HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-22 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 22,
1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, J. E. Springborn, Jett Cato,
and Jerry Allred
Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, Kenneth Pummill, and Joe Tarvin
Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 1992 were
approved as distributed.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-21
DR. CARMELLA MONTEZ - S OF OLD WIRE, W OF OAK BAILEY
The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R92-21 on property
located on the south side of Old Wire Road, west of Oak Bailey (just west of 2850
Old Wire Road), presented by Curtis Wray on behalf of Dr. Carmella Montez. The
request is to rezone that portion of the 7.32 acres that is A-1, Agricultural,
to R-1, Low Density Residential.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained that a rezoning
request require five affirmative votes in order to pass. She noted that since
there were only five Commissioners present, in order for this rezoning to pass,
it would take a unanimous vote.
The petitioner requested the matter be tabled until the end of the meeting.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to table the request, putting it at the end of the agenda.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE CU92-14 - HOME OCCUPATION, COUNSELING
ROSE ANNA PRESLEY - 1439 W CLEVELAND
The next item was a request for a conditional use for a home occupation
(counseling) by Rose Anna Presely at 1439 W. Cleveland. The property is zoned
R-1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little explained a conditional use also would require five affirmative votes
in order to pass. She asked the petitioner if she wished to have the item
tabled.
Ms. Presley stated she preferred to go ahead and have the item heard at the
present time.
I oz
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 2
Ms. Little explained the subject property consisted of a primary dwelling with
a detached garage. She stated the garage had been renovated in the past and a
single apartment had been installed within the garage. She further stated the
apartment was currently vacant and the request would turn the unit into a
counseling office. She explained Ms. Presley proposed to extend the current
drive up to the face of the garage. She pointed out that, by ordinance, "no
exterior alterations of the structure may be made which are of a nonresidential
nature", but extension of the drive up to the garage would not be considered to
be contrary to this provision of the regulations.
Me. Little stated that, with the extension of the drive, there would be access
and parking adequate to meet the requirements of Section 160.085 which requires
that "no parking spaces other than normal residential parking spaces shall be
permitted", and "no home occupation shall be allowed in an R-1 District if the
Planning Commission determines that the home occupation would generate excessive
traffic".
Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested conditional use.
Ms. Presley stated she was present to answer any questions they might have.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to approve the conditional use.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NEWSOME APARTMENTS
BO NEWSOME - SW CORNER OF DOROTHY JEANNE & SHILOH
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for Newsome
Apartments to be located at the southwest corner of Dorothy Jeanne and Shiloh,
presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Bo Newsome. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential, and contains 5.01 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained the development would consist of six apartment buildings
containing 72 units on 5 acres. He noted there had been no significant comments
from any of the utility representatives at the Plat Review Meeting. He further
noted there had been some concerns raised about the increase in traffic that
would be caused by the subject development (particularly at the intersection of
Wedington and Shiloh Drive). He stated Northwest Engineers had noted there
probably would be a connection to the west by the end of the summer.
He explained the discussion at the Subdivision Committee Meeting had centered
around the issue of increased traffic due to the proposed development. He stated
there had been a number of area residents in attendance who had expressed their
concern about the development in general and the traffic situation in particular.
Mr. Bunn noted the Traffic Superintendent had written a letter regarding the
situation, stating the Highway Department was looking at the intersection of
Shiloh Drive and Wedington to determine if a traffic signal was warranted. He
explained in the letter that it was not simply a matter of placing traffic lights
at the intersection but that the geometrics of the intersection would also have
to be altered. Mr. Bunn explained the off ramps coming from the highway would
have to be moved and tie into Shiloh rather than where they tie in at the present
time. He noted Mr. Franklin suggested pursuing the installation of a traffic
signal at Salem Road and Highway 16. Mr. Bunn further explained that, while
Giles Addition did not presently tie in to Salem Road, there was a development
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 3
(Woodfield Addition) underway which would tie Giles to Salem Road. He pointed
out that would give another point of access to Giles Addition and the apartment
complex. He also noted studies of this nature by the Highway Department
generally took several months to complete.
Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the Large
Scale Development to the Planning Commission noting the existing zoning which
allowed the development.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the Large Scale Development subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan and
detailed plans for water, sewer, and drainage; payment of parks fees; and
construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances.
Ms. Little added she had been contacted by City Board member Julie Nash to
express concerns from her constituents regarding traffic and an understanding
there was a 150 -foot buffer between the Wilson Inn and the Giles Addition. Ms.
