title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on May 9, 2006.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, May 9, 2006
Dr. Beadles had some requests to change comments to stipulations so there wouldn’t be any idea about having to include them in their final. Motion made by Mr. Gott, seconded by Mr. Krennerich. The minutes stand approved by a unanimous vote as amended.
Commissioners absent: Moore
Staff present: Spriggs, Rook, Tomlinson, Martin, Crego
1. CU-06-04. Jonesboro Real Estate Holdings Company, Inc., request Condition Use for a Senior Adult Residence Complex located between Hope and Creath.
Bobby Gibson came forward on behalf of Jonesboro Real Estate Holdings as proponent for this item. Mr. Gibson stated that the rezoning was approved for the property. The intention is to place a senior resident facility on this property and the decision had been postponed until this meeting. A question made to Jonesboro Real Estate Holdings was what about this intended use would affect adjoining properties? Mr. Gibson believes the conditions and suggestions are appropriate that have been made by City Planner. Jonesboro Real Estate Holdings will work with City Planner, MAPC, Engineer, Sanitation, to make any decisions about dumpsters, fencing, lighting, etc.
Jeanette Robertson and Wade Robertson were opponents to this item. They have made requests if conditional use is approved. Proposals have been discussed with Bobby Gibson. A few specific things are 1. garbage dumpsters - request is made that the garbage dumpsters are located at least 200 feet from her property because of odor, loose debris, noise related to picking up garbage. Ms. Robertson also met with Ms. Shaw and the intentions at this point are to have a service that cleans dumpsters and deodorizes, pick up during the day instead of early morning. 2. Sight and sound buffer - Opponents would like to propose a boundary on the north and east side have a minimum of an eight (8’) foot wood and/or brick fence subject to the conditions of the City Planner for a buffer. Also if the northern most buildings are built in the future they request that trees are planted in addition to any trees that are present to help with the sight and sound buffer. Request is made that no fence be put on the western edge of their property. If fencing is needed on the western edge of their property, they request there is no more than a four (4’) wrought iron fence. 3. Western edge of property not be buffered with fencing but if there is a need then either using shrubbery or four (4’) foot wrought iron fencing. Also, they request a consideration of type and location of outdoor lighting. Dr. Beadles asked for any other opponents to this item and there were none. He also asked if the proponents wished to respond to those items. Mr. Gibson stated that he did not believe they are prepared to commit to anything until a site plan is developed. Mr. Gibson stated that as to the dumpster distance, he believed that an ordinance would only require twenty-five (25’) feet. Mr. Gibson feels that the City Planner, Street and Sanitation departments will have a say in the placement of the dumpsters. In regard to fencing and outdoor lighting, it can be addressed in the site plan as well. Mr. Gibson asked that the committee not put specific limitations at this time. Dr. Beadles stated that the final site plan will be approved by the City Planner unless there is a problem and then it would come to the MAPC. City Planner was asked for his comments. City Planner feels confident that the particular use will fit into the environment. Being a senior residence he does not believe there is a need for sound buffers. He supports the opponents request to have some sort of screen fencing where the buildings are in closer proximity to the opponents property, however planner did defer the concerns of the opponents to the applicants and asked that they work out some type of compromise in those areas. The applicant seemed more worried about security issues and they were open to the wrought iron type fencing, if possible, around the general areas of the site. We feel as though it would not negatively affect the opponents. Stipulations listed by City Planner were: 1. That the final development plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director indicating proper location and screening of the dumpster to satisfy 14.36.03(d). 2. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. 3. That the lighting plan shall be implemented and maintained at restricted levels to prevent adverse effect on abutting residential. 4. That upon issuance of the zoning Permit Approval, all other building permit and other permits be applied for and obtained by the applicant. Dr. Beadles asked City Planner to review site plans carefully and if there are any problems that the MAPC should be made aware of those problems. The City Engineer was asked for any comments. Mr. Krennerich asked Mr. Gibson about proposed parking going all the way to Baker Street and the ability of people to use that alley. Dr. Beadles asked about Baker Street closing. Mr. Gibson said Baker Street will still be open in that area but alley will still be in tact on the east side of that block. The plan would be to close the alley in the area of development for security purposes. The parking will not extend all the way to the east. Mr. Krennerich says the plat doesn’t show the same as the site plan. Mr. Gibson responded that the extra property was obtained after the application was made. Mr. Day made motion to approve with stipulations attached by the City Planner. Seconded by Mr. Gott. Commissioners voted unanimous approval for this motion.
