Loading...
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.