City Attorney Fay said we are looking at taking out all of (1) A, B, C, & E, and substituting a new (1) (D) condition, to install a round-about as specified and approved by the City Engineer.
Mayor Tomlinson said we want to make sure that we have the right traffic calming device; that we have a device that works so well in one place, and that if we put it in another place, that we don’t have problems with it. Therefore, as you are looking into it, she is interested in round-about that empty out from parking lots. She said this would be very close to the overpass of J. R Allen Parkway and she don’t know how that would affect it, because it’s simply a bridge. She said but someday if there is an exit there, the round-about would have to be taken up. She said to her, it’s a little unusual.
After continued discussion on this subject, City Engineer Donna Newman,
Mr. Kirk, as well as Mr. Billings responded to questions of members of the Council.
Councilor Baker said he is not opposed to anything that he has heard, but said with the issues of the buffer and converting lanes to round-about and signals, that is a little much at one time; therefore, he would like for their engineers to get together with our engineers and work through some of these and provide an updated rendering or site plan back to the Council.
After more than an hour of discussion with members of the Council expressing their views regarding this matter, City Attorney Fay, said as to the amendment, asked Councilor Allen if he would be willing for it to state, allow and install a round-about or traffic signal as specified and approved by the City Engineer.
Councilor Allen said he is not opposed to doing that, as we have talked about that earlier. He said the discussions that he has had with the Engineering Department on more than one occasion; however, they can certainly speak for themselves, have lead him to believe that we prefer a round-about in that area. He said if you recall, there is a round-about down at Warm Spring and Blackmon Road, and said the topography is much worst there than it is at this location. He said this location is much more level than it is down on the other end.
He said he think that a round-about would work there, but said you need the professionals to look at the plans to make sure they are going to work. He said, why don’t we leave it like it is, and if we need to amend it, then we can. He said if they really feel like a traffic signal is required or needed over a round-about, then we can certainly amend it in two weeks. He said he don’t think that would be a material change.
City Attorney Fay said we would bring it back at the meeting on the 2nd Tuesday in October for second reading and said if we needed to amend it at that time, we could do that.
Councilor Allen then asked if the petitioners had a problem with that, to which Mr. Kirk said no, as they are commended to working with your engineer to find the best solution.
After the discussion of the Council concluded, the question was then called on Councilor Allen’s motion to amend the ordinance, as stated above, which carried unanimously by those eight members of Council present, with Councilors Huff and McDaniel being absent.
Several individuals came forward to express their opposition, as outlined below.
The following individuals then came forward and expressed their opposition to the proposed rezoning ordinance. Many of the individuals expressed concerns with regards to increased traffic and rezoning of this property to commercial, problem with criminal activity; reduction in property values.
Mr. Darryl Dees, 7051 Oper Drive (Stonybrook Subdivision) , Mr. Doug Ketch,
8205 Woodmart Drive, Mr. Marty Upshaw, 8006 Sonoma Point Drive, Mr. Robert Hutchinson, 6216 Bayonne Drive, Mr. Robert Lambert, 8460 Sonoma Drive, and Ms. Tabitha Kidd, 8035 Sonoma Point Drive.
Members of the Council expressed their further views regarding this proposed rezoning ordinance, after which the public hearing was then concluded after more than one hour and thirty minutes of discussion.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED AND EXPLAIND BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY AND ALSO INTRODUCED ON FIRST READING:
An Ordinance – Providing for the demolition of various structures located at: