Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2005-06-16 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JUNE 16,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice Chair Secretary Richard Davis Bill Schopper Ken Sapp Scott Wood Don Bowen Randy Shiflet Brenda Cole ABSENT Ex Officio Mike Benton CITY STAFF Director of Planning Director of Public Works Asst. Dir. of Public Works Building Official City Staff Recording Secretary Dave. Green Mike Curtis Greg Van Nieuwenhuize Dave Pendley Carolyn Huggins Holly Blake 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2005. APPROVED Brenda Cole, seconded by Don Bowen motioned to approve the minutes May 19, 2005. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). Page 1 of 14 6/16/05 P&Z Minutes 5. ZC 2005-02 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JB & JB DEVELOPMENT FLP/JOHN BARFIELD, G.P. FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM" AG" AGRICULTURAL AND "C1" COMMERCIAL TO "R2" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (LOCATED IN THE 9200 BLOCK OF MARTIN DRIVE - 8.515 ACRES). WITHDRAWN Mr. Green explained that that is a rezoning case with the bulk of the property zoned AG with the remainder zoned as C-1. The applicant would like to rezone the property to R- 2. R-2 is the standard residential zoning for the City of North Richland Hills. It is based on 9,000 sq. ft. lots with minimum 2,000 sq. ft. houses. This particular property is noted on the Comprehensive Plan to be non-residential. The applicant had approached the Commission in February of this year. There were a larger number of lots that were proposed at that time for R-3 zoning, which is a smaller lot pattern. During the course of that public hearing, the applicant withdrew the request. Staff's recommendation remains the same as it was in February. Staff believes that this is an ideal piece of property for RI-PD (residential infill planned development) zoning. There are a couple of factors that heavily impact the residential portion of this property. The tract of land to the NE and the tract of land adjacent to the SE, are currently zoned C1. Residential would be facing commercial. Staff believes there could be a better design which could be reached through RI-PD zoning. Chairman Davis opened the public meeting and asked the applicant to come forward. Mark Long, 1615 Precinct Line Road, engineer for Doug Long & Associates came forward. Mr. Shiflet asked Mr. Long if an RI-PD was considered. Mr. Long answered that it was considered, but the applicant, John Barfield, believed that due to the layout of the lots, unless you have land that is not usable or flood plain land, there is not a lot of land to give up unless you give up lots. Mr. Long doesn't know what configuration the Commission may look at. Mr. Barfield believes that the commercial on Precinct Line Road is too deep, especially with Home Depot and other commercial just to the south. Mr. Barfield also tried to buy the tract below on Martin Drive and the tract up to the North to try to even up the whole line, but they were not willing to sell for the price he was asking. Mr. Long stated that they worked on a lot of different layouts before deciding on R-2. They gave up three lots to get R-2. "That way you have all the lot acreage in the lot itself and not give up an amenity." Mr. Bowen asked what Mr. Long's response was to Staff's comments that the residential lots facing or siding commercial lots tend to destabilize the neighborhood. Mr. Long responded that Mr. Barfield's proposal is for offices on the four larger lots Page 2 of 14 6/16/05 P&z Minutes facing Precinct Line Road. "Residential backing up to office is a lot better than something larger." Mr. Schopper stated a concern for a masonry screening wall along the north end of Lot 5. Mr. Long responded that it is not required on the residential part, but Mr. Barfield is going to put a masonry wall along the back. Mr. Schopper stated that when Lot 2B, Block 1 develops, it would be their responsibility to put the masonry wall up. Mr. Long responded that the North Richland Hill's ordinance states the masonry wall has to be built on commercial. In this case, Mr. Barfield doesn't own the property in question. Mr. Barfield could build the wall on the residential side, but it is the commercial's responsibility. As there were no other questions and none others wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion or additional comments from the Commission. Mr. Shiflet stated that he had another question for the applicant and asked Mr. Long if Mr. Barfield had looked at the possibility of putting an office park on the first four lots on the east side which are zoned commercial. Mr. Long responded that the problem was controlling the drainage with the property that Mr. Barfield doesn't own. By squaring the property that Mr. Barfield does own, the drainage can be controlled. Mr. Long stated that City ordinance does not allow commercial to drain onto residential. Mr. Barfield believes that it is better to back up to commercial than have commercial go all the way to the street with residential looking directly into it. Mr. Schopper asked if Mr. Barfield owns the