Little explained that apparently the residents of Giles Addition had
misunderstood the buffer area. She further explained that at the time the
property for Wilson Inn had been rezoned to C-2 the land between the motel and
Giles Addition remained as R-2 zoning as a buffer between the R-1 Giles Addition
and the C-2 motel. She stated the property was not intended to be left as green
space.
Mr. Allred stated the Subdivision Committee had met regarding the large scale
development and the traffic concerns had been discussed. He explained he had
requested that Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, address the matter and
inform the Commission what the city was doing in an attempt to resolve the
situation. He noted the Subdivision Committee did approve the large scale
development subject to staff comments.
Mr. Cleghorn noted it took a simple majority of Commissioners present in order
to approve the large scale. He asked Mr. Gray if he wanted to have the matter
heard at this meeting or table this item.
Mr. Gray stated they preferred to go ahead and have it heard at this meeting.
He noted Mr. Newsome was present to answer their questions. He also called their
attention to a letter which was contained in their agenda packet wherein he noted
there were traffic concerns. He expressed his belief that the city and residents
were at the mercy of the State Highway Department. He noted the Highway
Department had a staff of several hundred engineers that were working on the
problem and would continue to work on it. He also pointed out Mr. Newsome had
offered to pay a fair share of any costs associated with intersection
improvements.
Mr. Gray also pointed out that Phase III of Woodfield Addition would be completed
in 3 or 4 months, providing a tie-in street to Giles Addition.
Ms. Little stated the proposed density of the apartment complex would be
approximately 14.5 units per acre. She noted they could have density of up to
24 units per acre.
Ms. Little also stated she had looked at the area and believed a traffic signal
would be too close to the bridge for adequate sight distance. She expressed her
opinion that Salem Road and Wedington would be a better location for a stop
light. She noted the Traffic Superintendent agreed with her opinion.
She also stated she had reviewed the Wilson Inn zoning file and one of the
requests made by the residents of Giles Addition had been a connecting street to
the west.
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 4
Mr. Gray also pointed out Mr. Newsome had a landscape plan which he had presented
to the City. He also noted they had attempted to position the buildings as far
south as possible and provide parking between the apartments and the residential
area. He expressed his opinion that Mr. Newsome had done his part and was
offering to assist in the cost of signalization.
Ma. Britton stated Julie Nash had been on the Planning Commission at the time the
Wilson Inn rezoning had been heard and recalled that, even though it was not in
the minutes, there had been a promise made that there would be no further
additions in the subject area until there was another street connection.
Mr. Allred expressed his opinion that should such a promise have been made it
would have been reflected in the minutes. He further stated they could not
address that issue because it was not in the minutes.
Ms. Britton agreed it was not binding on this issue. She stated she could see
the frustration of the property owners.
Mr. Allred stated he too had been on the Commission at that time and took
exception to Ms. Nash's statement; that it had not been discussed at length and
it had not been discussed in those terms. He recalled there was to be a buffer
zone left (which was not C-2 property). He further stated that everything
promised had been carried out. He explained the city could not make any promises
without having it in writing to be enforceable.
Mr. Springborn supported Ms. Britton's comments He recalled Commission Fred
Hanna had made a point about the problem that existed in the area. He stated he
did not recall why it had not gotten in the minutes and expressed surprise that
it had not.
Ms. Little read an excerpt from the pertinent minutes: "The fourth item of
consideration on the agenda was approval of a large scale development plan for
Wilson Inn submitted by Kemmons Wilson Companies and represented by Ery Wimberly
of Northwest Engineers. Property located along the west side of Shiloh Drive,
north of Highway 16 West (Wedington) and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, with
3.2 acres.
"Commissioner Dow stated that the Subdivision Committee approved it as submitted
subject to Plat Review minutes with no recommendation on what to do about the
widening of Shiloh because it was unclear as to whether it was a City or a State
street which was to be researched. Chairman Jacks stated then if it is a City
street they could require off-site improvements. John Merrell advised that it
is a State road and stated maintained.
"Charlotte Smith of 104 Dorothy Jeane asked if there would be another exit out
of this area because it is hard to get out on Wedington Drive and this will just
complicate matters. She also asked if there will be a buffer between Dorothy
Jeane and this hotel.
"Ery Wimberly stated that there is a buffer which is 500' of R-2 land between
this and Dorothy Jeane. As far as another access out, the original owner of this
property, Mr. Bowen, bought additional property to the west before the bypass was
widened to have more access to Highway 16. Then the state made the Bypass a 4 -
lane and bought additional right-of-way so he has no more frontage on Highway 16.
