Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 06/08/2005MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIO
June 8, 2005
PRESENT:
RECEIVED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date 6• ,^ `` /Ll '&S
Cy _ -Time o=�
L. O. Nelson, Chairman ♦ Members
Charles Barr •
Ken Birck •
J. C. Bradberry
Cayce Cleary
Ken Dowdy
John R. Stephenson
Ripley Tate ♦ Alternate #1
Charles Elmore ♦ Council Liaison
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development ♦ City Staff
Marty Odom, Planner II
Paul Stillson, Planner II
Diane Parker
ABSENT:
Steve Lane •
Rusty Sons •
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Tate made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2005 meeting. Mr. Bradberry seconded the
motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plat(s) subject to the Standard
Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats and any specific conditions listed below:
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats
♦ Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director of Public
Works.
Submit water and sewer plans to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the Fire Marshall and street,
sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans must be complete enough
to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as required by Director of
Public Works.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE S, 2005 PAGE 1
Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director of Traffic and
Transportation.
Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division before final platting.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Bridge Creek Estates Preliminary (June 2005) - moved to Regular Agenda #5.
2. Expressway Village Preliminary (June 2005)
a. Provide for stormwater drainage and detention. (PUBLIC WORKS)
b. Extend water and sanitary sewer to each proposed property. (PUBLIC WORKS)
c. Construct internal street according to ordinances. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Provide for existing utilities (water) via an easement dedication. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Additional easements will be required for final platting process. (TXU E. D.)
3. Old Town Center Section 2, Preliminary (June 2005)
a. Provide for stormwater detention and drainage per City ordinances and criteria. (PUBLIC
WORKS)
b. Construct internal streets per City ordinances and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS)
c. Provide each lot with access to water and sanitary sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Ten ft. utility easement needs to be added along ROW of Regent Drive extension and Old
Town Circle. (TXU E. D.)
2. Public Hearing on Final Plats
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plats subject to the Standard
Conditions of Approval for Final Plats and Replats and any specific conditions listed below:
Provide utility easements as required by utility companies and Director of Public Utilities, and
drainage easements as required by Director of Public Works.
Submit water and sewer plans to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the Fire Marshall; and street,
sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans must be complete
enough to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as required by
Director of Public Works.
Coordinate street lighting plan with Director of Traffic & Transportation, if underground electric
utilities are to be provided.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance.
1. Bluebonnet Park Addition, Section 8 (June 2005)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Provide street names.
c. Label radius of cul -de -sac right -of -way.
d. Label volume and page for off -site easements prior to plat filing.
e. Show total dedicated width of Gregg Road.
f. Add "overall' to dimension along south line of Lot 39.
g. Add dimension to west line of Lot 11 & Lot 29, relocate dimension of north line of Lot 22.
h. Comply with stormwater and drainage ordinances and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS)
i. Extend water and sanitary sewer to serve each proposed lot. (PUBLIC WORKS)
j. Construct internal streets pursuant to criteria and ordinances. (PUBLIC WORKS)
k. No interest by City in parks, playgrounds or open space in this subdivision. (PARKS)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 2
4.
I. Additional easements are needed prior to approving final plats. (TXU E. D.)
m. Wichita County WID #2 has a 40 foot easement located on the drainage ditch. (WCWID #2)
2. Canfield Subdivision, Block 263, Lot 1 -D [replat] (June 2005)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Submit application to close alley or label ordinance number if southwest portion of alley closed.
c. Reroute existing sewer via approved plans. (PUBLIC WORKS)
d. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. A portion of existing utility easement that is shown to be vacated will need to be retained in order
to maintain service to existing hospital maintenance building. (TXU E. D.)
