Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-10 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 10, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow, J.E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna MMMBERS ABSENT: none OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Larry Wood, Ery Wimberly, Harry Gray, Jim Hatfield, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others •APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS JOHN C BURCKART - S OF APPLEBY, N OF DRAKE STREET • The first item of consideration on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development Plan for the Village Apartments submitted by John C. Burckart and represented by Ery Wimberly of Northwest Engineers. The property is located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake Street containing 9.75 acres with 160 units proposed and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Chairman Jacks stated that this was tabled earlier so that some additional information could be obtained from the staff in terms of traffic counts, etc. He advised that they have a memo from the traffic superintendent, Perry Franklin, giving some traffic counts and indicating that the intersection at Appleby Road and College Avenue is fast fulfilling the warrants that would indicate that they might have a traffic signal there. Ery Wimberly of Northwest Engineers referred to a vicinity map with proposed street improvements he had made up as a visual aid. He stated that one of the problems is going eastbound on Appleby Road where there is a tendency to cut through the Regency North subdivision. His map showed the intersection detail of how that will be improved by the City to direct traffic south on Old Appleby Road and not into Regency North. He advised that the contract has been let for this project which will be the improvement of Appleby Road from the corner of Appleby and Bishop Blvd on out. It is already paved and curbed on the north side. He advised that Mr. Burckhart has agreed to approve, curb, gutter and widen that portion of Appleby Road across his frontage of the property he will be acquiring although he will not be developing all of it right now. He noted that the land that Wade Bishop owns on Appleby Road is zoned R-2 and R-0 and there is a 010 • • Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 2 potential for 220 units without any approval from the Planning Commission because each platted lot is less than an acre. He commented that they feel like that Wade Bishop has led the opposition on this project primarily to maintain the value of his property there. Mr. Wimberly clarified that this has been tabled twice which makes this the third time they have been before the Planning Commission. He noted that there is a report from Perry Franklin, the Traffic Superintendent, and they have also asked Dr. Bob Alguire who has a Phd in Civil Engineering and serves as chairman of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to speak. He commented that Dr. Alguire is helping the City of Fayetteville now developing the Master Street Plan and street specs, etc. Wimberly stated that they want him to explain more about the impact of a 160 unit apartment complex in this neighborhood. Dr. Bob Alguire stated that the TAC Committee is looking at functional classifications of roads and the street plans & network in the City of Fayetteville as well as the whole Northwest Arkansas Planning District. He advised that they have been spending a lot of time in Fayetteville which is suffering primarily from the lack of transportation planning over the past years. They are trying to address these difficult situations. One of the main problems over in the north part of Fayetteville is when the Highway Department developed this interchange, they did not give access back to the West so you have to go down to Stearne Road and make a U turn or as many people are doing, cut through this area down Appleby Road to get to the West. Because this is a very rough section of gravel road, a lot of people are going through Regency North to bypass this section and going on out. As you can see, a better flow pattern is going to be set up along Appleby outlet. Appleby is carrying a lot of traffic right now according to the traffic counts, about 5,500 east of the Wal-Mart parking lot turnoff and about 3,400 west of this turnoff. That means about 1,200 people are just coming in to the parking lot to shortcut this intersection at Rolling Hills and getting into the Mall area. When the developers continue development of this area, there will be some traffic increase on Appleby Road. One of their major projects right now is to punch through a 4 -lane to Drake Avenue and tie it in with Hwy 180 providing a higher level of access in this area. He advised that this particular development has openings on both ends so they can get to Appleby Road and to Drake Street. He commented that through the Trip Generation Analysis that they have been looking at, most of the jobs and stuff where people will be going are on the south side so many will be coming out on the south side to Drake for two reasons 1) it is closer to where they work 2)there is a much higher level interchange at Drake and College with a right -turn bay, a left -turn bay with radiuses on them to provide good