Prior to that he had 150' of frontage on Highway 16. Therefore, at this point
in time there is no provision for any other access. As development occurs this
will be extending on to the north and tying into the West Point Subdivision.
10S
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 5
"Mrs. Smith stated that the people in the neighborhood had understood when this
was rezoned to Thoroughfare Commercial that was one stipulation that it have
another access.
"Commissioner Dow asked when this was rezoned. Mr. Wimberly stated that they
actually tried to dig out the exact ordinance and had no luck. At this point
they have no way of providing another access.
"Mrs. Smith stated that where Dorothy Jeane turns into Florene, there is a road
right-of-way or street that has been set aside and it could go west over to that
new addition. Mr. Wimberly stated that she is talking about Walnut Grove and
there is a quarter of mile of land in between with a street right-of-way stuck
out of Walnut Grove. Mrs. Smith stated that it is really difficult to get out
onto Wedington Drive there because you have traffic coming from several different
directions.
"Commissioner Nash stated that when this was rezoned if there was a Bill of
Assurance dictating egress/ingress it would go with the land. She noted that
this needs to be researched to find out if there was something like this.
"Mr. Wimberly stated that when the Highway Department redid the entrance to Giles
Road (Shiloh Drive) which was rebuilt twice, they bought additional right-of-way
and moved the intersection the West. Originally,t he intersection was farther
East, so Mr. Bowen bought 150' of additional property so he would have frontage
for another access. After the rezoning, is when the State came back and bought
more right-of-way and moved the frontage road farther west.
"Chairman Jacks stated that originally they were guaranteeing another access into
Highway 16, but in the meantime, the Highway Department has taken the land.
"Commissioner Nash stated that if the land has a Bill of Assurance on it, they
need to know that before they make a decision.
"Mr. Wimberly suggested that they approve this subject to any Bill of Assurance
that might have been signed on that time.
"Commissioner Hanna stated that there is a bad traffic problem there at that
intersection. He stated that this hotel could cause the traffic to be a lot
worst. He noted that he was surprised that the Traffic Superintendent wasn't at
the meeting to look at this. He advised that there is a piece of C-2 property
to the West of this that if it were developed with it there could be another
street coming out down there to give them a second exit on Highway 16 West.
"Commissioner Dow stated that he was concerned about the traffic, but at the
Subdivision Committee she was thinking about the Master Plan where is it
recommended that these major type of developments be put at the major nodes such
as this intersection. Her concern was that if they couldn't put it there, where
could they put it.
"Mr. Wimberly stated that he didn't think it was fair to deny the use of this
property until the Highway Department comes in there and make improvements and
puts a traffic light at that intersection.
"Commissioner Robertson moved to approve this Large Scale Development subject to
Plat Review comments, with a very strong recommendation that the Traffic
Superintendent review the congestion problem out there and that this be
researched to see if there are any Bills of Assurance attached to this land,
seconded by Nash."
Me. Little stated there were no Bills of Assurance.
166
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 6
In response to a question from Me. Britton, Me. Little stated the large scale
development went to Plat Review September 15, 1988, Subdivision Committee on
September 21, 1988, and Planning Commission on September 26, 1988.
Mr. Cleghorn asked if the traffic signal was a "chicken or the egg" question --
if there would have to be a wreck before installation of a signal or a large
traffic count.
Mr. Bunn explained the Highway Department waited until the warrants were met
before the installation of a signal. He advised they would not place a traffic
signal based on anticipated traffic conditions.
Mr. Springborn expressed concern regarding a statement in Perry Franklin's letter
"We are going to make some counts and accident studies before we made our request
to the AHTD." He advised that sounded as though there was a policy of "giving
every dog the right to the first bite" before action was taken. He further noted
that, on the other side of the coin, should they hold up on development pending
action by the State Highway Department, that would give the Highway Department
an excuse to never do anything.
Ms. Britton asked how many fatalities there would have to be before the Highway
Department would pay attention. She explained that at Subdivision Meeting she
had looked at the large scale development and did not see anything wrong with the
development. She further explained the traffic problem had come before them
numerous times. She reminded the Commission that a few weeks earlier they had
heard from an employee of the Farm Bureau regarding the heavy traffic.
Ms. Britton expressed her opinion that the Planning Commission was not planning
when an issue got to the present proportion. She further noted they had not been
planning but just reacting to problems after they existed. She stated this issue
needed to be studied. She further stated there were three alternatives: (1)
approve the large scale development; (2) put a moratorium on any further
development in the area; or (3) approve this and then put a moratorium on future
development in the area. She advised this issue needed to be addressed.