3. Lansing Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (June 2005)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Religious assembly will require a conditional use permit.
c. Comply with stormwater and drainage ordinances and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS)
4. Old Town Center, Section 2, Block 11, Lots 1 & 2 (June 2005)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Complete title of plat with lot and block.
c. Remove 15 -foot building limit line and add 25 -foot building limit line along Regent Drive.
d. Provide stormwater detention pursuant to City ordinance and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS)
e. Provide curb and gutter if none presently exists on Regent Drive. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Ten foot utility easement to be added along east ROW of McNiel Avenue within west line of Lots
1 & 2. Also add 10 ft. utility easement along south ROW of Regent Drive within north line of
Block 11, Lot 2. (TXU E. D.)
5. Trophy Park, Section One, Block 1, Lots 1 -A - 4 -A [ replat] (June 2005)
a. Provide utility slips.
b. Provide stormwater detention pursuant to City ordinance and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS)
c. Provide for curb and gutter along City streets, if none presently exists. (TXU E. D.)
d. Twenty -foot access easement to be noted on required plat as access and utility easement as
filed on original plat. (TXU E. D.)
e. Any facilities requested by customer to be relocated will be at customer's expense. (TXU E. D.)
Mr. Clark requested that the preliminary plat for Bridge Creek Estates be moved to the Regular Agenda.
Chairman Nelson stated it would be considered as Item #5.
Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Tate seconded the motion. The Consent
Agenda passed with a unanimous vote. Mr. Barr abstained from voting because of a conflict of interest.
IV. REGULAR AGENDA
Notification Plat
Country Club Estates, First Section, Block 37, Lot 6 -A
2301 Farington Road
Plat Amended to Reduce Building Setbacks
The property owner requested a modification to the building limit lines to allow a larger constructible area
for a new residence. This proposal increases the building limit line along Farington Road from 30 feet to 35
feet and extends the building limit lines so they are parallel to both Farington Road and Martin Blvd. Staff
recommended approval of this request.
Fifteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two (2) responded in favor and none (0)
were opposed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 3
Mr. Richard Boyd, representative for the property owner, stated both building limit lines would not restrict
traffic vision from Martin or Farington. There will be approximately 15 feet from the property lines and the
curbs on both streets.
Mr. Barr made a motion to approve this plat; Mr. Bradberry seconded. The plat was approved with a
unanimous vote.
2. Case C 05 -19
Carport in Front Setback
1502 Covington
Luther and Cam Cotter requested approval to construct a carport in the front setback of their residence.
There are three properties within the notification area that have carports in the setbacks.
Twenty -eight surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two (2) responded in favor and
none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Cotter stated the carport would be constructed of metal; he would build it with the help of a welder.
Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve this carport; Mr. Bradberry seconded. The carport was approved
with a unanimous vote.
3. Case C 05 -20
Carport in Front Setback
118 S. Glencoe
Mr. Herbert Fuhrman requested approval to construct a carport in the front setback of his residence. There
are no properties within the 200 -foot notification area that have carports in the front setbacks.
Thirty -three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) responded in favor and
none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Fuhrman explained he proposed to construct his carport of metal. Mr. Birck asked if the alley was
paved; Mr. Odom stated it was not.
Mr. Bradberry made a motion to approve this carport; Mr. Barr seconded. The carport was approved with a
unanimous vote.
4. Case R 05 -07
Rezone from Single Family -1 to Single Family -2
103.24 Acres out of Blocks 11 and 12, Denton County School Lands, League 2
Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to Designate the Area as Low - Density Residential
This rezoning request was proposed to establish SF -2 zoning to conform to the adjacent property's zoning.
This property was outside the city limits until the City Council annexed it at the June 7, 2005 meeting. The
applicant proposes to develop a residential subdivision. Zoning to SF -2 will permit smaller lots than SF -1.
If approved, the land use map should also be amended to designate the area as low- density residential.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the related amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
Ten surrounding property owners were notified of this rezoning. Five (5) responded in favor and none (0)
were opposed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 4
Mr. Dennis Probst, representative for both owners of the tract, stated SF -1 was requested because of the
lot size.
Ms. Cleary made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to City Council. Mr. Bradberry
seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of recommending approval of this rezoning request.
