Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/14/2006 - Planning Commission - Minutes - Regular APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 14, 2006 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 7:00 p.m., on June 14, 2006, there being present all the members of said Commission, to wit: Gardner W. Smith, Terrance D. Murphy, Jimmy W. Robertson, Vicki G. Daulton, and Bruce N. Thomasson; with Gardner W. Smith, Chairman, presiding; together with James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Development; Charles E. VanAllman, City Engineer; Charles B. Aldridge Sr., Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator; Mike Stater, Public Information Officer; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the minutes of the regular meeting and work session held on May 10, 2006, were approved as written – the roll call vote: all aye. In re: Request of Scott E. Snyder, contract purchaser, and John W. Thurman, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car sales lot on the property located at 2240 West Main Street (Tax Map #168-2-1.2) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time has been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Scott E. Snyder, contract purchaser, and John W. Thurman, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car sales lot on the property located at 2240 West Main Street (Tax Map #168-2-1.2); and 2 WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the June 1 and 8, 2006, issues of the Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed June 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the proposed site is approximately .419 acres and is situated east of Salem Industrial Drive on West Main Street; the property contains a 336-square-foot office building that is in disrepair; there also is a chain-link fence surrounding the property that, too, is in disrepair; the petitioner proposes to use the lot for the sale of used cars; the property is currently zoned HBD; a special exception is required to operate a used car sales lot in this zoning; in the past this property has been used for this purpose; the main issues with this property are the condition of the building and the size of the lot; the building and fence surrounding the property are in desperate need of repair; it appears that only a small number of inventory could be kept on this lot – 20 cars or fewer; and this car lot would be the only one in the area; and WHEREAS, George Barker of Barker Realty, representing the property owner, appeared before the Commission explaining the request to allow the property to be used for a used car sales lot; he explained that he and his son have had the property listed for the past several months, and during that time, the only serious inquiries they received were from people wanting to open a used car lot; and he further noted that this is evidence the market has determined the highest and best use of the property, which is for a used car sales lot; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that Staff in their report to the Commission had stated the property was in disrepair; he asked Mr. Barker what they planned to do about cleaning and shaping up the property; Mr. Barker noted that he thought perhaps Scott Snyder, contract purchaser, should address the question; and WHEREAS, Scott Snyder and Jerry Snyder of 2011 West Main Street, Salem, contract purchasers, appeared before the Commission in support of the request; Jerry Snyder noted that they are mainly 3 buying the property for investment purposes, and they will possibly put some of the cars that are traded in for motor homes for sale on this property; further, they realize the property needs a lot of work, and they plan to do what needs to be done to clean and fix up the property before utilizing it; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked the Snyders what type of business was their existing business, and Jerry Snyder noted that they own Snyder’s RVs; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton noted that the City is trying to make things look nicer along West Main Street, and so keeping this in mind, she asked Jerry Snyder if they were willing to do any landscaping to the property; he noted that he did not know how much landscaping could be done since the property is fenced all the way around, and he noted that perhaps they could put some shrubs on the inside of the fence; Commission Member Daulton asked if they were planning to leave the fence as it is, and Mr. Snyder noted that the fence either needs to be replaced or taken down; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted he would like the Building Official and Zoning Administrator to address what exactly needs to be done to the property before it can be occupied or are any of the repairs mandatory; Chuck Aldridge, Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator, noted that he did not think any of the repairs are mandatory; he further noted that he had spoken with George Barker about the possibility of cutting out some of the asphalt and placing a couple of trees, and he believes that the office building does need some work and he noted that he thought they had agreed it needed work; Jerry Snyder noted that the property was in bad shape and that the office either needs a good deal of repairs or needs to be rebuilt; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if the property had been used as a car lot previously, and Mr. Snyder noted it looks to him that it had been a car lot before, but he is not familiar with the property; and 4 WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Mr. Barker if he could stipulate in the sale of the property that landscaping would be required since this was something he had discussed with Mr. Aldridge; Mr. Barker noted that he had consulted with the property owner, John Thurman, to find out if he would plant a couple of trees, and he has agreed to do that; and WHEREAS, John W. Thurman of 9210 Hardy Road, Vinton, appeared before the Commission; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Mr. Thurman if he would agree to plant a few trees and shrubs on the property, and Mr. Thurman noted that there is a limited amount of landscaping that can be done, but he is willing to try to do what he can to make the property look respectable; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that one of the concerns the Commission has faced in the past has been the number of car dealerships on West Main Street, and yet, they have this request before