Ms. Britton also noted they needed through streets in the area which would handle
the traffic flow. She pointed out they had two giant cul-de-sacs -- Salem Road
and Shiloh Road. She stated the limit for a cul-de-sac was 500 feet but both of
these roads were 1,000's of feet in length.
Mr. Springborn suggested a fourth alternative -- giving the Traffic
Superintendent the opportunity to complete his work in this area before taking
action on the large scale development. He noted Mr. Franklin was the expert in
this field.
Mr. Gray stated Mr. Franklin was the city's expert but noted anything that was
done would have to be approved by the Highway Department. He pointed out Mr.
Franklin had informed them it took time for the Highway Department to process the
information. He agreed that signals were needed and believed they should
pressure the Highway Department. He also pointed out the Highway Department had
a staff of several hundred engineers who set the parameters for modification for
signalization. He stated the city was at the mercy of the Highway Department.
Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Gray. She explained the
permission before installing a traffic light if a
She also advised the Commission that the city
receiving permission from the state rather than the
She noted the cost of a signal was a minimum of
$45,000.
city had to have the state's
state highway was involved.
installed the signal after
state installing the signal.
$15,000 and could go up to
(07
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 7
Ms. Little also agreed with Me. Britton that both Salem and Shiloh needed to be
extended to the north. She stated the extension of Salem was already in the
Capital Improvements Plan and the Traffic Superintendent had agreed to take steps
to get the extension of Shiloh also in the C.I.P. She also noted that, should
the lawsuit on the sale tax money not be settled favorably, there would be no
funds to undertake either project. She advised the city generally looked to the
developers of the area to pay their fair share of the extension. She pointed out
that, as development occurred, they should be able to extend Salem using some
developer money.
Ms. Little also pointed out that, until the traffic count reached a certain
number the State would not give permission for a signal, no matter how many
accidents occurred at an intersection.
Mr. Springborn stated Ms. Little had made his point when she pointed out the
Highway Department would not give permission to put in a signal until the traffic
reached a certain number. He further stated he believed the State did include
the accident count. He pointed out the Commission did not know what the count
was nor the State's criteria. He stated he was encouraged by Mr. Franklin's
statement that the Highway Department had agreed to use studies by the City. He
pointed out that, if the studies were underway, the Commission was in a good
position to table this matter until they received a recommendation from the
Traffic Superintendent.
Mr. Gray pointed out that with Phase III of Woodfield Addition Anne Street would
be tied through to the Giles Addition by the end of summer. He noted this was
part of the planning process -- the Planning Commission had required this tie-in
when the Woodfield plat had been approved.
Ms. Britton stated that was not a solution to the problem. She pointed out the
residents of Woodfield would have the residents of 72 apartment units driving
through the area to get to Salem Road.
Mr. Gray pointed out that they did not own the remaining property in order to
have a through street.
Ms. Britton agreed that having Anne as a tie-in would alleviate part of the
problem but the real solution would be to extend Shiloh and Salem to the north
in order to meet the needs of the area.
Mr. Gray stated there were numerous streets in Fayetteville that needed to go
through but cities, counties and states did not have the money to build for the
future.
Ms. Britton asked how many lots had been approved in the last few months off of
Salem Road.
Mr. Gray stated it would be approximately 130 lots, including the one being
presented at this meeting.
Ms. Little pointed out most of the property was single-family development on
property zoned R-2.
Ms. Britton stated those residences had not been built yet but there was already
a traffic problem. She further stated when they knew there was a problem they
should not add to it.
Mr. Allred explained if they stopped development in that area they would never
get any relief for the residents because the traffic counts would never be large
enough to allow the city to install a traffic light.
(02
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June.22, 1992
Page 8
Ms. Britton stated he was looking at a traffic light as being the only solution.
Mr. Allred disagreed. He pointed out that, when development progressed to the
north, the developers would install the street at their expense, not the city's.
He expressed his belief that the problem would cure itself as development
progressed. He stated if they stopped development they would stagnate traffic
counts and there would be nothing alleviating the problem.
Ms. Britton suggested approving only developments which extended Shiloh or Salem
Road.
Mr. Allred stated that was not within their purview to choose which developments
they would approve.
Me. Britton stated that was why she suggested they study the issue further.
