Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2002-07-11 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JULY 11,2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT CITY STAFF 2. ROLL CALL Chairman Don Bowen George Tucker Bill Schopper Tim Welch James Laubacher Brenda Cole John Lewis Alternate Absent Ted Nehring Director of Development Director of Public Works City Planner Recording Secretary John Pitstick Mike Curtis Dave Green Kellie Smith Chairman Don Bowen welcomed John Lewis to his first meeting as Planning & Zoning Commission Member Alternate. 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2002 APPROVED Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Tucker, motioned to approve the minutes of June 27, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PZ 2002-12 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REVISION TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN CLOSING AND ABANDONING SUSAN LEE LANE BETWEEN SHORT STREET AND THE I.H. 820 WEST-BOUND SERVICE ROAD. IN ADDITION LOWERING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUSAN LEE LANE SOUTH OF MAPLEWOOD DRIVE FROM COLLECTOR STREET TO LOCAL STREET STATUS. APPROVED Zoning Administrator Dave Green summarized the case. The first two items on the agenda tonight are connected together. The first item is a request to close a portion of Susan Lee Lane in-between Short Street and the westbound service road to Loop 820. This will lower the status of Susan Lee (from Maplewood south to the service road) from a collector street status to a local street status on the Thoroughfare Plan. The reason for this request is based on the second item on the agenda, which is a subdivision plat request from River Crown Investments, concerning a grouping of a number of individual residential lots, which are being replatted into one single lot for commercial purpose. The name of the addition is Huggins Addition and the purpose of the replatting is for the expansion of the Huggins Automobile Dealership located immediately to the west of this particular site. Nancy Lane is the eastern boundary of the plat and Susan Lee Lane will terminate into a cul-de-sac arrangement. Staff has reviewed the plat. Public Works has provided a memo indicating the plat is in full agreement with City standards and there are no outstanding issues with that plat. Mr. Green further explained that this particular area was rezoned late last year from a residential district to a C-2 district for the purpose of the expansion of Mr. Huggins' car dealership. Tonight, they are requesting a replat of the property and a revision to the master thoroughfare plan. In the future, when staff receives plans concerning how the property will actually be developed, those plans will be brought back to the Planning & Zoning Commission (and subsequently City Council) for site plan approval. Mr. Welch requested an explanation of the chronological history of Susan Lee Lane (from 1985) from Mr. Curtis, Director of Public Works. Mr. Curtis explained that the 1985 thoroughfare plan showed a portion of Susan Lee as a minor collector street. As revisions were made to the master thoroughfare plan, Susan Lee remained as a collector street. Some streets in the City that are classified as minor collector streets do not function as such. Mr. Curtis stated that Susan Lee, in his opinion, falls into this category. He further stated that one of the factors taken into consideration when looking at a collector street is traffic volume. The applicant's traffic consultant conducted traffic counts for Susan Lee and the counts were the same for Susan Lee as they were for Nancy. Susan Lee does not carry the traffic that a collector street is designed to carry. A residential street has the capacity to carry 2000 to 3000 vehicles a day in a 24-hour period. A minor collector has the capacity to carry 3000 to 4000 vehicles per day. Susan Lee carries less than 1000 vehicles per day; therefore, it doesn't have the traffic volume as a minor collector. Furthermore, because Susan Lee does not have the volume of a minor collector street, it has never been improved as a minor collector. Susan Lee has been acting as a residential street so when improvements were made to it during this past year, it was reconstructed as a residential street. A collector street is 40 feet wide. A residential street is 30 feet wide. Also, there is a school located on Susan Lee and the traffic is designated one way during school hours. Mr. Curtis further explained that Susan Lee was part of the 1994 bond program. There were other streets, besides Susan Lee, that the 1994 bond committee recommended for reconstruction, such as Maryanna, Cloyce and Jeanetta. The City has had plans to reconstruct Susan Lee since the approval of that program, but in prioritizing which streets to reconstruct first as part of the program, arterial streets and collector streets were given priority. Again, Susan Lee was classified as a collector street but didn't function as such, so it was treated as a residential street. Mr. Curtis explained that TXDOT began their plans on 820 about 10 years ago. Mr. Curtis began keeping track of their planning about 3 or 4 years ago. TXDOT's preliminary alignments