them today, which will add another car dealership on West Main Street; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER ROBERTSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of Scott E. Snyder, contract purchaser, and John W. Thurman, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car sales lot on the property located at 2240 West Main Street (Tax Map #168-2-1.2) be approved – the roll call vote: all aye. 5 In re: Request of Heather N. Spangler, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 907 Tennessee Street (Tax Map #185-10-9) from HBD Highway Business District to RSF Residential Single Family District The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time has been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Heather N. Spangler, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 907 Tennessee Street (Tax Map #185-10-9) from HBD Highway Business District to RSF Residential Single Family District; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the June 1 and 8, 2006, issues of the Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed June 2, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff noted: the proposed lot with home is 50 feet by 150 feet and is currently zoned HBD; the owner wishes to rezone to RSF in order to refinance at a lower interest rate; because of the current zoning, the owner is unable to obtain proper insurance and must pay a higher rate for her mortgage; for example, if the house burns down she would not be able to rebuild it under the current zoning; the request before the Commission is a matter of bringing the zoning into compliance with the current land use; and this would remove an undue burden for the owner; and WHEREAS, Heather Spangler of 907 Tennessee Street, property owner, appeared before the Commission explaining the request to rezone from HBD Highway Business District to RSF Residential Single Family; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Ms. Spangler if she had already obtained financing on the residence, and she noted that she was able to find one bank that would finance the purchase; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; 6 ON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of Heather N. Spangler, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 907 Tennessee Street (Tax Map #185-10-9) from HBD Highway Business District to RSF Residential Single Family District be approved – the roll call vote: all aye. In re: Request of City of Salem, property owner, for rezoning an approximate 5.5-acre parcel located at 1101 Texas Street (P/O Tax Map #148-1-2) from RSF Residential Single Family District and BCD Business Commerce District to HBD Highway Business District with proffered condition The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time has been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of City of Salem, property owner, for rezoning an approximate 5.5-acre parcel located at 1101 Texas Street (P/O Tax Map #148-1-2) from RSF Residential Single Family District and BCD Business Commerce District to HBD Highway Business District with proffered condition; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the June 1 and 8, 2006, issues of the Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed June 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff noted: this parcel is an approximate 5.5-acres located to the east of OneBeacon Insurance; and the City wishes to rezone in order to develop the property; and WHEREAS, Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Economic Development, representing the City, appeared before the Commission explaining the request to rezone the 5.5-acre parcel from RSF Residential Single Family District and BCD Business Commerce District to HBD Highway Business District with proffered condition; she noted that the request is to bring the zoning into conformance with what the City is currently doing with the rest of the property; she further noted that this parcel is located east of OneBeacon Insurance on Texas Street; and 7 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Ms. Payne if the City had a potential buyer for the property, and she noted that there was a potential buyer for a portion of the property; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked Ms. Payne if she could also state the proffered condition for the request, and Ms. Payne noted the proffered condition is that the property will only be used for restaurants and office-use types, including financial institutions and general offices; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of City of Salem, property owner, for rezoning an approximate 5.5-acre parcel located at 1101 Texas Street (P/O Tax Map #148-1-2) from RSF Residential Single Family District and BCD Business Commerce District to HBD Highway Business District be approved with the following voluntarily-proffered condition: the uses of this property are restricted to restaurants and office-use types, including financial institutions and general offices – the roll call vote: all aye. In re: Request for final approval of a proposed subdivision plat filed by Thomas LTD, property owner, for four parcels located at the intersection of West Main Street and Maple Street (Tax Map #’s 123-3-1 & 2 and 124-9-5 & 6) The Executive Secretary reported the Commission has received a request for final approval of a proposed subdivision plat filed by Thomas LTD, property owner, for four parcels located at the intersection of West Main Street and Maple Street (Tax Map #’s 123- 3-1 & 2 and 124-9-5 & 6); and WHEREAS, the staff noted the following: the applicant wishes to subdivide these four parcels into 14 lots to be used for townhouses and alley ways to access parking in the rear; the plan as it is currently presented, proposes a number of ingress and 8 egress issues on and off of Main Street; there are no plans to widen Maple Street, and as it currently exists, no parking can be allowed on Maple Street for public safety reasons; due to the one- way alleys emptying onto Main Street, the city will maintain and enforce “Do Not Enter” signs on Main Street, on City right of way; additionally, the homeowners’ association agreement must include provisions for the maintenance of the alley ways and the private storm water management easements, and also for no parking on portions of Maple Street; and WHEREAS, Sean Horne of Balzer & Associates, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, representing the property owners, appeared before the Commission explaining the