Mr. Don Hornsby, 104 Florene Street, stated the Commission appeared to be well
versed in the residents' concerns regarding access. He explained they had
apparently been confused regarding the buffer zone -- they had understood nothing
could be constructed within 150. feet of the south side of Dorothy Jeanne. He
further stated only one property owner in the entire area had been notified of
this meeting. He explained that seven residents were to have been notified but
only one received such notification.
Me. Little stated all adjacent property owners had been sent certified
notification. She presented post -marked receipts to BMP Development, Wilson Inn,
Dennis Egin, Faye Smith, Charles Smith Ruth Hollowell, and James George.
After discussion, it was determined the residents' addresses had changed so out
of 7 notifications, three had not been delivered.
Mr. Cleghorn asked if the requirement was just that notification be sent or if
the adjoining property owners had to receive the notice.
Ms. Little pointed out notice was also in the newspaper.
In response to a question from Mr. Cato regarding adjoining property owners being
unaware of the hearing, it was determined that all were aware of the hearing.
Mr. Hornsby also expressed concern that the driveway would access Dorothy Jeanne.
He suggested the driveways access Shiloh instead. He also stated a flashing
yellow light could be installed (similar to the ones by the Northwest Arkansas
Mall) on Highway 16 to warn approaching motorist that a traffic light was ahead.
He requested a moratorium on development in the area until some type of traffic
control or more access was provided.
Ms. Little pointed out emergency vehicles preferred two access points in this
type of development. She noted the residents were present to express concern
that they had only one access into their subdivision but they were requesting
that the apartment complex be limited to one access.
Ms. Britton reminded the residents that the subdivision committee had requested
one of the driveways onto Dorothy Jeanne be moved; she noted the developer had
done so.
Mr. Hornsby presented two petitions to the Commission -- one opposing the
development of the apartment complex and the second requesting some sort of
traffic control prior to further development of the area.
(oy
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 9
Mr. Allred pointed out that declaring a moratorium on development was a Board of
Directors action by ordinance. He stated the Planning Commission could not take
such an action because they did not have that authority.
Ms. Britton stated they could table this item until further study was done.
Mr. Cleghorn asked if a moratorium was declared, would that not mean the traffic
count would never get up to the point of requiring a signal.
Mr. Bunn stated that should a moratorium be declared the traffic count would
remain the same. He agreed this was a difficult situation.
Mr. Springborn asked if the State Highway Department ever used projections.
Mr. Bunn stated that, to his knowledge, they had never indicated to the City that
they would use projections.
Ms. Little explained the standards stated the traffic had to be in place before
they would interrupt the flow of traffic on their state highway to have a traffic
signal installed.
Mr. Springborn stated he would like to have advice directly from Perry Franklin.
He further stated it was his understanding there was an engineer for the Highway
Department in Springdale. He requested they ask the engineer to advise the
Commission.
Mr. Bunn stated the personnel in Springdale would not be concerned with this
situation. He further stated it might be possible to get a State Highway
engineer versed in traffic signals from Little Rock to attend a meeting.
Ms. Little read Section 4C-10(1)(8): "In exceptional cases, signals occasionally
may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied, but where Warrant 1 and
2 are satisfied to the extent of 80% or more."
Mr. Bunn stated that was what the city was asking the State to do -- install a
signal prior to the full conditions being met. He pointed out that would have
to be based on future development.
Ms. Little explained Mr. Franklin had noted that, with all the development in the
area, the city was getting close to meeting the warrants.
Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission that the entire geometry of the intersection
would have to be changed in order to put in a traffic signal.
Mr. Allred asked how rapidly a signal could be installed once the State allowed
the City to install a traffic signal.
Ms. Little and Mr. Bunn agreed installation of the signal occurred rapidly --
usually 2 weeks to a month. Mr. Bunn further pointed out it would take longer
at Highway 16 and Shiloh due to reconfiguration of the intersection. He noted
that the intersection of Salem and Highway 16 would be much faster to signalize.
He further stated that, while a signal at Salem would not solve all of the
problems, it would give the residents an option to go over to Salem to be assured
of a traffic signal.
Mr. Bruce Trammell, 122 Florene, appeared before the Commission and stated the
construction of the apartment complex would essentially change the nature of the
neighborhood. He pointed out the neighborhood consisted mainly of families with
young children and retired persons. He stated the building of an apartment would
bring in a number of college students, making it much louder.
110
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 10
Mr. Harold McCullah, 106 Florene, appeared before the Commission, and pointed out
that originally sycamore Street provided access to the north but the bypass had
closed that access. He explained the right-of-way was still there; he asked they
restore Sycamore Street.