proposed an entrance ramp for 820 at approximately where Susan Lee intersects the service road. TXDOT will not allow a ramp to be located right at that intersection so, until recently, TXDOT was planning to close Susan Lee in order to place their entrance ramp at that location. However, Mr. Huggins started moving forward on this replat because Huggins Honda was going to be impacted by the widening of 820 and they wanted to see if there was something they could do that would minimize the right-of-way taking and might facilitate their business in the future. When engineering started looking at and taking into consideration closing Susan Lee, Mr. Curtis's assumption was that it was going to be closed anyway in the future by TXDOT during the widening of Loop 820. Mr. Huggins's proposal seemed to fit. Susan Lee might as well be closed now because it's going to be closed in the future. Mr. Curtis stated that TXDOT constantly changes their plans. He checked with TXDOT as recently as this week and they indicated that they have moved the entrance ramp slightly to the west. It is no longer in front of the entrance to Susan Lee, but it is close enough to Susan Lee that there would be some safety issues if Susan Lee were allowed to remain open. Mr. Curtis stated that this brings us to where we are today. Staff is looking at and considering whether or not to go ahead and close Susan Lee. From a mobility standpoint and from a future expansion standpoint, Staff recommends closing Susan Lee. Staff went a step further and looked at how this would impact Cloyce and Nancy. Regarding Nancy, there are two situations. The situation that exists today is that 820 are not widened yet and there isn't a ramp there. You must drive through Holiday Lane to enter the freeway. Based on that scenario and what's there today, closing Susan Lee is not going to have a significant increase to the traffic on Nancy. Those traveling south on Susan Lee to Maplewood who would then encounter a sign that says no through traffic, would not turn east and then go down Nancy to turn west at the frontage road. Instead, most people will turn west onto Maplewood from Susan Lee because that's the direction they are going to be required to go at the frontage road anyway. There should not be a substantial amount of traffic using Nancy from people who normally travel Susan Lee. The people who live on Nancy north of Maplewood will probably use Nancy. The majority of people who live on Susan Lee or come down Susan Lee are probably going to use a street further to the west. The other point is that there are no curb cuts proposed on Nancy for this development so there will not be the situation of traffic leaving Huggins Honda and turning north on Susan Lee. The second situation regarding Nancy is what is going to happen when the freeway is widened. When the freeway is widened and the entrance ramp gets constructed, then there could be an increase in traffic on Nancy because people are going to want to enter the ramp. The quickest way to get to the ramp is going to be from Maplewood south on Nancy to the service road. However, regarding timing, TXDOT's current plan to widen 820 is to begin 2004, possibly 2005. They are not known to expedite a project, but they do allow dates to slip. So, we are looking at 2 to 3-years before construction begins. The length of the project is a little bit difficult to estimate because it is unknown how many phases there are, but in all likelihood it will take as long to do this section of 820 as it took for the interchange -- probably looking at 5 to 7-years depending on variables. Assuming it is 5 or 6 years to construct and 3 years before they begin, we are looking at a situation where it will be 8 years, approximately, before the entrance ramp is there. These are the things that staff has considered on this. Eight years from now, if that property is zoned commercial, then it probably is a good idea to keep Nancy open. If, eight years from now, the property along Nancy is still residential, then it's probably a good idea to see about closing Nancy or doing something to minimize or eliminate the traffic that is going to use Nancy to enter the freeway. Ms. Cole asked Mr. Curtis to explain which portion of Nancy will be zoned commercial. Mr. Curtis responded that it could be all or part of the section between Short Street, and it could go all the way to Maplewood. If it were commercial all the way to Maplewood, then Staff would recommend leaving it open. If any part of it is still residential, and it's commercial from Short Street to the service road, then Staff would consider closing it at Short Street. There are some options either way. Ms. Cole inquired as to whether or not the City would be the one to make that decision? Would TXDOT have any effect on the decision since the ramp is not going to be at Nancy? Mr. Curtis stated that the City would make the decision. The impact that TXDOT would have on this issue is that when TXDOT conducts an environmental assessment, part of that environmental assessment includes a noise assessment. If TXDOT determines that there is an excessive amount of noise created by the traffic, then it's possible that Nancy may have to be closed and noise