5. Approval of Preliminary Plat
Bridge Creek Estates Preliminary (June 2005) - moved from the Consent Agenda
a. Show topographic contours.
b. Show street connection to Pitchfork Lane. This has been a requirement of all previous
preliminary plats of this subdivision.
c. Recommend rezoning of the General Commercial zoned land to Single Family residential to
conform to plan for residential development.
d. Lots 81, 82, 112, and 113 seem to be unbuildable because of easements. (BLDG.
INSPECT)
e. Comply with stormwater and drainage ordinances. (PUBLIC WORKS)
f. Provide each proposed property with water and sanitary sewer. (PUBLIC WORKS)
g. Construct internal streets according to city ordinance and criteria. (PUBLIC WORKS)
h. No City interest in developing park, playground, or open space in this subdivision. (PARKS)
i. Additional easements will be required for final platting process. (TXU E. D.)
Mr. Clark stated the connection to Pitchfork Lane from Rhea Road at the southern portion of the
development for the purpose of emergency vehicle access and residential ingress /egress was not included
on this plat revision. Staff has recommended that the connection be placed back on the plat.
Mr. Dennis Probst, representative for the property owner, stated the Pitchfork extension was previously
placed on the plat; however, the developer did not approve. This is the 12th revision of this plat and there
have been substantial modifications, including changing a driving range into more residential lots. He
stated he understood staff's position in aiding City services to the community. Mr. Probst stated that
circulation within the development is being discouraged to provide a serene environment, provides more
residential seclusion, and discourages traffic short cuts. He explained the layout of Bridge Creek Drive and
the wall built for screening and isolation from traffic. Mr. Probst gave examples of other similar secluded
subdivisions, Willow Brook Subdivision, Willow Bend Subdivision, and Woodland Creek Subdivision. Mr.
McCullough, developer, visited with some of the residents who commented on the positive aspects of
secluded neighborhoods.
Mr. Stephenson asked what the purpose of extending Pitchfork Lane. It was stated that Pitchfork Lane
would be an additional connection to the proposed development. Mr. Clark stated that the Pitchfork Lane
extension would be built by the developer and become a public street maintained by the City. One lot
would be affected. City emergency services, Public Works, and Community Development believe this
extension should be required.
Mr. Probst stated there are no problems with any of the conditions of approval placed on this plat with the
exception of extending Pitchfork Lane. He asked the Commission to delete this requirement. Chairman
Nelson stated that during the Thoroughfare Plan discussions, that with the density of subdivisions, the
demand will increase for more entrances and exits. He noted that the subdivisions Mr. Probst mentioned
are smaller, established developments. As subdivisions grow, it is more prudent to have multiple ways of
access for emergency services. Mr. Barr asked about the number of entrances into the subdivision. Mr.
Probst replied there are James St., Golf Drive, Bridge Creek Drive, Medical Drive, and an unnamed street.
There are four entrances from Southwest Parkway and another entrance from Midwestern Farms.
Mr. Clark stated that the Subdivision Regulations require a maximum length of 600 feet for a cul -de -sac,
which was recently increased from 300 ft. Rhea Road has a future design and connection affecting both
subdivisions (Bridge Creek and Midwestern Farms). He stated he feels it is important to have connection
from subdivision to subdivision.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 5
Mr. Barr stated staff is trying to connect two subdivisions with homes of different values. James Street
provides an entrance on the east side of the development.
Mr. Clark stated that there are two factors: 1) an exit off Rhea Road out of Midwestern Farms, and 2) an
exit from Rhea Road to Pitchfork Lane. The planning in the community is affected if roads are not
connected. Homeowners purchase lots on the basis of information contained in the preliminary plat.
Mr. Birck commented that he did not feel that there would be an increase in the circulation into the new
development except from the residences along Rhea and the cul -de -sacs. He stated it was unlikely that a
resident of Bridge Creek would access by Pitchfork Lane instead of Southwest Parkway or James Street.
He continued by stating some people might access from Old Lake Park/Kemp by way of Reginald. Mr.