NWcorner of Martin Drive and Precinct Line Road. Mr. Long answered that it was part of the plat, but not the zoning. Mr. Sapp asked staff if other concepts were offered to the developer. Dave Green responded that this was discussed at the public hearing in February. At that time, the City had just adopted RI-PD and staff felt it would be a better fit for this project. Mr. Shiflet commented that the four lots in question don't seem to fit the residential side as staff states that the configuration shown is less than desirable and interaction of uses could result in a less than stable neighborhood. "I realize 300-ft. is a lot of depth to deal with unless some sort of a street or court is put in. Also, there are some drainage issues. There is no problem with AG to R-2, the issue is C-1 to R-2." Dave Green gave further explanation for staff comments. "Typically when you have two dissimilar uses (residential/commercial), the ideal location where those two meet would be back of a lot to back of a lot. We do have a number of things in place that we apply in those particular situations. There are additional screening requirements, landscaping requirements, and additional setback requirements that try to mitigate the impact of the more intensive use to the residential. The second best option would be side to side although that becomes more invasive to the residential lot. The property zoned C-1 is Page 3 of 14 6/16/05 P&z Minutes of concern to staff. A fast food restaurant could go there with a house directly across the street. That is not a good situation." Mr. Shiflet stated that he understands that the applicant has tried to work with the owners of those two lots. If a fast food restaurant does go in there, a masonry fence will need to go up. The people that might live across the street will know that it could be there. Dave Green stated that it is always a case of "buyer beware". Chairman Davis stated that the there should be a masonry wall on the north side as well. They are done zoning the property to the east. There is no masonry wall required between them today, unless the zoning is changed. Will there be a masonry fence along the north side? Mr. Long answered no. Mr. Shiflet stated that Mr. Long is working on what he has control over. They are being built back-to-back and they are building a masonry wall over the correct section. Chairman Davis stated that they control the south portion of the lot and they could put the masonry wall on the residential lot. Mr. Long stated that the ordinance states that it is the responsibility of the commercial to maintain the masonry fence. Chairman Davis stated that the debate is that no wall is required along the north line because it is commercial to commercial but because of this action, a down zoning, a wall is now required on the part of the commercial side. "Our opinion is whoever comes in and causes that action should be responsible for that waiL" Mr. Long stated that there are builders already lining up to buy lots. A dentist office is also interested. A dentist office could be built similar to a residential lot instead of office. Mr. Schopper stated that the Commission doesn't mind the commercial along Precinct Line Road. That is a good use for that, but the problem is how that commercial comes together with the residential behind it. Chairman Davis commented that RI-PD would potentially allow the ability to get a higher density than what R-2 allows. Mr. Schopper stated that the problem that everyone is looking at is Lots 2-5, Block 3. Chairman Davis asked if instead of residential if those lots could be office with a residential look. Mr. Long stated that Mr. Barfield's biggest problem is the commercial lots are 250-ft. deep. It's hard to use land that far back, especially if you don't have control of the property around it. Chairman Davis stated that perhaps there could be a street going east and west and the lots could face north and south. Mr. Long expressed concerned about dumping Page 4 of 14 6/16/05 P&Z Minutes commercial traffic into residential if the street ran east and west. The Chairman suggested neighborhood services types uses rather than commercial. Mr. Long responded that the traffic impact on the neighborhood could become a problem with people cutting through. Mr. Schopper and Chairman Davis believed that the traffic would use the light signal versus the neighborhood. Mr. Wood suggested that the applicant table or withdraw his request before a motion is made. The applicant declined the suggestion. Scott Wood, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to deny ZC 2005-02. Mr. Bowen commented that the denial is not for the basic concept on the AG property, but the Commission does have a lot of problems with the four lots on the east side as staff mentioned that this would destabilize the neighborhood. Mr. Shiflet agreed. Mr. Schopper stated that the Commission has proven that they don't mind down zoning commercial into residential. The problem here is how they join together. Chairman Davis stated that the depth may be odd, but could there be a cul-de-sac or the street could go all the way across. There could still be R-2 zoning with the same configurations with four less lots, but with additional sq. ft. of commercial that can be sold. Mr. Long asked to withdraw his request. Scott Wood, seconded by Don Bowen withdrew the motion to deny ZC 2005-02. Mr. Sapp asked if the case is tabled, does it need a time limit. Dave Green stated that a time limit applies to a continuance. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Long if he wishes to withdraw. Mr. Long stated yes, but would like some direction. Mr. Schopper stated that he would like to see the demarcation line where C-1 starts on the north and south line. Everything east of that could remain commercial and everything west of it could go to residential. Chairman Davis stated that the configuration layout of the R-2 is appropriate for that particular piece of property. The fact that the R-2 extends easterly into the commercial is where the problem occurs. There are two options - take the street all the way across or take the street across at Regency and cul-de-sac it. Page 5 of 14 6/16/05 P&Z Minutes Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, stated that when analyzing potential traffic based on zoning, a worst case scenario is considered. Although a neighborhood services type development isn't intensive, there could be delivery trucks involved without control of time. Mr. Curtis explained that traffic is counted when it leaves the commercial development and goes into the residential, but must also consider the traffic that may cut through the residential. Chairman Davis stated that the worst case scenario is if this AG property went to commercial. There would be less traffic with the residential versus the commercial. Mike Curtis stated that he is not concerned about the traffic coming out onto Martin Drive or Precinct Line Road. The concern is mixing the commercial traffic, which could be trucks, with the residential neighborhood. Chairman Davis stated that they could develop those westerly commercial lots, one faces north, the other faces south that will blend with the residential to the west. If they do a cul-de-sac, it will have a retaining wall. Ms. Cole stated that she doesn't agree with the street going all the way through. Mr. Shiflet stated that with a cul-de-sac there could be an access easement in the commercial which would come south in conjunction with the drainage. Also, if the cul- de-sac route was taken, the applicant could have a Precinct Line Road address. Chairman Davis suggested an access along the west line of Lot 1. If the access was curved away with a bubble and stubbed out, there could possibly be four commercial lots instead of a hard corner. Mr. Shiflet believes that the RI-PD zoning is a viable option which could increase the density. Chairman Davis recognized the request for withdrawal. 6. PP 2005-01 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JB & JB DEVELOPMENT FLP/JOHN BARFIELD, G.P. TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WOODLAND ESTATES SOUTH AND PRECINCT LINE OFFICE PARK (LOCATED IN THE 9200 BLOCK OF MARTIN DRIVE - 8.515 ACRES). WITHDRAWN The applicant's representative, Mark Long, withdrew the preliminary plat request for Woodland Estates South and Precinct Line Office Park located in the 9200 Block of Martin Drive. The Chairman requested the request for withdrawal. Page 6 of 14 6/16/05 P&z Minutes 7. ZC 2005-07 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JB & JB DEVELOPMENT FLP/JOHN BARFIELD, G.P. FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM "C1" COMMERCIAL TO "R2" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SMITHFIELD RD. AND SHADY GROVE RD. - 4.714 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Director of Planning, presented case ZC 2005-07. This is a rezoning application that is currently zoned C-1 commercial. The applicant is requesting R-2 residential for the purpose of building a 12-lot single family detached subdivision. R-2 zoning requires a minimum 9,000 sq. ft lot and a minimum 2,000 sq. ft. house. The Comprehensive Plan shows non-residential uses. The area to the west and the area to the north are in the City of Keller. The property immediately to the east is known as the APEX school which is a PD. Staff recommends approval of ZC 2005-07. Staff believes that this area is no longer valid as a commercial intersection. There is a T intersection which makes it more difficult to support commercial in that area. Staff would prefer commercial at four corner areas. Chairman Davis opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mark Long, 1615 Precinct Line Road, engineer for Doug Long & Associates and representative for the applicant, came forward. Chairman Davis asked about the screening wall that will be built along Shady Grove and Smithfield. Mr. Long replied that it is half a public access that is paved onto the residential lots, so a masonry fence cannot be put directly on the property line. It is a drive for the APEX school. Chairman Davis stated that a masonry fence can be built along the property line in conjunction with Shady Grove and Smithfield. Mr. Long replied that there is already a masonry fence on the south side of the property, but it is not the responsibility of those lots to