request; he noted that the proposed project is a 14-lot townhouse development to be located on Maple Street; he presented renderings of the development to the Commission; he noted that the buildings will be single story with very nice architecture and landscaping; he further noted that they designed the alleys to exit onto Main Street, after talking with City staff about the project in the beginning stages; they thought if there were three entrances in close proximity, this could potentially back up traffic in either or both directions while someone is waiting to turn across; rather, if the traffic were to exit onto Main Street, there would not be a problem with backing up traffic; further, the reason for the alley ways in the first place was to be able to pull the units up closer to the street, thereby, making it more of a pedestrian-friendly community and not have the front yards congested with cars and driveways; this does two things: 1) it makes the development look a lot more aesthetically pleasing for the community and for the residents, and 2) cars would not have to back into Maple Street; so what they have effectively done is to limit it to two access points; he further discussed the proposed development with regards to architecture and landscaping; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted he went to view the property and was headed west on Main Street and tried to make a left turn onto Maple Street; but, he was not able to make the turn because of the traffic headed east; Mr. Horne noted that this is 9 the exact reason they did not want to have three access points coming off of West Main Street because of the potential to back up traffic in three spots; if Maple Street is the only way to access the properties, then we would not have the problem with three access points coming into the development; he further noted that headed west there are two lanes of traffic so there is a way around without blocking the whole road to make a turn; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Horne if he could comment on the density of the development because it appears to him that they are using every bit of property that is available; he further asked if there was any consideration other than maximizing the density of the acreage; Mr. Horne noted that they are proposing 14 units on approximately 1.89 acres; Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Horne if he was saying that Main Street would not be accessible by the alley ways, and Mr. Horne noted that residents would only be able to exit onto Main Street; further, Mr. Horne noted that there is a potential for three blockage points out on West Main Street and that it makes a lot more sense to him that the traffic should exit onto Main; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton questioned Mr. Horne what was to keep the residents from Lot #1 and Lot #8 from pulling into the alleyway from Main Street, and Mr. Horne noted that this was discussed with staff early on, and there will be signage placed indicating this is an exit only, and it has been stressed to them as well as the developer that this will be heavily enforced; so he does not feel this will be a problem; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horne noted as far as the density is concerned they are proposing 14 units; there are two open areas that will be located at the ends of the development adjacent to West Calhoun Street; also, even though it looks like the density is used up, there is plenty of room that the units could be made bigger or deeper; he further noted they are trying to make the units more affordable so they have not utilized the whole area in order to keep the costs down; and 10 WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that he thought they planned to provide two parking spaces behind each unit, and Mr. Horne noted that this was correct; Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Horne if he could comment on any consideration being given to parking on Maple Street because he believes that this is an issue as well; Mr. Horne noted that this has been discussed with staff, and that they are going to limit the parking to one side of Maple Street only; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that he thought the parking spaces in the rear of the units were 10’ wide, and Mr. Horne noted that they are either 10’ or 12’ in width; and Mr. Horne further discussed the parking arraignments for the development; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked if the development would require a homeowners’ association agreement, and Mr. Horne noted that a homeowners’ association agreement will be required for both the maintenance of the storm water management and the private alleys; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if there had been any significant research done to determine the market for this type of product in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, Joe Thomas Sr., property owner, appeared before the Commission in support of the request; he noted that according to the real estate people they have talked to prior to starting this project, the market is tremendous for this type of construction; further, they are very, very encouraged by what the real estate professionals have told them; Commission Member Thomasson asked if those be interested in the units would be young professionals and/or retirees, and Mr. Thomas noted that both young professionals and retirees are interested in this type of unit; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked if the units would be similar to the units built on Chestnut Street some years ago, and Mr. Thomas noted that they would be similar; it was noted that the square footage of the units will be approximately 1,400-1,500 square feet; 11 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if the developer had considered any other options for the property besides this high-density proposal, and Mr. Horne noted that they are following the density allowed in the zoning ordinance so he does not consider it a request necessarily to make it a higher density; he noted that they are going for a certain target group and trying to keep the costs down, and along with this, you have to build a certain number of a certain kind to make the project work; further, they did not do anything special to try to squeeze extra units in and what they have tried to do is make it look less dense by pulling all the activity to the back of the units; so when traveling down the street, there will be