title
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1993
body
MEMBERS PRESENT: Coleman, little, McCracken, Finley, Baker, Alston, Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT: Damron
The minutes of the 9-14-93 meeting were approved as prepared.
#1 RP93-36 Lee Helman requested approval of a re-plat of part of Lot 6 and all of Lot 7, Block 6 of Culberhouse 3rd Addition. This property is located on the northeast corner of Walnut Street and Cherry Avenue.
There were several questions concerning right-of-ways on both streets. Current ordinances require 60’ total right-of-ways on each. George Hamman, Project Engineer, stated that existing documentation on the south side of Cherry indicated a full 60’ right-of-way. The street is not built in the center of the right-of-way. The discussion on Walnut centered on whether the street right-of-way should be increased from 50’ to 60’.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the re-plat subject to the owners entering into a street improvement agreement on Walnut Street and Cherry Avenue and acknowledging that the surveyor has advised that there is a total right-of-way of 60’ on Cherry Avenue already in existence. It was further stated that on Walnut Street additional right-of-way is being intentionally waived from the requirement due to the character of the street and the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Mr. Alston. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#2 SP93-25 Lee Helman requested approval of site plans for an eight (8) unit apartment complex to be built. The apartments will be contained in two separate buildings and located on the northeast corner of Cherry Avenue and Walnut Street.
Ms. Helman stated that the previous request for twelve units had been reduced to eight representing a 33% decrease in density. Ms. Helman stated that he revised project did meet federal guidelines regarding the density of the project according to information she had received. She stated that the garden homes will be luxury type and contain 1,200 sq. ft. in each unit. Each unit will be one and one half stories and contain three bedrooms. She further stated there are many physicians, medical technicians and other professional people who are locating to the area that have difficulty in locating sufficient housing.
Ms. Helman stated the growth pattern for the community and housing shortage is such that the need for this type of housing will be further increased and steps should be taken now to provide the housing. Most of the property has been in her family for over forty (40) years. It was explained that privacy fencing, 8’ tall would be installed on the east, north and west sides of the property except where the dense, green shrubbery is located now. Two entrances are proposed, one off each street into two separate common parking areas. A wrought iron fenced playground for children has been added to the southwest corner of the property. To accommodate the development, the existing, unsightly homes will be removed from the property. The site will be drained underground to the north into an existing alley and dispersed there.
Elevation drawings of the proposed development were submitted for review. It was commented that the drawings did not appear to represent what was shown on the site plan. Mr. Helman noted that the elevation drawings were done based on the first submittal in September that was denied and will be the same design as shown, but would conform to the new configuration of the buildings.
Some Commission members stated they felt the number of units and the actual coverage of land were too great for this size parcel of land (.53 acre). It was stated that guidelines for determining or specifying densities are a great concern of the Commission and are in the process of being revised. With lack of specifics, each project has to be considered on its own merits in determining the density.
Residents of the area voiced comments and objections to the proposal. Many of the residents state they have lived in the area more than 25 years. It was stated that there are a lot of elderly people in the neighborhood and several widows. It was stated that while the project may be very attractive in the beginning, the owners would not be living there and there are no assurances that it will be maintained in the future or even owned by this developer. Other points of opposition were loss of property value to many homes in the area, an increase in crime activity, traffic congestion, noise and pollution. It was feared that the overall quality of life would decline if this is allowed to be built. Further comments were made that there were too many apartments in the area and after looking at them you can easily see what they do to a neighborhood.
It was stated that while it may be intended to attract good, substantial renters, once the property is posted, or advertised for rent and the word gets out that you are renting to the public that all control is lost over the apartments as to who rents and how long they are going to stay. Another statement was the fact that the professional people renting there would probably be there only until their homes were being built which means a high turnover in renters. Federal guidelines and other things come into play on this type of project. The statement was made from a resident that they will do anything they can legally to keep this from being built.
Other comments were that severe drainage problems will be created for many of the residents when parking lots and roof tops replace the grassed areas that should be covered. Some water problems are already being experienced that will be worsened if this development occurs.
It was noted that while the number of units had decreased by 33%, the total square footage has been reduced by only 9%. Hardy Little stated that based on the figures that he had come up with using the HUD guidelines that this density would not be allowed on a parcel this size anywhere. He further stated that there would be a conflict with the open space guidelines required by federal guidelines in that this project would be less than one half of what would be required and further that the total land coverage also exceeded HUD guidelines.
Based on these findings, Mr. Little made a motion to deny the requests. The motion seconded by Mr. Baker. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST DISAPPROVED.
Chairman Jon Coleman informed the owners of their right o appeal this decision to the City Council.