access, very good site distances, the intersections are such that provide gaps in traffic coming through and there will be a much higher level access there. Most (probably 70% to 80%) of the general peak hour traffic will be coming out on the Drake Street access. The other people going to the shopping center, etc., will more than likely come out onto Appleby Road and go into the Fiesta Square Mall area. Therefore, he noted, as far as affecting this area, this particular development is not going to affect the traffic in this area too much. It will generate some trips to Gregg with people going to the University of Arkansas, but these people are having trouble now not from anything this project is going to do but because of the lack of a north/south access. He advised that what's happening is everybody from Villa Mobile Home Park and that area are coming up through this area and around. He advised that this project will not affect this area hardly at all. What they are • • • Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 3 talking about is development into here that is going to tie into these two points of access, the major root in and out of here will be on Drake. There will be some traffic that will be on this part of Appleby Road. He advised that one thing they will have to consider later on is doing something with Appleby. He commented that this is a very bad design here, Appleby Road needs to be straightened and brought into College Avenue so it will come out at the top of the hill because right now there is bad site distance here. He noted that he has done some trip generation analysis about the number of trips which shows that for a unit this size the average morning trips (The previous minutes show Perry Franklin's trip generations which are the maximum trip generations which is assuming a very high apartment complex in which you have both parents working and a lot of children.) He advised that these figures are very high for this area ) and at peak there would be 80 to 85 cars out of here, the p.m. peak is about 96. He advised that he also, just as a comparison, ran this 160 unit apartment complex to show a problem that they have. He explained that a lot of people think residential areas are better than apartments as far as traffic is concerned, they are actually not. The trip generations on 160 units of single- family dwellings run about 48% higher with more traffic coming out of single- family units than out of an apartment complex. The problem with apartment complexes in some areas is that they tend to concentrate traffic, in this particular case it is an advantage because they are close to the access to College Avenue and most of the concentration will be coming out on to College Avenue to the east and won't be coming out to the West into these other areas. He noted that he ran 160 units of single-family dwellings to give them a comparison. He noted that on an average day where an apartment complex generates 1,036 as a 24 hour ADT, 160 units of single-family will generate 1,600 average daily trips (ADT). He advised that he thought this complex would have minimal impact on the area right now. After they develop the Plan and improve these roads and the impact will even be much less. Commissioner Seiff asked Dr. Alguire when he anticipated Drake Street being punched through. Dr. Alguire answered that it depends on a couple of things. He noted that it has been in the Plan for a long time, if the Bond issue goes through in the next six months , it is part of the project to bridge that creek and go on across with Drake Street. It should be within a year when they start really looking at it if the Bond Issue goes through. John Merrell, City Planning Director, added that the extension of Drake Street through to Gregg Street has also been included in the City's new 5 -year capital improvements plan and it is slated for the year 1990 at a construction cost of about $350,000. The fact that it is in that Plan is no guarantee, however, that it will be constructed but it has been elevated to that point. Commissioner Seiff asked if the nearest possibility would be 1990. Mr. Merrell answered, yes. Commissioner Dow asked about the Bond Issue. Dr. Alguire stated that the Bond is the same thing as the Capital Improvements. Chairman Jacks asked Dr. Alguire if he was assuming a certain make-up of the people who would live in this complex and why are his figures lower than Perry Franklin's. Dr. Alguire answered, no, he didn't go on that assumption and his figures aren't lower than Mr. Franklin's. He advised that the program that they both use is Micro -trips which is a generation program and without getting into a Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 4 lot more detail about the type of makeups within the dwelling unit, it generates a maximum trip rate, a minimum trip rate and an average trip rate. The maximum trip rate would be areas of very high density with school kids and both parents working which is usually found in a major metropolitan area so it is an extreme. The minimum would be more in a retirement type of complex where people don't do peak -hour travel very much. An average with the criteria set up is fairly close to what they are talking about here based upon an average occupancy of professional level people. Chairman Jacks stated then