Clark agreed that Pitchfork Lane would not have much traffic but it does provide a safety access. Mr. Birck
noted that Willow Bend and Willow Brook do not compare in size to this development.
Chairman Nelson stated that the presented preliminary plat did not show Pitchfork Lane. Mr. Clark
mentioned that staff's comments are considered part of the approval process. Chairman Nelson clarified
that voting in favor of the plat would include the connection to Pitchfork Lane.
Ms. Cleary made a motion to approve this plat; Mr. Bradberry seconded. The plat was approved with a
vote of seven (7) in favor and one (1) opposed.
6. Case R 05 -06
Rezone from Single Family -1 to Limited Office
2110 Hiawatha Blvd.
Mr. Rick Bunch requested approval to rezone 2110 Hiawatha Blvd. from Single Family -1 to Limited Office.
He is proposing this rezone to permit the operation of an attorney's office at this residential address. The
applicant desires to employ persons other than those that reside within the home. Having outside
employees violates the Zoning Ordinance, if conducted in an SF -1 zoning district.
It is staff's opinion that, because of the surrounding residents, rezoning of this single lot to Limited Office
would be contrary to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and would constitute spot zoning. Staff does not
recommend approval.
Twenty -eight (28) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 6.44% responded
in favor; six (6) or 50.55 %* responded opposed; and one (1) or 0.33% response was received marked no
opinion /undecided. Twelve (12) opposed responses were received from outside the notification area.
* These percentages were calculated by taking the actual square footage owned by each
property owner plus 50% of any right -of -way adjacent to their property divided by the total
square footage of land within 200 feet of the perimeter of this plat. If there is 20% or
more opposition received from the neighborhood responses, it will take a super majority,
or 3 /4ths, vote of City Council to pass this rezoning.
Mr. Clark noted that the lots in this neighborhood are approximately 200' x 200' which limits the number of
people in the notification area. He explained that citizens outside the notification area have the right to
express their opinions.
Mr. Rick Bunch, 2110 Hiawatha, stated he was here to try to save his paralegal's job. He has been
operating out of his home for two to two and one -half years. His (law) practice is a civil rights practice with
the majority of his clients outside the City of Wichita Falls. He stated his name was not in the phone book
under specific headings because it is a specialized practice. Clients usually do not come to his house, but
there have been exceptions where someone might come once or twice a week. In the past three years, he
has had depositions take place at his house six times and all those times the City Attorney's office was the
opposing party. Two months ago, he received a notice to cease doing business because he has an outside
employee. If he failed to cease doing business, the notice stated that he would be fined $2,000 per day.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 6
The house is 4,500 square feet located on two acres. He stated he went to the Planning office to
determine a solution, and was told this (rezoning) was the only way to correct the situation. He indicated
that he did not want a sign on his house, he does not want people coming and going, and he does not want
to serve the outside public. Mr. Bunch stressed that he wants to employ two outside people in his law
practice. It was agreed that the enforcement of the violation would be held off until the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. Last month, he received notification that it (the fine) would be enforced
beginning May 15, 2005. Mr. Bunch then filed an injunction in federal court with a lawsuit pending against
that part of the city ordinance that states outside employees cannot work in one's home or (home)
business. He stated this part of the ordinance is constitutionally over broad and takes into account the
same thing as a 900 square foot house versus a 4,500 square foot house. Mr. Bunch stated that his
interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision regarding zoning is that for the government to impose zoning
upon one, three requirements must be met: health, safety, and welfare of the community. He further
commented that as SF -1 is written, that part of it is too broad and doesn't take into consideration the size
and space. There is no traffic problem. The only time there was one was when the City Attorney's office
was there and they parked in the front; that wasn't a traffic problem, it was four extra vehicles in front of the
house. There is plenty of parking and space. His daughter, his mother, and he live in the house. This is
the least obtrusive means of being able to maintain his practice with the staff he needs and be at the
house.