sidewalks on either side and sidewalks across the front of the units and front yard; he feels that the proposed development will feel a lot less cluttered and a lot less dense then a lot of patio home developments because all the activities and all the density is to the back of the buildings rather that out in front on the street; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson questioned if he was correct in saying that fewer units would not be a financially- viable option for this piece of property, and Mr. Horne noted that this was correct; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted he remembered some landscaping shown on the site plan submitted to City staff; Mr. Horne noted that they have a pretty extensive landscape plan, which was submitted with the site plan; he noted that he spoke to Ms. Payne about the landscaping prior to submitting the plans, and he believes that everyone at the City was excited about the project, not only from the standpoint of the unit costs, but also the opportunity to have some nice buffering and landscaping around the project; it was stressed to them that it was a strong desire of the City to continue the beautification efforts and so they obviously want to contribute to this effort; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the proposed landscaping and storm water management; and 12 WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if there was curbing on both sides of Maple Street, and it was noted that there is only curbing on one side; further, it was noted the proposed development would add curbing and sidewalks to both sides of Maple Street; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horne presented the Commission an additional rendering showing yard areas, etc.; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if City staff was satisfied with the ingress/egress for emergency vehicles, and Chuck Aldridge, Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator, noted there has to be an unobstructed 20’ clearance for emergency vehicles; there was further discussion regarding the right of way of Maple Street and the proposed parking on one side of Maple Street; and it was noted that the Fire Department and Police Department were consulted in the site plan review process for this project; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the fact that the City will eventually be closing Calhoun Street at Fourth Street and that the Electric Department vehicles will be using Maple Street more to access the plant; WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked if there would be pavement marking to indicate the number of vehicles that could park on Maple Street; Mr. Horne noted that he felt sure there would be some signage placed, but generally at the intersections, you have to allow room for site distance so the parking spaces will mainly be in the front of the townhouse units; further, Mr. Horne noted the residents will have two off-street parking spaces in the rear so the parking in front should be guest parking for the most part; Vice Chairman Murphy noted he did not agree with Mr. Horne about the parking being mainly for guests because he feels the residents will end up parking there; Vice Chairman Murphy further questioned the landscaping and site distance with regards to ingress/egress; Mr. Horne noted that the landscaping on the Main Street side will 13 be mainly street trees except right at the intersection they may have some landscaped beds, but these will be set back from the right of way to provide sufficient distance to see around them; and WHEREAS, there was some discussion about the possibility of this development attracting Roanoke College students, and Mr. Horne noted that this development will not be marketed to college students; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the ingress/egress of the alley ways, and the Assistant City Manager & Executive Secretary noted that staff’s recommendation is that the one way direction should be toward Calhoun Street rather than toward Main Street for safety reasons; Mr. Horne noted that the developer is not opposed to the traffic turning into the development from Main Street; this was originally discussed with staff at an earlier stage, and the rational at that time was that it would be better to have the traffic exit onto Main Street; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that he believes considering the issues discussed at this meeting, there are some issues that still need clarification; he is concerned because the request is for final approval of the subdivision plat, and at this particular time, he does not feel that he can recommend approval; A MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, that the request for final approval of a proposed subdivision plat filed by Thomas LTD, property owner, for four parcels located at the intersection of West Main Street and Maple Street (Tax Map #’s 123-3-1 & 2 and 124- 9-5 & 6) be denied was not acted upon; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked the Assistant City Attorney if the Commission chooses to vote on this motion, could it come back for preliminary approval; and 14 WHEREAS, Assistant City Attorney Bill Maxwell asked if the motion was meant to deny the whole project as it is or is it meant to grant preliminary approval and then the developer bring it back for final approval; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that the request is for final approval, and he is not prepared to make that motion; the Assistant City Attorney asked the Vice Chairman if his motion was to vote down the project and bring it back from scratch, or to say the Commission is inclined to grant preliminary approval of this particular project; Vice Chairman Murphy stated that he is saying what the staff report suggested because the request is for final approval; Assistant City Attorney Bill Maxwell stated he understood that, but the Commission still had the authority to grant preliminary approval and then the developer can bring it back with the final changes; further, if the Commission votes it down, he believes we have to tell them everything they need to do to make it right because we are denying the project; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that he is very concerned with the new information brought forth with regards to the direction of the alley ways, and he is very concerned about public health, safety, and welfare regarding parking on Maple Street given the new evidence that the Electric Department will