maintain that fence. . Chairman Davis asked if there will be a masonry wall along Shady Grove Road. Mr. Long stated that the fence will be on the back part of the lots adjacent to the street. Chairman Davis stated that there should be no reason the same wall couldn't be built on lots 42R6 and 42R7. Mr. Long stated that if a masonry fence was put there a gate access for the back of the lots couldn't be installed. Chairman Davis asked if there would be some back entry garages. Mr. Long responded that he wasn't sure, but some homeowners may want to have backyard access to store their boats. He stated that there is a fire hydrant located in that area as well. Page 7 of 14 6/16/05 P&Z Minutes Mr. Sapp stated that there are requirements that there will have to be a masonry fence at some time. Mr. Long responded that normally a masonry fence is between commercial and residential to protect the residential. Chairman Davis asked if it was the intention of the applicant to build a masonry fence along those two lots. Mr. Long responded that it was not the applicant's intent to build a masonry fence. He added that the applicant might build a stockade fence. Chairman Davis stated that this is abutting commercial and is causing the line of demarcation. Right now there is no line, it is commercial to commercial. Due to the new requested zoning, the developer is changing the use requiring a masonry fence. The existing commercial is already there and is operating. He is compatible to what he thought was going to be commercial to his west. Due to down zoning to a residential use, which is probably the right zoning for this property, Chairman Davis believes the burden should be upon the residential to build the masonry wall. Mr. Bowen pointed out that there is no City Ordinance that allows the Commission to require the applicant to put in a masonry fence. Chairman Davis agreed and stated that the Commission however could make it part of the recommendation on the zoning case along with the preliminary and final that follows. Mr. Shiflet asked staff for clarification on the required masonry. Mr. Green explained that there are two City ordinances that come into play. The first is the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10, which requires a screening wall when two different districts come together. The second is in the Landscape Ordinance and there are two instances when a masonry wall is required: 1) when a brand new commercial or non-residential plan is being proposed and there is adjacent residential; and 2) when an existing non- residential expands 30%. The school as it exists now would not be required to put up a screening wall. If, however, the school expanded 30% or more of the existing square footage then the school would have to put up a screening wall and meet all of the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. Chairman Davis asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in regard to ZC 2005-07. Being none, Chairman Davis closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Ken Sapp, motioned to approve ZC 2005-07. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 8. PP 2005-07 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JB & JB DEVELOPMENT FLP/JOHN BARFIELD, G.P. TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BRANDONWOOD Page 8 of 14 6/16/05 P&z Minutes ESTATES PHASE II (LOCATED IN THE 7500 BLOCK OF SHADY GROVE - 4.754 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Davis explained that this is the same property that was just approved for rezoning. Mr. Green stated that a letter from Public Works has been provided stating that all of the City's requirements and staff's concerns have been satisfied. Staff recommends approval. Ken Sapp, seconded by Don Bowen, motioned to approve PP 2005-07. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 9. FP 2005-10 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JB & JB DEVELOPMENT FLP/JOHN BARFIELD, G.P. TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF BRANDONWOOD ESTATES PHASE II (LOCATED IN THE 7500 BLOCK OF SHADY GROVE - 4.754 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Davis explained that the Commission has heard the zoning case and preliminary plat for this property which has just been approved. Mr. Green stated that a letter from Public Works has been provided stating that all of the City's requirements and Staff's concerns have been satisfied. Staff recommends approval. Don Bowen, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve FP 2005-10. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 10. PP 2005-02 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM A.C. McFARLAND TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 1-13, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1-14, BLOCK 2, SUNSET DREAM ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 8100 BLOCK OF BRIDGE STREET - 3.7915 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green, Director of Planning, explained that this is a tract of land that was seen in 2003 by the Planning & Zoning Commission for a request for "TC" Town Center zoning. Page 9 of 14 6/16/05 P&z Minutes At that time the TC zoning was approved. When the rezoning case came before Planning & Zoning and City Council it was somewhat different from what it is now. The lots that were proposed at that time were smaller in size and frontage. They averaged around 28-ft. in width. They are now 40-ft. in width. With an expansion of the lot width, there is a reduction in the number of lots. Access has been added on the east side and access has been added to unload the alleyways. There are a few items that need to be noted as part of staff's recommendation. Sunset Dream Street has an intersection with a hard right turn from the Home Town area. This is going to require some manipulation of the existing medians. Public Works has pointed out that there needs to be a letter of consent from Home Town recognizing that those changes will need to be done. The second recommendation is the name of the street and the name of the subdivision. The 911 operators for Fire and Police are worried about the similarities of some other existing street names. This may cause confusion and cause problems for emergency response. The applicant has agreed to change the name of the street and subdivision and these changes will be reflected on the final plat that comes before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Chairman Davis stated that the appropriate motion to approve this preliminary plat would include "subject to the engineers letter dated June 7ttí regarding the median and also an appropriate street name". Ms. Cole asked if the plans still call for attached buildings. Joe Potthoff, applicant's representative, came forward and responded that they would be detached with lower density. Chairman Davis asked for the square footage. Mr. Potthoff responded that the planned square footage is 1,400-1,70Q,sq. ft. Mr. Green added that Town Center operates differently than the City's traditional ordinance and zoning. In this particular neighborhood, attached or detached would be acceptable. Although not a public hearing, the Chairman recognized questions from citizens in attendance. Robert Jones, 6201 Shirley Drive, stated that he is on the corner immediately across from this new development and he wondered why he wasn't informed of this development. Chairman Davis explained that neighbors within 20Q-ft. are notified when there is a zoning change of the property. He explained that the rezoning occurred two years previously. He further explained that a preliminary plat and a final plat are administrative functions that allow staff to make sure that there are proper easements, streets, water, sewer and things of that nature. Mr. Jones stated that he has concerns about the storm sewer system. Shirley is located at the bottom of the hill and currently there is no storm sewer system on Shirley. Will that be handled so that the current residences don't receive all the runoff? Chairman Davis explained that a new street will be built. That street will tie into Shirley. Page 10 of 14 6/16/05 P&z Minutes Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, explained that the current hill will come down. The construction plans are still in design. The majority of the drainage is going to be coming back towards Bridge Street. There will be drainage discharging into Shirley, but the applicant's engineer is going to be required to make sure that they are not putting more water into Shirley than it can handle. Mr. Jones stated that Bridge Street is considerable higher than Shirley right now. He can't see how that hill can be taken off and make it drain towards Bridge Street. Chairman Davis stated that some would have to be taken underground. Mr. Jones stated that he is pleased with the new access that has been presented. His main concern is that this is his retirement home and he doesn't want anything to detract from the aesthetic value of his home. He asked if the developer planned to build two story homes. Chairman Davis stated that he believed they would have to be two story homes. [Later corrected to one story.] . Leslie Mills, 6117 Roaring Springs, stated that his lot backs up to these properties. He said that there have been some concerns in the past in regard to a 5-ft. easement between his property and the alleyway. Has the 5-ft. easement been cut to 3-ft. and is that adequate when someone is backing out of their garage? Chairman Davis stated that there is a 3-ft. fence easement inside their property. Mr. Mills stated that on the back property line there are stockade fences and they were originally told that there would be a 5-ft. easement. Mr. Schopper stated that it looks like the alley is 15-ft. plus the 3-ft. fence easement so it is 18-ft. all together. Mr. Mills asked if that was·.adequate. Mike Curtis explained that it can't be said that no one will ever back into the fence, but staff has had discussions with the engineer about this and staff believes it will work. Chairman Davis asked if there was going to be two fences. There is an existing fence on Mr. Mills' property line. How far from that existing fence will the actual concrete of the alley begin? Dan Gould, 3055 Bellaire Drive, another representative for the applicant, stated that the alley will start 3-ft. from the property