walls put up. This situation is challenging for Staff because there are unknown variables: Is it going to be residential? Commerical? When is TXDOT going to make the improvements? Mr. Welch stated that based on the engineering traffic study, Figure 3, northbound traffic on Susan Lee in a 24-hour period is 284 vehicles. On Nancy, 483. So 200 more a day northbound. You have a 4-way stop at Susan Lee and Maplewood Avenue. What is going to happen with that intersection? If you take half of 284 and put it on Nancy, now you are pushing that close to 600 a day. Are we going to have a 4-way stop at Nancy and Maplewood Avenue? Mr. Curtis responded that if there is only that small amount of traffic, probably not. A traffic study would need to be conducted at that intersection to see if it warrants a 4-way stop. It goes back to the definition. A 4-way stop is warranted when two collector streets intersect. Susan Lee doesn't function as a collector, but by definition, it was a collector and warranted a 4-way stop. Nancy is not classified as a collector and probably won't warrant a 4-way stop in the future. Mr. Welch: But Public Works is open to analyze it in the future? Mr. Curtis: Definitely. Traffic counts will be done on Nancy and Cloyce so that we will be prepared when TXDOT comes forward and we are faced with the question of whether or not Nancy should be closed. We'll be able to provide history to TXDOT. It is known what the counts are today with both streets open. Once Susan Lee is closed, the counts will continue and when TXDOT begins to get closer to their plan, Staff will be in a better position to recommend closing/not closing based on traffic. The data will be available. Ms. Cole: If all the traffic went from Susan Lee to Nancy, would that change the classification of Nancy? Mr. Curtis: The collector street definition is a street that collects the neighborhood traffic and brings it down to an arterial street, which in this case would be the frontage road. Nancy will never be classified as a collector street and therefore never widened as a collector street, except perhaps ten years from now if all of it were rezoned commercial. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present who wished to speak in favor of this revision of the Thoroughfare Plan that closes Susan Lee. Ernest Hedgcoth, Engineer for Mr. Huggins came forward. He stated that they talked to the TXDOT people about what they were going to be doing when they widened 820 and one of the reasons that Mr. Huggins is considering this expansion is because at Susan Lee, Mr. Huggins will lose about 25 feet and at Cloyce he will lose around 40 feet. When they get through taking their right-of-way, the TXDOT right-of-way will be about 20 ft off of the Huggins Honda building, which will not allow him much display space out front. This plan will provide additional display space. There will be no access onto Nancy. There will be a screening wall from Nancy to the existing property. Either Mr. Huggins expands or the alternative is to find another location and move the whole dealership. He doesn't want to do that because he has been very satisfied with North Richland Hills and has been here since 1983. Kelly Parma, Lee Engineering, conducted the traffic study. Based on traffic counts, Nancy carried a little more traffic than Susan Lee did. Nancy is acting as residential and Susan Lee is also, based on the volumes that were collected. A minor collector typically carries 3000 to 4000 and Susan Lee is carrying much less than that. Mr. Welch: Based on your traffic study, Figure 3, 284 northbound, 298 southbound on Susan Lee, in your professional opinion, what can residents expect, for percentage of increase of traffic? Mr. Parma: All of the traffic diverted from Susan Lee is not going to go to Nancy. We believe that most of the traffic on the roadway is local roadway for the residences. We have 600 daily traffic volumes on Susan Lee, in my opinion, not more than half will go to Nancy. Mr. Welch: Going to Figure 2, morning and afternoon peak volumes, it seems the majority of the traffic, especially northbound, are going to go straight or turn back east with less than 10% going west. If you take those same factors and apply it to Nancy, can you expect the same or similar in nature? Mr. Parma: Correct. Chairman Bowen: The folks coming north on Susan Lee and turning east are going to Davis Blvd. If you want to go west, it seems you would go west on the service road to Cloyce because it is a better road. Mr. Parma: Cloyce is a wider street than Susan Lee is. Mr. Welch: Did you do any traffic counts on Cloyce? Mr. Parma: No, Susan Lee and Nancy only. Mr. Tucker: If someone is headed west on Maplewood and wants to get to the service road, they'll take Nancy, rather than Cloyce. Mr. Parma: Based on the counts we had at Susan Lee, two vehicles in the morning and six vehicles in the evening made that maneuver. In addition, if you were going to go southbound from Maplewood to go westbound, there is no stop sign at Maplewood and Nancy so therefore the existing condition is you would avoid the stop sign by taking a left on Nancy. Mr. Welch: We don't know that as fact because you didn't do any traffic studies on