#3 SU93-16 Melvin Gould requested approval of placement of a mobile home on the southeast corner of Patrick Street and Pratt Circler.
It was noted that there is already a house on the lot that the mobile home is requested for which means that the owner will have to re-plat the property into at least two lots. Patrick Street is on a section line. When a re-plat is filed 60’ of right-of-way will be required from section line. Mr. Gould’s parents own R-G Masonry and have large amounts of buildings materials strewn across the property as well.
The business is and was nonconforming at the time of annexation, however the owners should clean the property before additional development is allowed to occur.
There as no one in attendance in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the request subject to the property being cleaned up and re-platted prior to placement of the mobile home. The motion was seconded by Ms. Shaw. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#4 RZ93-43 Kenny Findley requested approval of a zoning change from C-3 to I-1 for 1.61 acres located on the north side of Access Road, west of Industrial Drive. It was noted that much of the property in the area is already zoned I-1 and some I-2, and most uses are warehouse type uses. Mini-warehouses are proposed for this site.
A motion to approve was made by Mr. Alston and seconded by Ms. Finley. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED.
#5 RZ93-44 Hillpoint Development requested approval of a zoning change from R-2 to R-1 for 5.98 acres and from C-4 to R-1 for 1058 acres. The property is located south of Windover Road, east of Harrisburg Road and west of Audobon Cove.
Clay Kenward, representing the owners are petitioning to change two different zoning districts to R-1 which is the most restrictive zoning (R-1) and develop a Planned Unit Development of garden homes on the property. In conjunction with the rezoning request Mr. Kenward also submitted a conceptual drawing of the utility, drainage and drive plan indicating how the proposed development would be. Mr. Kenward informed the Commission of a street abandonment request that is before the City Council at this time. If the abandonment is not approved, this project would probably be withdrawn. If approved, they intend to submit a preliminary and final plan for a planned unit development.
Guy Lowes, City Engineer, stated that he was still waiting on additional information on the floodway and flood plain on the property. There is extensive earth moving being completed but complete plans have not been received.
Ms. Finley made a motion to approve the request with the statement that a conceptual plan of the planned unit development was reviewed along with the zoning change request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Alston. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REZONING REQUEST APPROVED.
#6 RZ93-45 Kenneth and Barbara Shirley and others requested approval of a zoning change form R-2 to R-1 for Lots 1-11, Block E and Lot 13, Block D of the re-plat of Curtview Acres. The property is located on Kristal Drive, east of Richardson Road.
Recent rezoning requests in the area to change from R-1 to R-2 on adjoining properties have prompted these petitioners to ask for an upgrade on their zoning. The property was annexed as R-2 in 1978. Adjoining properties on the south and west side is zoned R-1. All twelve lots are developed with single family homes and each lot meets minimum lot size. Some existing structures would not meet minimum setbacks. New construction would have to comply with R-1 setbacks. If structures are burned or destroyed, their replacements would have to comply with R-1 requirements.
A motion to approve the request was made by Ms. Finley and seconded by Mr. McCracken. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED.
#7 PP93-16 Tom Regan requested preliminary approval of subdivision plans for Reagan’s Richardson Road Addition containing 5 lots on 2.02 acres and 2 lots on 1.35 acres. The property is located on the east side of Richardson Road, north and south of Kristal Drive.
Clay Kenward stated that it was the intent to develop 800 to 900 sq. ft., single family homes on a five lots in Block 2. Street improvements on Richardson Road were discussed at length. Presently it is a gravel street adjoining this property. A portion of the road further north is paved without curb and gutters at this time. Under present code requirements the developer would be required to fully improve one half of Richardson Road. It was noted that in similar situations previous to this that the developer was given the option of making full improvements on one half street or paving the whole street without curb, gutter and underground drainage.
There was discussion about a street proposed as Allison Drive on the south side of this property. There is presently 30’ of street dedication in the subdivision east of this property that it is totally unimproved that would adjoin this property. This plat indicated 30’ of right-of-way for continuing Allison Drive to Richardson Road Improvements.
It was noted that Richardson road is on the section line which requires 120’ of right-of-way. Jim Shaw stated the clarifications have been requested from the MATA Committee concerning this requirement. Jim Further stated it was his understanding that right-of-way on section lines would be required in undeveloped areas not in already developed areas.