Chairman Nelson asked how many employees there were; Mr. Bunch replied that there are two associates
who are never at the house, and a secretary/paralegal who is there most of the time. She is usually out
one day a week. He stated he has been operating like this for three years without any problems or
complaints. This complaint came from the City Attorney's office.
Chairman Nelson asked about spot zoning. Mr. Bunch stated that if that (spot zoning) is the law, it is a little
shaky. He reviewed the (zoning) map concerning Limited Office to find that Mr. Wesbrook, Mr. Anderson,
and three other offices are part of that (zone) and all look like spot zoning. Mr. Bunch stated he does not
want it changed, he just wants that part of SF -1 changed.
Chairman Nelson asked what the hindrance or limitations if the paralegal worked from home. Mr. Bunch
replied he would not get his phones answered and he would have to hire a babysitter to care for his nine -
year old. It would be a wash.
Chairman Nelson inquired about the location of the legal practice, is it in the house or the out building. Mr.
Bunch replied it was out of the home, using about 750 square feet total. The house is 4,500 square feet
and that does not include the rental house in the back. It sets on two acres.
Mr. Mack McDonald, 2022 Hiawatha Blvd., stated he has resided in this neighborhood for 44 years. The
applicant's house was built in the 1910's; the house next door was also built in the 1910's; and the house
next to that one was built in the 1920's. These are very gracious, old mansions. The Indian Heights
addition, at one time, had the grandest homes in the city. The roads are boulevards; the streets were
constructed for 1912 -1916 automobiles, which caused them to be very narrow. Today, two cars cannot
drive down the street or pass one another without causing a traffic concern. Hiawatha was extended but it
is a dead -end which increases the traffic flow. He stated that one of his objections (to this rezoning
change) is the traffic flow. He expressed concerns for additional offices appearing in the neighborhood;
front yards turned into parking lots, and decreased home values resulting in fewer taxes for the city. He
asked the Commission to decline this rezoning recommendation.
Chairman Nelson stated that Mr. Bunch can have an office -based business but this issue involves having a
non - family member as an employee.
Mr. Birck asked if Mr. McDonald was aware of Mr. Bunch having a home office prior to the notification by
the Planning staff. He replied that he did not know it was an office. Mr. Birck inquired about the parked
cars; Mr. McDonald stated that he noticed cars there four or five times but he did not know why they were
there. Mr. Birck asked Mr. Odom to read the uses under Limited Office zoning. Mr. Odom stated that the
permitted residential uses are Bed and Breakfast Homestay; Dwelling, Duplex or Two Family; Dwelling,
Single Family Detached; Dwelling, Zero -Lot Line, Single Family. The permitted commercial uses are Bed
and Breakfast Inn; Offices, 1,200 sq. ft. or less; Medical Offices, 1,200 sq. ft. or less. Limited Office
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 7
Conditional Use — Civic Use permits Religious Assembly and Commercial Use permits Medical Offices,
more than 1,200 sq. ft. and Offices, more than 1,200 sq. ft.
There was discussion regarding placing conditions on the rezoning. Mr. Odom stated that the uses allowed
in that zone would be permitted and conditions cannot be placed on a rezoning.
Mr. Bunch agreed with Mr. McDonald regarding the neighborhood being a pristine area and that he wanted
to keep it that way. Mr. Bunch stated that he was going to operate out of his house, regardless. He
informed the Commission that the previous owner operated an insurance business from the house and
prior to that Mr. Lee operated an oil company from location. He noted that two other neighbors had home
businesses. The house was constructed with an office and library. He stated that he shared Mr.
McDonald's concern. Mr. Bunch informed the Commission that he has nine (9) parking spaces and he only
needs four (4). The traffic regarding the deposition was to accommodate one of Mr. Bunch's clients. The
only car parked in front of the house belongs to his housekeeper who comes once a week. He stated he
would agree to a limited use because he does not want to have depositions in his house and he does not
want people coming to his house. He stressed that he wanted to keep his paralegal. He stated that he
would be wiling to do whatever he had to do.