Cloyce. Chairman Bowen: It might be appropriate that if Susan Lee is cul-de-sac, then half of the 4-way stop sign goes away. Is that possible Mike? It appears to me that Maplewood wouldn't need the stop signs if Susan Lee were not functioning as a collector street. Mr. Curtis: It may very well go away. Regarding Mr. Tucker's comments: If you are headed westbound on Maplewood and want to get to the frontage road, you are going to go the quickest way and if the quickest way is Nancy, you are going Nancy. I'm not trying to put words in the engineer's mouth, but if you look at what's happening today, based on Figure 3 in the study, 314 cars are going south on Nancy. Look at the study done at the intersection, and it shows that there are only a few people (5 or 6) turning off of Davis and going down Susan Lee. You are right that people are going to go the quickest route and that would be Nancy, but we're talking about an increase of just 6 people turning southbound to get to the service road. Ms. Cole: Is this something that Mr. Huggins is doing in preparation for 820 Or does he plan on starting his expansion now? Mr. Hedgcoth: This will be started as soon as Susan Lee is closed and as soon as the plat is approved. We already have contractors looking at the construction. This will be done more than likely before the end of the year. It will probably start in August and be in operation about November. Chairman Bowen asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of this revision. Allen Cole, 7320 Whitfield, resident of North Richland Hills and employee of Huggins Honda came forward. People drive very fast on the frontage road. School children should not be anywhere near where people are trying to get onto the highway. On the traffic counts, is it possible that many of those going down Nancy and Susan Lee are Huggins Honda employees? We have 106 employees. Chairman Bowen: Does Huggins has a curb cut onto Cloyce? Mr. Cole: There is a fire lane there, with a gate across it. Chairman Bowen: People coming into your Huggins lot, can they get to it off of Cloyce? Mr. Cole: Yes. We have two curb cuts. One is a fire lane and one turns into the new car lot. Chairman Bowen: Part of the concern is that demonstration drivers will use Nancy Lane. If Cloyce is available, they could come down Cloyce and get into the lot that way. Mr. Cole: We have a designed route that does not have Nancy on it. The other thing is that they didn't finish paving out Susan Lee. If you don't close it, you'll have to come back and spend money paving it. Chairman Bowen called on those wishing to speak in opposition. Robert Bockman, 4804 Nancy, stated that he has quite a few concerns based on what he's just heard. 1) The on ramp was assumed to be closer to Susan Lee, but now might be further west, yet if you look at the freeway wall that TXDOT already built, it looks pretty permanent right in front of that area. Is it possible that the reason they are widening and taking away some of Huggins property is to provide a little bit more room for a ramp? If they are going to move it west, the traffic could possibly enter the freeway safely from Susan Lee. 2) We were told that the people would go all the way down to Susan Lee and then when they find Susan Lee closed, they will go down to the next street to turn north. But I know people are smarter than that. After they find Susan Lee closed off, the next time they come down that same access road (these are residents living in North Richland Hills), they are going to use Nancy because it is a little more convenient to them because it is the first street over. They are going to do that when they exit to go north. 3) Staff has used the word "probably" a lot. I don't understand what that word means except that it's something they don't have any definite answers on. Cloyce is a wider street. It's got businesses all up and down it. That would be the obvious choice to put more traffic down if you are going to close off any streets. 4) Huggins seems to be showing some concern about losing some property and being displaced and wanting the City to give him a little bit more straight freeway frontage in front of Susan Lee, yet they haven't had any problem displacing homeowners from properties farther north. 5) According to a traffic survey done the last quarter of 2001 per information from Tim Welch, that approximately 700 cars traverse on Nancy Lane in a 24 - hour period. A total of 560 cars on Susan Lee. If Susan Lee is shut down, the total of cars to travers on Nancy Lane rises to at least, 1,000 to 1,300 cars. It is probably closer to the high count. If an on-ramp is placed at 820 the increases could be upwards of 2,000 or more vehicles. Due to expecting more traffic on Nancy Lane the residents recommend to resurface & sidewalk Nancy and the City to use the Capital Improvement program to pay for it. Residents also recommend to either close Nancy along with the closing of Susan Lee or to leave them both open to divide the traffic flow. Nancy has been over looked for a long time now. Chairman Bowen: There can't be a stipulation on the motion to close Susan Lee. Mr. Bockman: Shelve it and put it together on the same deal or leave both open. He then passed out a