they are making some assumptions and are ruling out that the large makeup of this group would be both parents working with children, etc. Dr. Alguire agreed that he is ruling out the fact that it would be totally made up of that group. Ery Wimberly stated that he would like to emphasize that Dr. Alguire is using the same program that Perry Franklin used. Chuck West of 300 Village Drive stated that the citizens of Fayetteville look to the Planning Commission as a body of civic leaders who have a very keen interest in studying and approving development plans that are going to improve Fayetteville life. This type of leadership implies perception of immediate needs and also vision of needs of the short-term futures. They look to the Planning Commission to approve development that doesn't simply serve the immediate needs of the developer but rather serve the needs of the community as a whole. This is a case where the needs of the developer and the community conflict. He noted that they see this as a beginning of a development of a fairly sizable undeveloped area. He noted that they have a case here where they could encourage the priority of extending Drake Street all the way to Gregg that would improve significantly the traffic situation. He suggested that they postpone approval of this plan until Drake Street has been extended all the way. to Gregg. Bob Estes of 222 Jason stated that he is opposed to this development based on a) traffic control and b) the updated City comprehensive zoning plan. As to traffic control, Appleby and Drake Street are designated as collector streets. He stated that they are just right on the edge of mandating the additional traffic controls devices which would need to be at the intersection of Appleby and 71 North. He noted that this proposed project is Phase I of 3 Phases and he has no doubt that Phase I will create additional cars traveling east/west on Appleby. The completion of the other Phases will add traffic on Appleby. A stop light there will not be a solution because there is a blind hill there on 71 North. He stated that the updating of the Comprehensive Plan is now in process so what are now permissible uses of property may not be under the new Plan. He suggested that the new Plan provide for "impact fees" which would require the developer to share in the cost of the changes that would have to be made to handle the traffic problems that the project would create. He noted that one possible solution would be to deny the applicant and invite him to come back once the Comprehensive Plan is in place so that they can share in the cost. He added that another possible solution is to grant the applicant approval but require him to close the Appleby access. Chairman Jacks advised that the ordinance does provide for off-site improvements and the "impact fee" concept is more detailed and probably a fairer way of assessing those costs. Mr. Wimberly clarified that they do not have 3 Phases planned here, only what is shown on the plans. Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 5 Tom Madewell of Peg Lane stated that he is concerned about the safety of the children and he is 100% opposed to this. Leroy Fink of Peg Lane stated that he is against not having an entry on Appleby because there will just be more traffic routed on Peg Lane. Connie Freeman of 315 Village stated that there are a lot of concerned homeowners that are opposed to this and she is wondering how the homeowners in this area will be able to make a left-hand turn out of Regency North to get to College after this project and the medical park are developed. Charlie Plumber of 433 Village stated that for the last 9 1/2 years he has worked for the Transportation Safety Agency through the Ozark Guidance Center and that he is opposed to this because of public safety. He stated that he will never be convinced that if this complex is built they won't have a traffic problem. He noted that people run the stop sign and speed through his neighborhood. He suggested that the improvements for the stop light and on the road be done first and then address this. Gerald Baxter of 335 Village stated that he is opposed to this because he is concerned for the safety of his children and the children in his neighborhood. Laura Ward of 424 Melinda stated that they haven't discussed all the traffic that the Medical Complex out this way will generate. She is opposed to this because of the added traffic. Barbara Williams stated that she owns two houses on Village Drive and that 160 apartment units as opposed to 45 single-family units doesn't seem reasonable. She noted that the only consideration for this might be that if they give no access from this complex on to Appleby Road. Mr. Wimberly stated that this land was zoned R-2 around 1970. He noted that this development shouldn't be deny because the City hasn't gotten around to improving this area when there was a problem all along. He noted that they will all pay for the improvements here whether it is through the 1 cent sales tax or impact fees. He commented that it looks like the neighbors would like to have a moratorium on apartments for this neighborhood; if so they need a moratorium on apartments in the whole City. If they are going to wait until the New Plan is adopted, there should be a moratorium on all development. He noted that if they closed either one of the accesses, he doesn't think the Fire Chief or the other emergency services would go for it. He advised that they have talked to Don Nelms who owns the one acre in the northwest corner of this property about extending a drive straight through to Drake St from Appleby Road on the west side of this property for the cut -through traffic. He advised that most of the streets in Fayetteville have been developed and improved by developers. Mr. Burckhart has agreed to improve the entire frontage of the property that he has an option to purchase. Steve Gaston of 464 Margaret Place stated that the Wal-Mart shopping center is lower than the highway and in the winter Appleby Road is very slick and ice - covered. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning • • • Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 6 Commission. Commissioner Nash asked John Merrell if they had found out if there were any Bill of Assurances from developers in the past and that if not she would like that to be pursued whether this is approved or not. Commissioner Robertson stated that the speeding seems to be the problem in this neighborhood so why could they not put speed breakers along Village Drive to slow some of that down. John Merrell stated that he can't give them a definite answer but he didn't think that they could be put on public streets. Connie Freeman of Village Drive stated that Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, had told them that because of insurance purposes, they weren't allowed to put speed bumps on public streets. She noted that they had asked to have them put in and the neighbors even offered to pay for it. Chairman Jacks stated that they have faced this issue of traffic versus development and most cities seem to operate retroactively along that line with development creating traffic. Commissioner Nash stated that she is glad to see that they are planning to put a traffic signal at that intersection because it would alleviate a big part of the problem there. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he feels that a traffic problem already exists here and solving it at this point would not necessarily be taking care of something that isn't already there. • MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to remove this from the table, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Jacks advised that the issue before them is how it is being done, a Large Scale Development and they do have the right to turn down a Large Scale Development based on traffic if the development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition which is a judgement call on their part. Commissioner Springborn stated that they have an opinion from two experts a) Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, and b) Dr. Alguire who have both stated their opinion here that the proposed project would have little impact on the Appleby Road traffic. He noted that the Quail Creek Subdivision in this area hadn't been brought up and according to Dr. Alguire the single-family dwellings would have more impact on traffic. Commissioner Allred stated that in the past they have tried to screen R-1 zones from Commercial with R-2. In this case, there may be an intrusion of single- family homes into apartment zoned properties which is the reverse of what they have tried to do in the past as proper zoning. He advised that there is very little R-1 zoned property in this area and it is unfortunate that they have this situation. He noted that there is no easy outcome no matter what decision is made. Colmissioner Klingaman stated that the zoning is something that they will have to • Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 7 live with, the problem is really whether or not there is a problem with the traffic and whether this will compound an already existing problem. He noted that he feels this is a case where they should go ahead and wait until some improvements have been finished. Therefore, they would be correcting existing problems rather than creating new problems on top of what they already have. MOTION Commissioner Robertson stated that in view of Perry Franklin's report and the fact that the Planning Commission is here to decide on how this Large Scale Development is done, he moved to approve this Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review comments and his improving Appleby Road along the frontage of his property (600') with a very strong recommendation that the extension of Drake Street be given top priority, seconded by Nash. Commissioner Dow stated that she is concerned with this because there is no stipulation about Appleby Road being approved by the time this is completed. She asked Mr. Merrell if he knew the time frame on that. Mr. Merrell answered that the contract has been let but construction will probably not begin until well in to next year. The motion passed 5-4-0 with Robertson, Allred, Springborn, Jacks, & Nash voting "yes" and Dow, Klingaman, Seiff & Hanna voting "no". PUBLIC HRAARttNG-REZONING R88-19 JIM HATFIELD -W OF LEE AVE & E OF N COLLEGE The ninth item of consideration on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning R88- 19 submitted by Jim Hatfield for a portion of Lot 1,Lots 2 & 3 of Maple Crest Addition along the west side of Lee Avenue containing approximately .81 acres. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Chairman Jacks advised that this item had been tabled at the last meeting. He noted that they have had since that time a drawing that shows that piece of property and a note from Mr. Merrell indicating that it is being used as a shortcut by motorists traveling between Lee Avenue and Consumer's parking lot. Also, sometimes even the City has maintained it although they were never willing to legitimize it and it is technically on private property. He asked John Merrell if the connection that he refers to in his report is to the parking lot. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, it would dead-end right into the parking lot. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to remove this from the table, Klingaman. The motion to remove from the table passed 9-0-0. Jim Hatfield of 2790 Golden Eagle Drive stated that there were some the last meeting that the Planning Commission wanted answered. Commissioner seconded by questions at Allred noted that one of the question was the issue of the q • Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 8 restrictive covenants and it looks like this memo from John Merrell that is attached to the agenda has addressed that with the comment that Jim McCord, the City Attorney has stated that the City is under no legal obligation to deny the rezoning request because of the restrictive covenant. Chairman Jacks is proposing is not necessarily aware of the o making it into lot. advised that apparently what Mr. Merrell, the Planning Director, legitimizing that street. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff is recommending that, they are just making the Planning Commission ptions. Chairman Jacks clarified that they were talking about a City street which would dead-end into the Consumer's parking Commissioner Seiff stated that would take away most of Lot 1. Mr. Hatfield noted that his proposal was to give up a portion of the corner of that property in order to make it more accessible for the neighbors to use the Lee Street extension into Consumer's. Commissioner Nash asked what Jim McCord, the City Attorney, had said about them being able to require a site plan for rezoning petitions. Mr. Merrell stated that apparently under Arkansas law, they can not require an indepth detailed site plan. He advised that this is something they want to get a closer look at when they review the new zoning ordinance next year as to whether in some cases, they can require a sketch plan of sorts or at least encourage one. MOTION • Commissioner Nash moved to grant the rezoning as requested. The motion died for the lack of a second. • Commissioner Hanna asked how they can go about getting the street done the way that Mr. Hatfield has proposed and Mr. Merrell has suggested they do. He advised that it is a good idea, but how do they go about assuring that it be done. Mr. Merrell stated that his understanding of the State Statute is that the Commission can recommend a rezoning and they have the option of recommending also to the Board that Mr. Hatfield sign a Bill of Assurance that he would dedicate the right-of-way to provide that street connection. He noted that as to whether they can require Mr. Hatfield to pave or improve the street, he doesn't know. Mr. Hatfield asked if it is not the normal course that all the owners of property that faces on the street participate in the improvement of the street. Chairman Jacks advised that is commonly what is done even though the ordinance doesn't necessarily read that way. Mr. Hatfield advised that his original intent was to be able to negotiate with the shopping center by giving a portion of the land of Lot 1 to make it much more accessible in exchange with the owners of the shopping center to give him access and regress to face a building toward the shopping center (toward the North). Commissioner Allred asked what would happen if they grant this rezoning and the shopping center doesn't go along with this proposal. In that case, they have rezoned some property without good ingress/egress. Mr. Hatfield noted that the shopping center has everything to gain and nothing to lose by going along with it and he probably wouldn't build anything there until he could negotiate with the shopping center because it would be difficult to get a tenant on a piece of property on Lee Street if it wasn't accessed to the North. • • • Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 9 Mr. Hatfield stated that the same circumstance exists over on Fiesta Square next to Food -For -Less behind the Dairy Queen. He advised that in order for him to use the property effectively, he has to negotiate with the shopping center owners. Commissioner Hanna stated that the situation in Fiesta Square was the property over behind McNaughton Realty that Fiesta Square people would not let the owners of that property have access onto the parking lot. Therefore, effectively the only way they had to get through from College was through the parking lot of that little restaurant there and they had to show an easement right through a parking lot where cars were already parking and spaces were lined up. He stated that this same thing could happen here if Consumers decided not to go along with this. Commissioner Dow stated that she is concerned