theCity Ordinances.

Mr. Millican stated that his main objection was to the noise when thetrucks are being loaded in the early morning hours.

Jim Partridge stated that he would like to know how the Planning andZoning Commission allowed a lot this size to be subdivided.

City Planner Finan stated that the Court has decided that subdividingthe lot does not necessarily tie to the zoning of the property, anddoesn’t have to necessarily relate. City Planner Finan stated thatbefore Mr. Rodriguez could get a permanent mobile home permit he hadto have the property subdivided. City Planner Finan stated that hehad the property properly subdivided to show that he intended to makethis a separate piece of property and was going to place only onemobile home on it.

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 9

City Planner Finan stated that the only thing the City has as acontrol is to deny the zone if Planning & Zoning feels there are toomany mobile homes placed in the area, or deny the subdivision.

In response to question by Ms. Mercer, City Planner Finan stated thatthe subdivision of the property is by administrative plat signed bythe engineer and Sam Griffin. City Planner Finan stated that he re-views the subdivision of the property and makes comments.

Assistant City Attorney Deaton stated that many times the deedrestrictions control and this property was sold by metes and boundsand not as a subdivision.

City Planner Finan stated that Mr. Rodriguez brought in a legal de-scription of the property, and it has been recorded with the County.

City Planner Finan stated that the way the property is recorded isthat it was subdivided and was written with a “save & accept” clause,meaning that it was two tracts under one deed and one tract was soldto Mr. Rodriguez. City Planner Finan stated that it was non-conforming and since it was two lots, he did not need to have it sub-divided, but needed it rezoned to be able to build on it.

Mr. Millican stated that when he came by the property this afternoon,there was a “For Sale” sign in front of Mr. Rodriguez’s brother’shouse and he wanted to know if the house was sold and moved off theproperty, could a mobile home be moved in.

City Planner Finan stated that in discussion with City AttorneyFlournoy, it was determined that the Permanent Mobile Home Permit goesto the land and if he moves the house off, he can move another mobilehome in if he does so within six months.

Mr. Millican stated that he could live with the situation if themobile home being used for storage is moved and if the business is notthere — his main objection is the noise.

Chairman Griffin stated that this can be treated as a separate issuefrom where a person’s residence is, but the type of activity conductedin a residential zone needs to be examined in terms of whether it islegitimate or not because there are certain ordinances that must beadhered to, and if they are in violation of those ordinances, thensomething can be done about it.

Chairman Griffin stated that a person is allowed to bring their workvehicle home at night. Mr. Rodriguez stated that there are threetrucks that are being used in the business.

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 10

Chairman Griffin stated that the City Manager will need to have some-one go out and see if there is a violation.

Mr. Cotton Frazier stated that he lived on Berry Road and had noobjection to the mobile homes.

City Planner Finan stated that he had been out to the property andassumed that all three of the mobile homes were non—conforming. CityPlanner Finan stated the storage mobile home is set back deep on thelot between Mr. Rodriguez’s property and his brother’s property. CityPlanner Finan stated that he will check with Jack Bresie to see if heremembers anything about the mobile home being used for storage. CityPlanner Finan acknowledged that the City had received a letter fromMrs. Odom and it was in the file.

Motion was made by Jim Partridge and seconded by Joe Floyd that ZoneChange Request and Permanent Mobile Home Permit be tabled untilfurther investigation of the installation of the mobile homes and theproperty dividing it. A unanimous affirmative vote was recorded.

8. TEMPORARYMOBILE HOMEPERMITS, DISCUSSED

Chairman Griffin stated that he and the Commission members had re-ceived a letter from Woody Gann, who requested that Permanent MobileHome permits be granted for all mobile homes that will be used forsecurity reasons so that permit holders will not have to come to thePlanning and Zoning meetings every six months for renewals.

Chairman Griffin stated that he had considered setting up a file ontemporary mobile home permits, and letting the permit holders come inand sign a statement stating that there had been no changes in thecircumstances and no problems with the mobile home at this location,and request that the permit be renewed for 180 days. Chairman Griffinstated that the permit holders’ signature would indicate that they arecertifying that the information is true and correct. Chairman Griffinstated that the item can then be placed on the agenda at renewal timeand he could announce the Temporary Mobile Home Permit renewal and askif anyone was present to voice an objection to the renewal, and ifthere was no objection, then the Commission members would vote on it.