line. Also there is an agreement with some of the neighbors to rebuild their fences and in addition to doing that, the applicant plans to construct her own fence. Mr. Gould explained that the final plans are already into engineering and the applicant has written approval from the engineering department that the drainage is fine at this point. Mr. Bowen asked the applicant if the alleyway is a curb or a flat surface. Mr. Gould responded that it will be a flat surface. Carol Warriner, 6109 Roaring Springs, asked for the build line measurement. She stated that the easement is now 3-ft. and the alley will be 15-ft. Is a garage going to be Page 11 of 14 6/16/05 P&Z Minutes right there? Chairman Davis explained that the closest it could be would be 25 %-ft. There is a 3-ft. fence easement, 15-ft. alley, and a 7 %-ft. utility easement. There are also some rules in Town Center Zoning regarding setbacks. That is the minimum. Ms. Warriner stated that she has been at many of these meetings since it started. "It was my understanding that these would be one-story homes, but now that has changed?" Chairman Davis stated that he was incorrect earlier. He explained that the applicant is saying that they will be one story. Chairman Davis called for a motion. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve PP 2005-02 subject to the engineers comments and letter dated June 7, 2005 in regards to the median and subject to approval of the City of an acceptable street name for emergency purposes. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 11. FP 2005-08 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM RICHARD RHODES TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, SMITHFIELD STORAGE ADDITION (LOCATED AT 7516 SMITHFIELD ROAD -1.620 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green presented FP 2005-08. This was a zoning case before the Commission a couple of months ago and was approved as a PD (planned development). This is for the expansion of the existing Smithfield Storage located at the corner of Smithfield and Starnes. Public Works has provided a letter stating that all requirements have been addressed. Staff recommends approval. Bill Schopper, seconded by Scott Wood, motioned to approve FP 2005-08. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 12. SP 2005-05 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM K&G PARTNERSHIP FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR A SMALL MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX (LOCATED IN THE 6000 BLOCK OF HOLIDAY LANE -1.16 ACRES). APPROVED Page 12 of 14 6/16/05 P&z Minutes --; L_ Dave Green presented SP 2005-05. This tract of land is located on Holiday Lane directly across from the Fort Worth Christian School football stadium. It is currently zoned multi-family. A site plan approval is required for all multi-family projects. There will be two buildings, with six units in one and eight units in the other. They are two- story in design, each one including an enclosed garage underneath. The construction is primarily brick with some stone accents and a small amount of stucco. The stucco is below the 15% which is permitted by ordinance. There is one access point to the site off of Holiday Lane. There will be a live screen placed along the existing chain link fence to the stadium. In the area along Holiday Lane there will be street trees and screening shrubs. There will be ornamental steel or wrought iron fencing with brick columns. To separate the new structure from the existing multi-family structure there will be a solid masonry wall. There is an area of turf along with trees, which is not a requirement, but exceeds the City's minimum requirements. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Sapp stated that Holiday Lane bends around. Does staff have concerns about the entrance for this development? Mike Curtis explained that staff has spoken with the applicant. In this situation, the existing concrete drive isn't a mutual access easement between the two property owners. The applicant wants a separate entrance. Public Works believes that the edge is the best location for the entrance. Brenda Cole, seconded by Randy Shiflet, motioned to approve SP 2005-05. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 13. RP 2005-03 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM LONG & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF CASTLEROCK CUSTOM HOMES TO APPROVE THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 R1 & 1 R2' BLOCK 1 BRADFORD ADDITION (LOCATED IN THE 8100 BLOCK OF SMITHFIELD - 0.975 ACRES). APPROVED Dave Green explained that there was a rezoning case and a plat on this property last year. The reason for the replat is to create a common boundary. A letter has been provided by Public Works stating that the plat satisfies staff's concerns and the subdivision requirements. Staff recommends approval. Ken Sapp, seconded by Brenda Cole, motioned to approve RP 2005-03. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 14. ADJOURNMENT Page 13 of 14 6/16/05 P&Z Minutes As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 8:41 p.m. Chairman C~I'~J)(WÌ"B- Richard Davis Page 14 of 14 6/16/05 P&Z Minutes