handout outlining the residents concerns that were mentioned tonight. Chairman Bowen response: They will look at the rebuilding of Nancy Lane. Mr. Welch: Commented on the Capital Improvement committee looking at this as well. Mr. Bockman told about someone who lived on Starnes Street and drove down Nancy. And a car struck a lady living at 5001 Nancy Lane. She won't ever be able to walk as well as she did at one time. When the on-ramp is added, this will probably at least double the traffic. If closed down, people can go to Davis or Holiday. Clayton Lotton, 5009 Nancy Lane. Closing Susan Lee will only cause more traffic on Nancy. Nancy is in need of repair already. We need to leave both open or close both. Starlene Autry, 4800 Susan Lee Lane. How permanent is the fence going to be? Chairman Bowen: masonry going all the way around. Mr. Autry: Is there going to be a pass gate through there? Mr. Curtis: There is no gate for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Autry: Will the shrubbery around the cul-de-sac wall be tall enough to block lighting and noise? I work for the school district and there is a lot more traffic than these gentlemen are saying. Creating a cul-de-sac, will this become a giant playground for kids? Chairman Don Bowen read the names filled out on the blue cards that were against PZ 2002-12: Marie Bockman, Donna Bockman, Robert Bockman, Linda Graham, Sonny Graham, Amanda Martin, William Lee, and Ann Hanes. Richard Postma - not for or against. Richard Postma, 4905 Nancy. How soon will the improvements to Nancy Lane happen? Mr. Welch: Public hearing at the Fire Dept. next Tuesday, July 16, 2002. Mr. Postma: Nancy is easy to cut through. Very difficult to get on the frontage road from Nancy. Shut Nancy off. Chairman Bowen: If we close Nancy as Susan Lee is proposed, the Fire Dept. will require a culdesac. Someone will lose property. Mr. Schopper: Good offset of gaining road along frontage until 820 widening takes it. Clayton Lotton, 5009 Nancy lane. All for Huggins Honda property. Great for our tax base. Helps school district. Just because he is growing, don't want anyone stepped on. Amanda Martin, 5004 Nancy. I have a 6-month old son. You are going to increase traffic on the street. We don't have sidewalks to walk my son. You need to either close it down or give us sidewalks. Preferably close it down. Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing and called for comments. Mr. Tucker: even though the Planning and Zoning Commission Board can't make it part of the motion to close Nancy, we can make a recommendation to Council to consider closing Nancy. The citizens have taken time to come this evening, they've signed a petition and they have valid concerns and should get their say before Council. Mr. Welch: I agree with Mr. Tucker. Nancy is convenient and we're going to see an increase in traffic on that street. We can't make a recommendation to closing Nancy subject to shutting down Susan Lee but I recommend we look at Nancy in the near future and obtain additional traffic studies to shut down Nancy. I'll also recommend that to the Capital Improvement Committee for sidewalks and improvements. Chairman Bowen reopened the public hearing to allow one other gentleman to speak. William W. Lee, 4821 Nancy Lane resident since 1959. Nancy Lane is a speedway. Cul-de-sac both for Huggins Honda and Chevrolet mystery owner to use. At 5 a.m. I have to put ear plugs in my ears in order to sleep. The street is in bad shape. The City put a cement street with sidewalks on Susan Lee. Why did Susan Lee get this and not Nancy Lane? Chairman Bowen: Asked Mike Curtis to explain the difference between concrete versus asphalt. Mr. Curtis: Asphalt is weaker than concrete. City Standards for streets is more asphalt pavement than concrete. Concrete is cheaper. Street section calls for sidewalks as reconstruct Susan Lee. '94 bond program does have sidewalk program along a section. Pedestrian can request sidewalks and get a petition with everyone agreeing. There needs to be 80% approval to put this on their lot. If bond doesn't select Nancy. Possibility to put sidewalks. Nancy is included in the street maintenance program. On a scale, 48 is considered now. 40 and below is considered poor. 40-50 is poor and Nancy is at level 48. There are 100 streets that are worse than 48. There are plans to improve Nancy by a bond or overlay program. Residents need to contact the Public Works department. Chairman Bowen asked Mike Curtis if this is paid by City. Mr. Curtis said that it depends on the need and if the street meets criteria. Nancy would qualify. When the city reconstructs streets, they always use concrete with the Capital Improvement program. If TX-Dot reconstructs the streets, they may not always be concrete. Chairman Bowen commented that the neighborhood could think about installing speed bumps. Chairman Bowen called for a motion. Mr. Tucker, motioned to approve PZ 2002-12 with a recommendation to City Council to consider the citizens request to close Nancy Lane. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Welch, made an amendment. That he would ask the Capital Improvements Committee to review Nancy Lane. George Tucker accepted the amendment. The motion carried (7-0). Chairman Bowen gave a break. 