Chairman Griffin stated that at each fourth renewal City Planner Finanor one of his agents could go out to the property and see if themobile home is still there.

Ms. Mercer stated that she could see a plan like this working if theBoard’s position is to make it easier for people to get Temporary

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 11

Mobile Home Permits and retain them. Ms. Mercer stated that she wouldlike to see it made harder to get a Temporary Mobile Home Permit andto be able to place restrictions on them.

Ms. Mercer stated that she had a problem with Temporary Mobile HomePermits not being “temporary”. Ms. Mercer stated that the person re-questing the Temporary Mobile Home Permit should be made aware that itis “temporary”, and that it is only to be used while a permanentalternative solution is being sought.

Ms. Mercer stated that it looks a though there is a temporary “perma-nent” mobile home permit and that a permit holder will use the permitforever and this is the mechanism they will use.

Joe Floyd stated that he would agree with Ms. Mercer’s statement. Mr.Floyd stated that, often time, permit holders come in and tell theBoard that there are new circumstances requiring the Temporary MobileHome, and if they came in and just signed a paper the Board wouldnever have this information.

Chairman Griffin stated that that was why he suggested an investi-gation every third or fourth time to be sure that the circumstances doexist.

Ms. Mercer stated that she was concerned that she had voted for theTemporary Mobile Home Permit renewal for Mr. Thompson at tonight’smeeting where the circumstances had changed and there was no longer ahardship. Ms. Mercer stated that Mr. Thompson did not even report anincident of vandalism, but merely wanted to keep an eye on the houseuntil it was sold.

Chairman Griffin stated that he would estimate that 30% of the Tempo-rary Mobile Home Permits are for security reasons. Joe Floyd statedthat he would agree on doing something different for permits beingused for security, but on general temporaries, the permit holdershould still need to appear before the Board every six months.

Ms. Mercer stated that since Temporary Mobile Home Permits given forsecurity reasons do not have to prove a hardship, she would like toknow that they have made other efforts to have secured their propertyprior to placing a mobile home on it. Otherwise, Ms. Mercer stated,Timberland and the Loop will be all mobile homes. Ms. Mercer furtherstated that permit holders for security reasons have two advantages —

1) they don’t have to build an addition or re—vamp part of theirbuilding to provide for the security, and 2) they don’t have to paytheir employee a working wage because they are going to say they areproviding him a home. Ms. Mercer stated that she would like to see

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 12

applicants who are seeking a Temporary Mobile Home Permit for securityreasons first have to put up a guard light, put up security fencing,which will also reduce their insurance, and provide some sort of veri-fication that they have been vandalized or had a need to call thePolice.

City Manager Westerholm asked if the Commission members would like tohave a study on what effect mobile homes have had on security in com-mercial areas. Chairman Griffin stated that they had performed a sur-vey regarding same, and the information was in a file in City PlannerFinan’s office.

Mr. Floyd stated that once a Temporary Mobile Home Permit is issuedfor security reasons, the applicant will continue to use that reasonevery time he renews, even if he’s never had a problem.

Chairman Griffin stated that the Commission might develop some methodin which they can warn Temporary Mobile Home Permit applicants thatwithin a year their permit will be cancelled unless they come up withthe requirements that Ms. Mercer cited.

Ms. Mercer stated that if the people had these things on their prop-erty already, they might not need a mobile home.

City Planner Finan stated that he was in agreement with Ms. Mercer, inthat people who move in a mobile home are finding a cheap way of put-ting in an office or accessory building, where in every other businessif the person wants to include security in a new building, they haveto meet the Southern Standard Building Code, which requires peoplehere to build it and that puts money back into the City’s economy.City Planner Finan stated that someone in another city can build acheap mobile home and bring it to Lufkin and get around the City’sbuilding code. City Planner Finan stated that if someone is starting abusiness, they should take the matter of security under considerationand provide for same and count it as part of their investment.

Jim Partridge stated that a lot of the older businesses did not knowthat they would ever have to provide for security.

Mr. Floyd stated that if one person gets a Temporary Mobile HomePermit for security reasons for a business, it is hard to turn downthe next person who requests a permit for security. Chairman Griffinstated that he remembered the Commission discussing this very thingnot too many years ago.

Chairman Griffin stated part of the answer in logical form is whatMs. Mercer said, and the Commission had never asked the applicant’s

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 13

to demonstrate that they’ve done all they could in advance. ChairmanGriffin stated that he knew of one mechanic on Timberland Drive whohad a couple of dogs at his garage for security.