Ms. Little explained that, as a direct result of the area residents' concerns,
extension of a northern access had been included in the C.Z.P.
Mr. McCullah expressed concern that someone would have to die at the subject
intersection before a signal was put in. He stated that whoever allowed that to
happen would be guilty of murder.
Ms. Little read a portion of Mr. Franklin's letter: "We are also considering
adding the extension of Shiloh Drive to the north to the 1993 CIP potential
projects list." She reminded the Commission that, should the sales tax lawsuit
not be settled favorably, the city would not have any money to build streets.
Mr. Bo Newsome, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and explained it
was his plan to build an attractive project in order to meet the growing needs
of the City of Fayetteville. He pointed out he had selected a site that was
zoned property, he had met all the criteria of a large scale development plan,
he had developed it half as densely as permitted. He stated he understood there
was a traffic problem and understood that he would be part of the problem and
part of the solution.
Mr. Newsome stated he did not believe a city should just stop growing and put
everything on hold. He stated he did not know what could be accomplished in a
week or two if the Commission tabled this matter but the effect would be the same
as a rejection for him. He stated his control of the land expired in 26 days and
he needed to start construction this summer.
Mr. Newsome stated the Commission did not need to worry about a lawsuit from him
should they reject the large scale development because he would just go to a
community where he could pick up a rule book, play by the rules, and be allowed
to play. He further stated they might have some problems from the owner of the
land, Kemmons Wilson, who would find his land valueless if it could not be
developed.
He stated he wanted to be a good neighbor and build an attractive project.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated it would cost
approximately $125,000 to connect Shiloh northward.
Mr. Cleghorn expressed his opinion that Mr. Newsome had the right to develop the
property -- it was properly zoned, the density was lower than required, etc. He
noted the traffic problem was already there. He also pointed out there was going
to be more development in that area even if Mr. Newsome did not develop, so the
area would continue to grow. He asked if the Planning Commission could refer
this problem to the Board of Directors. He pointed out some of the problems with
the rapid growth needed to be solved now.
Ms. Little advised the solution to the problem was to have better north -south
access. She stated the extension of Salem was already in the CIP and the traffic
engineer was investigating the need to put extension of Shiloh into the CIP. She
explained those would be the kinds of things the Board would take action on. She
stated she believed it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to send
to the Board of Directors a resolution expressing concern regarding growth in the
subject area and support both of those projects. She further stated that should
the city be unable to extend Salem or Shiloh then a moratorium could be
recommended to the Board of Directors.
111
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 11
Mr. Cleghorn stated they needed to follow the letter of the law. He questioned
the fact that the residents had not received proper notice.
Ms. Little stated she believed the law had been met because the law would always
go to procedure as to whether the engineer followed the procedure. She pointed
out Mr. Gray had followed the procedure.
Mr. Allred pointed out the ordinance directed mailing the notices by certified
mail, it did not address whether the notice was received.
Mr. Gray noted he had gotten the addresses from the courthouse; that the same
addresses were used to send out tax notification.
Mr. Springborn stated they did have an obligation to developers but he wanted to
call to their attention a simple statement from the Enabling Act of the federal
government to the cities that the Planning Commission had the obligation to see
to the health, safety and welfare of all of the residents within the city. He
expressed his opinion they could not overlook that in favor of development.
Mr. Allred expressed his opinion that this was a no-win situation. He pointed
out that, if they did not allow growth, they could not solve the problem. He
stated studying the situation would not lessen the traffic. He recommended they
approve the large scale development with the recommendation that, if the sales
tax lawsuit was determined in favor of the city, traffic control in the area be
a number one priority.
Mr. Springborn asked if it was possible they approve the large scale subject to
the Board taking such action.
Ms. Little explained the budget process would not be completed until January.
She stated they could approve the development with that stipulation however she
was not certain that would be wise.
Mr. Allred pointed out he was referring to the entire northwest area of town, not
just a traffic signal or extension of a street.
Mr. Cato stated he saw total validity to both sides. He asked Me. Little if she
was still in favor of the large scale development.
Me. Little stated she was. She pointed out Mr. Newsome was developing the
property with less density than was required. She agreed this development would
compound the problem but it also gave the potential for a solution to the
problem. She stated the development should allow the city to meet the State's
warrants for a traffic signal.
Mr. Cleghorn asked if either party could appeal the Planning Commission's
decision to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Bunn stated a member of the Board of Directors could appeal the decision.