Mr. Odom reminded the Commission they are not approving his operation, but a question of whether the
rezoning of that lot is appropriate. Mr. Stephenson asked if there was a means to satisfy both sides. Mr.
Clark stated that the question is having outside employees in a home business.
Mr. Bunch noted that when his father lived in the house, there were paid people to care for him. He stated
that he pays his housekeeper to come to his home, as well as a paid lawn care person. He stated that they
are not part of his business but it is the same thing. There is the same flow of traffic. The only difference
(with the paralegal) is that he pays her to help promote his business. He stated that the SF -1 ordinance
runs into trouble with the Constitution. It is a wash with both types of employees. He gave an example of a
1,000 sq. ft. house having nine (9) employees and agreed that would not be good for the City. When
house is 4,000 sq. ft., the ordinance becomes over broad. He suggested changing the ordinance to modify
SF -1 to the number of square feet or lot sizes to determine the number of people to be employed.
Ms. Cleary stated to Mr. Bunch that his recourse should be to win the legalities of that. She stated she did
not agree with rezoning in a residential area, especially that neighborhood.
Mr. Barr stated that he also has a housekeeper and lawn care people but they do not spend eight (8) hours
a day. They are not internally employed.
Mr. Stephenson stated that a paid employee is not allowed, but a family member can work in the business.
He stated that having carte blanche on the home office violates the intent, which is the purpose of the
zoning body.
Chairman Nelson stated there are two issues: 1) is the zoning appropriate for the neighborhood, and 2) is
this spot zoning. Chairman Nelson stated he was in favor of Mr. Bunch operating a business out of his
home but there are some issues that he cannot get over the hurdle today without a change in the
ordinance. Legal changes may be necessary for Mr. Bunch to accomplish what he is requesting.
The following people spoke in opposition to this rezoning request:
Loraine Blackwood, 2106 Hiawatha Blvd.
Dave Goodrich, 2110 Indian Heights Blvd.
Kevin Neal, 2100 Hiawatha Blvd.
They expressed concerns for privacy issues, changing the characteristics of the neighborhood, traffic flow
problems, streets not designed for heavy traffic, and setting precedence for additional home offices.
Chairman Nelson stated that the level of intensity from SF -1 to Limited Office is moving up several levels of
zoning. With the clarification that no conditions can be placed on the zoning, permitted uses in Limited
Office could be established in that location without permission of this Commission.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 8
Mr. Bunch stated that it was recommended to him. He also stated he wants to keep his paralegal.
Chairman Nelson stated that a solution could possibly be a lower level of zoning with a conditional use
permit to allow the paralegal but it appears a zone like that does not exist. He stated that the Commission's
hands were tied. Mr. Bunch agreed and stated this is a procedural measure that he must take. He stated
he was going to continue to operate out of his house. Chairman Nelson explained that nothing would
prevent him from operating out of his house as long as he complied with the ordinance.
Mr. Stephenson stated he was not in favor of this rezoning. He further commented that this is a quality
issue.
Mr. Barr made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of this rezoning request; Mr. Bradberry
seconded. The recommendation failed with a vote of zero (0) in favor and eight (8) opposed.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. City Council Update
Mr. Clark reported that the annexation discussed at this meeting was approved at the last Council meeting.
There were no Planning & Zoning Commission items to be considered by Council in the last month.
2. Discussion of Items of Concern to Members of the P & Z Commission
Ms. Cleary asked if the downtown stop sign layout was up for review in the future. She expressed concern
for dangerous intersections now that traffic lights are limited.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Regarding the previously discussed Bridge Creek Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Probst asked if it was a requirement for the cul -de -sac and the Pitchfork extension be aligned.
Utility easements:
Mr. Barr stated that there has recently been a problem with cornices hanging over the easements. Mr.
Odom commented that cornices would be a problem extending into the setbacks, but not the easements.
Chairman Nelson stated that since there were no further public comments, the meeting was adjourned
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
L. O. Nel on, Chairman
ATTEST:
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development
7-13 0s_
Date
>3
Dat
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 PAGE 9