Mr. Floyd stated that Mr. Gann had someone going from business tobusiness checking as security, but the person obviously didn’t getaround often enough, and Mr. Gann experienced some vandalism.

City Planner Finan stated that during the Comprehensive Plan, theCitizen’s Committee on Housing made a recommendation that the Citylook at doing away with all mobile homes except those in mobile homeparks and mobile home subdivisions. City Planner Finan stated that itwas the Committee’s feeling that too many people are trying to getaround the Temporary Mobile Home Permit, and too many permanent mobilehomes are going in. City Planner Finan stated that when permanentmobile homes are placed in the country, developers don’t want to putin a subdivision because they are afraid people won’t buy with mobilehomes close by.

In response to question regarding new state law on mobile homes, CityPlanner Finan stated that in a meeting with our City Attorneys it wasfelt we met the requirements of that law by allowing mobile homes togo into mobile home parks and mobile home subdivision districts with-out any special permit other than the normal building permit.

Chairman Griffin stated that as a Board, the Commission could tell theCity Planner that they don’t intend to approve any more mobile homesand when they come in for an application, they can be told that theCommission is no longer permitting new application.

Ms. Mercer stated that perhaps a limit could be set for TemporaryMobile Home Permits, and the applicant will know that in two years orso another solution will have to be found.

City Planner Finan stated that under the Ordinance, the way it isstated, the Commission does not have to renew temporary permits and ifthe Board wants to it can set up a policy now and tell new applicantsthat they have two years to work out an alternate solution.

City Planner Finan stated that he would not like to see the Board dis-criminate between hardship cases and security, but have the samepolicy for each group.

Dr. Barrett stated that this type of policy would work a real hardshipon some people, and that there are legitimate claims. Dr. Barrettstated that a lot of the people who apply for Temporary Mobile HomePermits could not afford to add on to their house and don’t have an

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 14

extra bedroom. Dr. Barrett stated that in some instances having themother—in—law in the home would create such a turmoil in the familythat a Temporary Mobile Home would be the only solution.

Mr. Floyd stated that, in his opinion, if a person could afford tobuy a mobile home, they could afford to build onto their house.

Ms. Mercer stated that she had wondered if the mother was so ill,why was she put out in a mobile home to live by herself. Mr. Floydstated that the reason is because the mother wants to live by herself.

Chairman Griffin stated if you build a room on the house, and theperson you built the room for dies in a year or so, then you can’tdispose of the room, but you can dispose of a mobile home.

Chairman Griffin stated that when the Commission receives a reply backfrom the Comprehensive Plan consultants, a letter will be composedwith the values and recommendations of the Plan and submitted to theCity Commission. Chairman Griffin stated that the Planning and ZoningCommission will need to begin at that time to convince the City Com-mission that the Zoning Ordinance needs to be rewritten.

Chairman Griffin stated that he thought that future agendas need toallow time for planning by the Board. Chairman Griffin stated thatthe Board had been heavy on zoning but had not really done much aboutplanning. Chairman Griffin stated that the Board would also need tobuild into their actions the business of budgetary preparations andrecommendations, etc.

Ms. Mercer stated that perhaps some time could be spent at the Fridayluncheons for planning.

City Planner Finan stated that he could probably rearrange the agendasto allow for one lengthy meeting of zoning and one short meeting withtime for discussion.

In response to question by Chairman Griffin, City Planner Finan statedthat he would like everyone to go and look at the situation involvingMr. Rodriguez’s trailer.

City Planner Finan stated that he was not aware that Mr. Rodriguez wasoperating a business from this location, and when he visited the siteall the trucks were gone. City Planner Finan stated that he wouldhave to check into the date this area was annexed, and the date thatMr. Rodriguez started his business.

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 15

Mr. Floyd stated that he had driven out to the property and there wasa lot of activity going on, and it appears that the whole family isinvolved in the business.

City Planner Finan stated that if there is a complaint about the busi-ness at this property, his only recourse would be to take it to thevariance Board, but he is sure that they would grant Mr. Rodriguez avariance as they granted one to Don Hearne on a similar situation.

9. There being no further business for consideration, meeting ad-journed at 6:45 P.M.

ATTESTS

,~SecretaryAtha Stokes

~4~L~s,‘~nZ~amuelD. Griffin

DATE 2/9/87 PAGE 16