Mr. Springborn stated he would like to have some factual advise from the city
traffic superintendent and, if possible, from the state. He stated he would like
to know how far the city was from the required traffic count and accident count
to meet the state's warrants. He noted he would also like to see the projections
as to when a light could be expected.
Mr. Bunn explained he was not sure the information requested by Mr. Springborn
could be developed in a short time frame. He pointed out the counts had not yet
been made.
��1
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 12
Mr. Springborn expressed concern about approving the large scale development
without hearing from the traffic experts.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments
together with a recommendation that the Planning Commission send to the Board of
Directors notice that traffic in this area had become a high priority and the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors should receive monthly updates on
action being taken to alleviate the problem.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
Ms. Little explained the developers or owners of any property
proposed large scale development, or any member of the Board of
appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Board
filing written notice of appeal with the Clerk within 10 days
such decision.
adjacent to the
Directors, could
of Directors by
from the date of
The motion carried with Commissioners Allred, Cato and Cleghorn voting "yes" and
Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no".
PRELIMINARY PLAT - WALNUT VIEW ESTATES
R -CON, INC. - SALEM RD. N OF WEDINGTON
The next item was request for approval of
Estates, presented by Harry Gray on behalf
on the east and west sides of Salem, north
R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains
a preliminary plat for Walnut View
of R -Con, Inc. for property located
of Wedington. The property is zoned
30 acres with 80 lots proposed
Mr. Bunn explained the plat indicated the development would take place in three
phases each containing 25 to 30 lots. He noted there had been no significant
comments at the plat review meeting. He stated several crossings had been
requested by the utility representatives and had been agreed to by the owner.
He stated the Fire Chief had suggested a change in one of the fire hydrant
locations. He also noted there had been some question of whether parks fees were
due on any of the property and the Parks Department was to do further research
on this matter.
He stated the subdivision committee had recommended approval of the preliminary
plat to the Planning Commission. He pointed out it had been noted that extension
of Salem Road to the north was becoming more important as more developments were
approved in the area.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading permit; approval of the
detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks
per city ordinance; and resolution of the parks fee issue (if parks fees are due,
they should be paid "up front").
There was discussion regarding requiring right-of-way dedications on some of the
roads in the subdivision. Ms. Britton recommended acquiring an easement to the
north of Salem Road, even though the area was not going to be developed at the
present.
Ms. Little explained that at some point there would have to be a jog in Salem
Road in order for it to meet at the north. She agreed that it would not hurt to
have right-of-way dedicated at this time.
r
h0 3
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page .13
Mr. Gray
east and
to allow
extended
pointed out they were dedicating right-of-way from Travis Lane, both
west for future development. He noted good planning was being exercised
for future extension of streets. He also pointed out that, if they
Dixie Lane to the east, it would run into Hamstring Creek.
Ma. Little stated it would be more reasonable to extend Dixie Lane to the west.
After discussion, it was determined that instead of extending Travis to the west,
it would be better to put in a 50 -foot right-of-way dedication between lots 28
and 29.
MOTION
Mr. Cato moved to approve the
right-of-way dedication in the
easement to the north of Salem
preliminary plat subject
vicinity of lots 28 or 29,
Road for extension of same
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
to staff comments, a
and dedication of an
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
DARYL RANTIS - NE CORNER OF ROCK & SCHOOL
The next item was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations - lot split
#1 requested by Daryl Rantis for property located at the northeast corner of Rock
and School. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office.
Mr. Bunn stated the original tract was 0.18 acres and the applicant was proposing
to split the property to create two lots of 0.09 acres each. He reminded the
Commission the applicant had requested rezoning of the subject tract from R -O to
C-3 earlier in the year. He explained the reason for the rezoning request had
been to allow for more reasonable setbacks for residential construction. He
stated the request had been tabled in order for the applicant to appeal to the
Board of Adjustment.
He further explained the applicant had obtained the necessary setback variances
from the Board of Adjustment and apparently had plans to construct a duplex on
the subject lot. He noted the lot split would allow the applicant to sell each
of the duplex units separately under the State's horizontal property regime act
(townhouses or condominiums).
Mr. Bunn stated it was a concern of the staff that the connecting trellis, which
allowed the structure to be termed a duplex, might not be sufficient for
"townhouses" and the subsequent zero lot line involved. He stated he was
concerned that the reality of the situation would be that two houses would be
constructed on undersized lots. He noted the trellis was not a substantial
structure and could easily be taken down at some point in the future.