be using this road for access; further, he is concerned about the possibility of the development creating more congestion on Main Street; and WHEREAS, Chuck Aldridge, Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator, stated the City has the authority to decide whether or not we allow parking on Maple Street; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the proposed development with regards to parking and traffic flow, etc.; and 15 WHEREAS, Joe Thomas Jr. of 744 Carrollton Avenue, Salem, property owner, appeared before the Commission in support of the development; he noted with regards to the density, people have often said to him they would like to find something in Salem that is affordable; these people want to get out of their current homes and find something in the $200-250,000 range so they do not have to borrow money and have another mortgage; because this is a desirable piece of property, consequently, it does not come cheap so this is one of the reasons for the proposed density; however, the main goal with the project is to provide citizens with some affordable housing as opposed to the high prices of most residential properties; further, the reason for the alley ways and the whole concept was to try to make the development aesthetically pleasing and also to try to make it something special; the property is currently owned by Cabell Brand, who lives right up the hill from this location, and he wants the development to look nice as much as they want it to look nice; also, they want safety for the residents as well; if necessary, they are prepared to go to the expense of widening the street, if this will help ease some of the concerns about parking; however, we have to also keep in mind that everything they do pushes costs up just a little bit more; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that he knows Mr. Thomas’ company does good work, and he has no problem with that; but part of the Commission’s responsibility is to consider the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens, and he understands that there is already a problem at this location; and with that knowledge, any project, not just this one, will require the Commission to decide if it is a good idea; further, he noted that widening the road may be a good suggestion, and if the City staff is okay with that and it helps to improve the accessibility of emergency vehicles, then he thinks this is great; he further discussed the concerns about the alley ways, parking, density, safety, increased congestion, affordable housing, etc.; and WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas noted that if the street widening is an issue, then they are prepared to do this; and 16 WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked the Assistant City Attorney what is the process for them to request the preliminary approval, and Mr. Maxwell noted that he thought that came within the purview of the Commission since it is a lesser object compared to the final approval; Mr. Maxwell noted that by granting a preliminary approval they are putting their stamp on the concept, and then the developers can take it back and work out the concerns; and WHEREAS, Sean Horne of Balzer & Associates noted that even with the changes being proposed on the construction plans, the plat before the Commission will not change; all the changes being discussed are subdivision plan changes not subdivision plat changes; these are things that staff can require on the plans before granting approval; Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary Jay Taliaferro noted that the Commission approves the plans also with the staff’s recommendations; further, they approve the total package; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that he is willing to grant preliminary approval, if this is satisfactory with the petitioner and their agents; and WHEREAS, Assistant City Attorney Bill Maxwell noted that he thought it would be appropriate to give some guidance to staff and to the applicant what the concerns are so that they can be addressed; such as, how do we more effectively address the safety issues with regards to traffic in and out of the development, how do we more effectively deal with parking, etc.; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that he thought he needed to address the nature of the motion as he believes it would be unfair to assume that all the members of the Commission have the same level of issues or concerns; he noted there is a motion on the floor, and he asked Vice Chairman Murphy if he would like to address it from the standpoint of preliminary approval or leave it as it stands; and 17 WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding parking on Maple Street and ingress/egress off of Main Street; the Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary noted that generally on an existing street there will be a complaint about parking; when this happens, the Police Department, Street Department, and the Traffic Division of the Street Department will go out and assess at the situation; they make a recommendation to the City Manager’s Office, and the City Manager’s Office will decide whether or not parking will be allowed on the street or possibly parking on one side of the street; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted if the Commission denies the request, then they cannot bring the request back for a certain period of time, which will limit the developer; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the fact that the Commission can grant preliminary approval for this request at this meeting; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy rescinded the motion on the table; ON AMENDED MOTION, BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, AND DULY CARRIED, the request for preliminary approval of a proposed subdivision plat filed by Thomas LTD, property owner, for four parcels located at the intersection of West Main Street and Maple Street (Tax Map #’s 123-3-1 & 2 and 124-9-5 & 6) is hereby approved with the issues discussed at this meeting being resolved prior to final approval – the roll call vote: all aye. WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the engineers and the applicants should get together with City staff and work out the issues with regards to the parking, one-way streets, etc.; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the closure of Calhoun Street at Fourth Street, site distance, traffic flow, etc. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 8:12 p.m.