Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1997

Home

Page 4- February 10, 1997 z.g. neighborhood's traffic problems would be worsened if the project were built. Residents also objected because they feared their property values would go down. The commission denied the proposal, citing traffic safety, and specifically, congestion. Flournoy submitted another proposal, and the planning commission held another hearing. This time Flournoy gave the commission a report by a traffic engineer. The report included a traffic analysis and concluded the proposed complex would not significantly impact IocaI traffic conditions. Commission members questioned the engineer about the study. In particular, they asked if the engineer had determined the proposal's impact on two intersections. The engineer conceded he did not analyze the impact at the intersections. Commissioners also asked whether the analysis accounted for future growth. The engineer said he did not consider how much new construction had been approved in the area. The commission again denied approval, citing traffic and other concerns. Flournoy sued the city, the planning commission, the mayor and city council members. He asked the court to order the commission to approve the proposal. Flournoy termed the commission's decision arbitrary and capricious. Further, Flournoy alleged traffic congestion was not the true reason the commission denied the plan. According to Flournoy, the commission rejected its proposal because local residents objected to low-income housing. Flournoy pointed to some statements made by commission members, which showed sympathy for the residents' objections. Finally, Flournoy said it was "absurd" to suggest that a developer doing a traffic study had to take into account future development in the area. DECISION: Commission's decision affirmed. The commission properly denied Flournoy's proposals based on traffic concerns. Its decisions were not arbitrary and capricious. The commissioners' first denial, based on local residents' concerns about traffic safety, was proper. The commission was entitled to consider the development's impact on local traffic. The second decision also was proper. The commissioners properly questioned the traffic engineer ab'out his study and found his answers unsatisfactory. The proposed development was in an area of dynamic growth. It was not absurd to expect developers to consider other projects already underway or about to begin. The commission could consider what it had already approved in deciding what else to approve. The commission was not bound to approve the proposal simply because Flournoy produced a traffic study. The residents had evidence to support their concerns about existing traffic concerns and their fears of the development's impact. The commissioners' traffic safety concerns were a valid reason to deny the proposal, not a pretext. Though many residents were opposed to the development I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I