Mr. Bunn recommended that the split be approved subject to a true townhouse being
constructed (commonwall construction) on the lots. An additional parks fee would
also be required.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained that should the
property be split, a townhome would have to be constructed in order to meet
minimum lot size.
Mr. Rantis presented a model of his proposal and explained the concept. He
explained that he did want the proposed houses to fall into the "affordable
` 4'
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 14
housing" category and had, therefore, found an unused, odd -sized lot at a lesser
price than a normal lot.
Mr. Rantis advised that the definition of a townhouse was two or more single
family dwelling units constructed in a series of attached units with property
lines separating each. He noted it did not specifically require a common wall.
He stated the common trellis was better than a wall not only because of fire
safety but also because of privacy and acoustical separation.
Mr. Allred asked if Mr. Rantis planned on assessing each housing unit dues,
setting up the properties and running them as a true condominium/townhouse
development.
Mr. Rantis explained that each owner would own a specific boundary.
Mr. Allred explained that a true condominium/townhouse unit was where each
housing unit was on a small lot with a common association that did all the
maintenance, exterior landscaping, etc. as covered under the bylaws of the
condominium development, with a Board of Directors. He pointed out it was quite
involved to have all of those documents drafted for a duplex.
Mr. Allred further noted if the association was not set up properly, two owners
could scrap the documentation, and have two sub -standard lots.
Ms. Little stated it could be approved subject to a legal opinion regarding a
condominium/townhouse development.
Mr. Allred pointed out that the property owners paid monthly dues for the upkeep
and payment of taxes on the common grounds (driveways, lawns, etc.). He
questioned whether it would be cost effective for just two units
Mr. Bunn explained staff's concern was not with Mr. Rantis' intent but what might
happen to that property in 5 or 10 years.
Mr. Springborn stated he believedthe request subverted the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Little explained that, should the lots be separated, it would not meet the
standard for a single home. She further explained minimum lot size for R -O
zoning was 6,000 square feet for single family homes.
Ms. Britton stated she believed this project was preferable to some of the larger
townhouse developments in town.
Mr. Allred agreed but expressed concern that the project would become two single
family houses.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Rantis explained there were
windows from the tall unit facing the lower unit but there were none on the lower
unit facing the taller unit.
Ms. Britton stated she believed it would be better if the trellis was on only one
property rather than both.
Ms. Little stated the Board of Adjustment had been very specific in granting the
waivers. She stated to have the trellis all on one property would require
another trip to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Rantis stated this was a pilot project and in the future hoped to see four
or five houses in a cluster in order to reclaim city lots.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 15
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to it being legally set up as
a townhouse unit.
Ms. Britton explained that in order to avoid having to go through establishing
the property as townhouses in the future, Mr. Rantis should have larger tracts
of property.
Mr. Springborn stated he believed approving the lot split would be setting a
dangerous precedent.
Mr. Allred pointed out the applicant had taken an unused lot and would start a
revitalization in that area of town.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried with Commissioners Britton, Allred, Cleghorn and Cato voting
"yes" and Commissioner Springborn voting "no".
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-21
DR. CARMELIA MONTEZ - S OF OLD WIRE, W OF OAK BAILEY
The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R92-21 on property
located on the south side of Old Wire Road, west of Oak Bailey (just west of 2850
Old Wire Road), presented by Curtis Wray on behalf of Dr. Carmella Montez. The
request is to rezone that portion of the 7.32 acres that is A-1, Agricultural,
to R-1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little stated the subject tract was under one ownership, but due to rezoning
actions by the City in past years, has two separate zoning classifications. She
stated staff had researched the anomaly of having a tract of land under one
ownership separated by two zoning districts and attributed the case to zoning
districts in place when the tract was annexed into the city.
Ms. Little explained the subject tract was planned for development as single-
family residences. She noted that, with the exception of the land adjoining the
tract to the south, all of the land is currently zoned R-1. She also pointed out
the surrounding area was fully developed with single-family residences. She
recommended approval of the requested rezoning.
Mr. Wray explained he had an offer to purchase the subject property based on
rezoning to R-1.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to grant the rezoning.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Visions Report
Mr. Cleghorn stated he had not received his packet containing the Visions Report.
He also noted there were four members absent from this meeting. He suggested
postponing the matter until the next meeting.
116
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 22, 1992
Page 16
•
In response to a question from Mr. Cato, staff noted the next agenda was getting
extremely large. It was determined the Visions Report would go on the last
meeting of July.
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.