5. PS 2002-08 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM ERNEST HEGDCOTH REPRESENTING RIVER CROWN INVESTMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 HUGGINS ADDITION LOCATED IN THE 4700 BLOCKS OF SUSAN LEE DRIVE AND NANCY LANE (2.28 ACRES). APPROVED Chairman Bowen called the meeting back to order. Mr. Schopper asked about the masonry wall around the culdesac being hidden and the safety of it. Mr. Green commented that Staff has not yet received the site plan. Mr. Tucker asked the location of the fence. Mr. Green commented that it was along the common line with adjacent to residents pluss proposed fence around it. Mr. Tucker asked about the buffer on Nancy? Mr. Hedgcoth said it was a 15' landscape buffer along Nancy Ln and all residential property and a 15' fence around the back. Mr. Welch asked about the height of the fence. Mr. Hedgcoth answered 6'. Mr. Welch asked about the content of the shrubs and trees. Mr. Hedgcoth answered that they would meet city requirements. Chairman Bowen commented that they do need to do something about the light so that it doesn't shine into the resident's property. Mr. Tucker commented that the lights should dim during certain hours. Chairman Bowen reminded everyone that this is a hearing on a Final Plat not a site plan. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. With none wishing to speak, Chairman Bowen closed the public hearing. Mr. Laubacher, seconded by Mr. Schopper motioned to approve PZ 2002-16. The motion carried (7-0). 6. PZ 2002-16 DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO R-3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING REGULA TIONS APPROVED Dave Green summarized the case by stating that there was a work session in Pre- Council involving some of the builders in our City on the discussion of R-3 construction. Mr. Schopper commented that the square foot minimum requirements aren't appropriate. $136,900 starting out makes it hard for people to qualify for a home. If we Keep 1600 SF minimum and add higher Architectural and agricultural standards, along with concrete/brick over our driveways and gables. We need our lots to be wider than they are now. If we move the garage entry to rear and side it will raise the cost. I would like for our Fire and Police Dept. to be able to afford to live here in North Richland Hills. Mr. Tucker agreed to limit the R-3 minimum 1800 SF acreage to approximately 10 acres. Make the lots wider and deeper. Leave at 1600 square foot minimum. Mr. Schopper commented that the purpose for the buffer is to limit the size of the development on an R-3 to three streets deep and 10 acres and make the culdesac lots larger. Ms. Cole commented to increase the lot size to 16 X 110, this would help the driveway issues. There is ample housing available if we raise the R-3 to 1800 SF. Mr. Schopper commented on 900 and 1200 SF to replace with 1600 SF. Put 1800- 2200 SF. Pulte Homes has offers to buy these homes but people don't qualify. Pulte is having problems with the R-2 driveways. Mr. Pitstick commented that we need to rezone R-3. He said we have had three cases go from Industrial Commercial to R-3 or P.D. P.o. is more densed. Mr. Schopper commented that property already zoned R-3 that needs platting, we need to tighten up the platting requirements. Mr. Pitstick said that the existing property won't change, only the property not yet platted. Mr. Lewis supports what Mr. Schopper said. Ms. Cole asked about the roof pitch? Mr. Tucker agreed with the pitch being 6' 12 instead of 4'12. Mr. Welch said that 1800 SF as a buffer along Davis with upgrading Architectural, paved driveways, brick/stone garages with double doors and spruce up the front would be good. Mr. Schopper commented to make a list and let them choose three out of five. Mr. Pitstick said that the depth is 110 SF. We need to discuss the garage entries. Mr. Schopper is for side-entry garages. Mr. Pitstick commented if side-entry would be 6X10. Chairman Bowen said to illuminate R-3 we would get P.D.'s and commented that J- drive's are unpleasant and worse than front-entry drives. Ms. Cole would like to illuminate front entry drives. Mr. Schopper commented on forced detached garages and current R-1 & R-2 30' behind building line. Force behind the front of the house. Ms. Cole said that would eat into their yard. Chairman Bowen commented on a 110' depth lot. Mr. Schopper would like to see bigger culdesac's and side and rear entry garages. Mr. Pitstick commented 70 X 110 side and rear entry garages and front side entry - building line adjacent to garage. The driveways come off to the corners. 65-75 SF minimum lot width on corner lots and no J-entry garages. Mr. Pitstick commented 75 width, 110 depth, side or rear entry garages, no J-entry allowed. 22' and minimum 1600-1800 SF, first story 100% masonry and second story 75% masonry. Mr. Laubacher asked to provide architectural options. Mr. Schopper said to have a point system like Colleyville. Mr. Pitstick commented to bring back five architectural features and pick three. 7. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the regular meeting at 9:08 p.m. Chairman Secretary Don~ Q~ Ted[;¿ ¡t/~