There was some concern expressed by some neighbors about increased drainage problems that might occur when this property is developed. Neighbors further stated that water problems were severe in this area presently. It was noted that much of the City of Jonesboro is drained through this area. Mr. Kenward stated that plans are in the works now by the Corps of Engineers for drainage improvements on the creeks in this area which should eliminate some of the problem. Mr. Kenward also stated that he did not think that five additional homes in the area would increase the problem. Mr. Reagan stated that the drainage improvements that he has planned for the property which includes granting drainage easements and proper ditching that will reroute the water and move it in the proper direction. It was noted that in times past that this property had been filled which created some of the problem.
There was some discussion about the status of Crawford Drive which provides access to one lot in Block 1. When this area was annexed in 1978 the City Council specifically excluded Crawford Drive from city maintenance. It serviced properties solely owned at the time by the Stem family, which consisted of a trailer park and eventually an apartment complex and was not accepted as a street by the city. Notes on the current plat show “40’ Crawford Drive - shown as easement on record plat - exact location unknown”.
Mr. McCracken made motion to grant preliminary approval subject to improvements on Richardson Road being addressed by the developer and the City Engineer with either full improvements to one half of the street being required or if the City Engineer feels appropriate that more paving is needed and eliminating the curb and gutter and underground drainage. The City Engineer is asked to make a recommendation on these improvements at next month’s meeting.
Approval is also subject to city staff and the developer reviewing the status of Allison Drive and unless some reason is come up with for requiring dedication for Allison Drive then it should not be required. The staff is also requested to research Crawford Drive in regard to what right-of-way dedication may be necessary or appropriate. It was further stipulated that subdivision plans be submitted that include details of drainage improvements to be make. The motion was seconded by Mr. Alston. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#8 PP93-17 Ridgepointe Development Corporation requested preliminary approval of subdivision plans for Ridgepointe Phase III containing 29 lots on 19.41 acres. The property is located east of Ridgepointe Drive and is an extension of Lacoste Drive.
This item was withdrawn prior to meeting time by George Hamman, engineer for Ridgepointe Development Corporation.
#9 PP93-18 Phillips Investment Corporation and Calvary Chapel requested preliminary approval of subdivision plans for Calvary Chapel Addition containing 3 lots on 37.46 acres. The property is located on the southeast corner of Stadium Blvd. and Rook Road.
Much of the discussion centered around what improvements should be made on Rook Road which adjoins the property on the north side. It was noted that the Phillips do not own all of the property fronting on Rook Road and could only speak for their frontage. Barry Phillips stated that the proposed development for Lot 1 would utilize Rook Road for access to the property. Lot 1 has 530’ of frontage on Rook Road and is the only lot for which development is currently planned. The Phillips stated that they would be willing to enter into a street improvement agreement for further improvements to the street improvement agreement for future improvements to the street so that a completely designed street would be installed or would be willing to fully improve the whole street to a depth of 265 feet which is one half of their frontage. The question was raised as to what happens for the other 265 feet and when and who improves it. It was noted that in similar situations the option has been given to fully improve one half of the street or to pave the whole street without curb, gutter and underground drainage.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the request and treat it as a minor plat instead of a subdivision plan with the following stipulations:
1. Granting a 10’ drainage easement on the south line of Lot 3
2. The developer working with the City Engineer with the city engineer to determine what form the street improvements to Rook Road are to take with the choices there being a fully improved, whole street for half the distance of Lot 1 or a full paving without curb, gutter and underground for the entire frontage of Lot l.
3. The owner of Lot 2 entering into a street improvement agreement for Rook Road.
4. That a site plan be required prior to additional development on Lot 2 if the staff recommends MAPC review. That site plan should address street improvements.
5. Clarification of the 20’ setback on the east side of the property where it adjoins residentially zoned property.
It was further noted that if two buildings are planned for the property that it would have to be submitted for approval by the MAPC.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Little. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#10 RP93-42 Frank Springle requested approval of a replat of Lots 2-6, Block H of the Viking Addition. The property is located on the southwest corner of Nettleton Avenue and National Road.
Mr. Springle asked that the replat and site plan be considered at the same time. If the site plan be considered at the same time. If the site plan is not approved, then he does not want the replat of the property.
There was a great deal of discussion concerning the replat and site plan regarding lack of information about site and adjoining streets and the lack of details. It was noted that several items had not been properly addressed including parking, drainage on the rear of the property, status of Copeland Street, the open ditch on the front of the property. It was also noted that field staking had not been done and a complete review was not possible.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to table the replat and site plan due to deficiencies in the plan and require re-submittal of complete site plans. The motion was seconded by Ms. Finley. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST TABLED.
#11 SP93-29 Frank Springle requested approval of site plans for a shopping center to be built containing 16,250 sq. ft. The property is located on the southwest corner of Nettleton Avenue and National Road.
This item tabled with the motion on item #10.