because this is initially R-1 property and they do know that their are some protective covenants and they are knowingly violating them. She noted that she can't help but think about the two lots on Lee Avenue (Lot 27 & 8) because this is an R-1 area and the traffic will be increased along that street. Commissioner Robertson stated that in his opinion there are too many "ifs" left unsolved. He advised that rather than turn it down where they couldn't redo this shortly when all the details have been worked out, it might be best for him to withdraw his request and represent it again when everything is resolved. He noted that one big "if" would be if the building was fronted to the North, what is to keep the shopping center from building a curb across there parking lot entrance. Mr. Hatfield stated that there is already a curb there. He noted that the entrance access could be from Lee Avenue. Commissioner Robertson stated that he thought they would both agree that Lee Avenue is not going to be the main entrance into a commercial building that fronts on Consumer's parking lot. Chairman Jacks stated that another "if" is the position the City would take as far as a street being there which they haven't really had an expression on yet. Commissioner Hanna stated that the staff has recommended R-0 zoning and that hasn't even been discussed yet. Mr. Hatfield stated that R-0 is not compatible with the plans of their prospective tenant that they are negotiating with. He advised that they need the C-2 zoning. Commissioner Springborn stated that referring to the report from Mr. Merrell, the existing traffic on there is just using a 5' easement and that by any stretch of the imagination doesn't stretch into a City street. Chairman Jacks stated that there would have to be land given off of this property to make a street there. He agreed that there were a lot of negotiations that need to be done there. Mr. Hatfield asked if they could give him a list of the "ifs" to be worked out and then table this again until he can work them out. Commissioner Seiff stated that the most outstanding problem is that there is not even a City street there even though everyone assumes that it is a City street. He advised that the City needs to officially tell him that is a City Street and not a 5' easement. Another concern is the Day Care Center across the street which has a parking area right there and the entrance into their playground is right there. Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 10 Mr. Hatfield stated that according to the plat, a 40' street is shown there. • Chairman Jacks noted that it is not shown on the City's system however. MOTION Robertson moved to table this item, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Nash commented that they are asking the same questions this night that they asked two weeks ago. She stated that she doesn't know how to go about it, but they need some resolution so they can vote on this or else send it to the Board with no recommendation. Commissioner Hanna stated that besides seeing if it is possible to open that street into the Consumer's parking lot, Mr. Hatfield needs to have an agreement with Consumer's that he could access off your property on to the Consumer's parking lot. Mr. Hatfield stated that he plans before any construction is done there, that the street would have to be improved whether he pays 100% of it or whether the other property owners participate in it on a percentage basis. John Merrell clarified that the staff's position is that they have a right-of-way which is 50' and narrowing to 40' in width going to the north property line which is the Consumer's parking lot. However, what they have tried to point out in the report is that evidently for many years people have used a shortcut which cuts across private property (a portion of Lot 1 and a 5' easement on the northern edge of the property). He advised that the City has spread some gravel and made some improvements in this area. Commissioner Seiff stated that he thinks Commissioner Nash had a valid point that if they are going to table it, they need some answers. The motion to table passed 9-0-0. Commissioner Klingaman stated that if he shopping center, the parking is something Hatfield stated that their parking would be can't work out the agreement with the that needs to be addressed. Mr. provided on-site. Mr. Hatfield asked for a list of the questions that they want answered. Chairman Jacks asked the Planning Secretary to mail Mr. Hatfield a copy of the Minutes of this meeting and the last meeting. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SPEE-DEE MART HOYET GREENWOOD - NW CORNER OF HWY 16 W AND RUPPLE ROAD The third item of consideration for a Spee -Dee Mart submitted by Northwest Engineers. Property Neighborhood Commercial. on the agenda was a Hoyet Greenwood and containing 3 acres Large Scale Development Plan represented by Harry Gray of more or less and zoned C-1, Chairman Jacks stated that this came before the Planning Commission in 1985 and they found no fault with the Large Scale Development as such except the drainage was a big issue out in that area and was under study. qa Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 11 Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers advised that it was his understanding that this plan was basically approved by the Planning Commission in 1985 subject to the drainage problem at the intersection of Wedington and Rupple Road being worked out. Chairman Jacks asked if they had presented this for approval from the City Engineer, Don Bunn. Mr. Gray answered, yes. John Merrell, City Planning Director, added that Don Bunn is familiar with the drainage improvements and has no problem with it. Mr. Gray noted that it has taken 3 years to get it all worked out with the Highway Department and the City staff as well as getting the financing worked out. He advised that the contract has been let and construction has been started on the ditch that has to be constructed before the pipe can be put under Wedington Drive. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to approve this Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review minutes that go back to the beginning of this project and the approval of the drainage plans by the City Engineer, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0 with no vote from Nash who left the meeting before this motion was made. OTHER BUSINESS Di cu. SSJ-oW 0 (J c«1oN LIR E.' t \CLUE Fi\VTLV E IL -L NCS Commissioner Dow stated that she is concerned with a lot of the points that were made tonight about the traffic problems over on Appleby Road. She asked the Planning Commission how they would feel about a moratorium on further multi- family building until the comprehensive zoning plan is.back to them. She noted that it would give them as City planners a real plan. Commissioner Hanna asked if it would apply to the North Hills Medical Complex that was recently approved. Commissioner Dow answered, no, because that is already approved. She advised that they can't make it retroactive. Commissioner Allred stated that they do have an over building situation, however, he doesn't feel that the City has the right to put a moratorium on building because that is free enterprise. He noted that it is their job to plan that, but it is not their job to say who can or cannot build or where they can or cannot build. Commissioner Dow stated that what they would be doing would be acknowledging that there is a big problem in that area and that they have professionals that are looking at it and they would like more input before the approve any more development there. Chairman Jacks stated that there is a lot of case study about this; it is not a new concept. He noted that in some cases a moratorium has been upheld and in some cases they haven't depending on the circumstances. He advised that it would be a recommendation to the City Board. Commissioner Hanna stated that they didn't bring all this up when the Appleby Apartments came through, the North Hills Medical Complex was discussed or when Quail Creek Subdivision was put in. He noted that if they make it a multi -family moratorium, it should be on any large scale development out there, not just q3 • • • Planning Commission October 10, 1988 Page 12 multi -family because there is going to be a whole lot more traffic because of that medical complex than there is with a 160 unit apartment complex. Therefore, if it is considered, they should consider all large scale development. Commissioner Springborn stated that he has sympathy with their concerns about the safety out there, but he finds it hard to overlook the fact that the safety aspect out there apparently is the consequence of lack of enforcement of traffic control and laws. He commented that the speeding is the problem there rather than the traffic density and he doesn't think they should take a step like this against development to cure a speeding problem. Commissioner Robertson stated that he still thinks that speed bumps would do a world of good of slowing the traffic down in there in that particular area. He noted that insurance costs would be a consideration, but traffic bumps are a great deterrent to speeders. Commissioner Springborn advised that he had the occasion to thoroughly investigate speed bumps and the liability associated with them has virtually caused their demise. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to recommend a moratorium on any future large scale development in the area which includes property east of Gregg, west of College Avenue, south of the Highway 71 Bypass and north of Drake Street until they have the results of the comprehensive plan by Al Raby for future City planning, seconded by Springborn. Commissioner Dow stated that this would apply to anything that comes in excluding the developments they have already approved. John Merrell asked if Commissioner Dow was talking about the comprehensive plan itself, not the new zoning ordinance that they hope to initiate next year. Commissioner Dow stated that she is talking about Al Raby's comprehensive plan. Commissioner Hanna asked if they are aware that this area includes the North Hills Medical Complex. Commissioner Dow stated that they had approved that. Chairman Jacks stated that they have approved a concept plat there so it should not be included. The motion failed 6-2-0 with Robertson, Allred, Jacks, Klingaman, Seiff & Hanna voting "no" and Dow & Springborn voting "yes". MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of September 26, 1988, were approved as distributed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.