2. CU 06-05. Amy & Maria Paredes request Condition Use for a day care center for children located at 1100 E. Craighead Forest Road.
Amy Paredes came forward as proponent for this item. Request was made for a family home day care for sixteen children. City Planner stated that a stipulation was placed that the applicant satisfies all other permitting as it relates to State human resources.
Mr. Krennerich asks how this can even be considered since the code says they can have up to 8 children. They are asking for more than 8 which is beyond the limitations of the conditional use. City Planner stated that it has to do with the property being zoned R-3. It states that a daycare under R-3 is a conditional use. City Planner asked applicant if she was required to have fire inspection on her home by the Department of Human Resources. Applicant stated that Department of Human Resources inspected home and that Health and Fire inspections were required before they would issue a license, but approval had to be received before Fire and Health inspections could be done. Childcare services approved the home for use of 16 children. Applicant will submit documents to City Planner. Other stipulations made by City Planner are as follows: 1. That upon issuance of the Conditional Use Permit Approval, all other state and local child care certifications be applied for and obtained by the applicant. 2. That upon issuance of the Conditional Use Permit Approval, all other applicable building, fire and other permits be applied for and obtained by the applicant. Mr. Krennerich moves that it should be approved as conditional use with the stipulations listed. Mr. Roberts seconded. Before a certificate of occupancy is issued that all of the conditions be verified and documents to be provided to the city. Commissioners voted unanimous approval for this motion with stipulations.
3. PP 06-11. Vance A. Brown request Preliminary Plat approval for Brownstone Subdivision a 16-lot subdivision in R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District on 5.49 acres located approximately 800 ft. west of Harrisburg Road and south of Brownstone Drive.
John Easley representing Vance A. Brown came forward as proponent for this item asking for approval for Brownstone preliminary. Concerns were discussed with Jeremy from Engineering and the following items were discussed and agreed upon and will provide him with the information that he needs: 1. Need drainage report for proposed development. 2. Show improvements for Russell Hill Dr. & Hacienda Dr. on plans. 3. Provide typical details with slope information where applicable. 4. Label contours on the drainage plan. 5. Need length of inlet extension noted.
Dr. Beadles inquired as to the electricity on Lot 6 of the plan. Mr. Easley advised there was enough space to build a 50 x 30, 1500 sq. ft. residence on the front of that lot. Dr. Beadles asked about the voltage of the line which was not known. Mr. Tomlinson made a stipulation as to Hacienda Dr. to be shown as Makala Lane which already exists and houses already numbered off of that name. Brownwood Circle be extended to the South to intersect with Russell Hill Drive. Dr. Beadles brought up the fact that if a preliminary plat comes in with so many stipulations, should that be made into a final if extra questions and stipulations are brought up. City Planner suggested to increase the review period from 7 days to 30 days. Mr. Krennerich questioned the name change from Hacienda Drive to Makala Lane. Makala Lane has existing addresses and Hacienda Drive does not. Mr. Krennerich thinks Makala Lane needs to be improved and extended down to the property line. Mr. Krennerich motions to approve preliminary with stipulations. Mr. Roberts seconds. Commissioners voted unanimous approval for this motion with stipulations.
4. FP 06-09. Nancy Burks request Final Plat approval for Horseshoe Trail Estates, a 14 lot subdivision in R-1 Single Family Medium Density District on 5.4 acres located south of Horseshoe Trail and east of Highway 163 (Harrisburg Road).
Terry Bare came forward as proponent for this item. All prior comments have all been addressed which were: 1. Need drainage report for proposed development. 2. Check for the need of inlet extensions. 3. Residential street cross-section shows 95% modify and requirement is 98%. 4. Where is typical ditch section located? Engineering has two new comments that we would like to address: 1. Need typical section for drainage easement provided on lot 10 with applicable slope information and 2. The plans do not show any improvements (curb & gutter, shoulder with open ditch, etc.) along Horseshoe Trail; would improvements be detrimental? No improvements are planned but there will be swails to eliminate any water to come off Horseshoe Trails.
City Planner had no recommendations. City Engineer asked about the improvements to Horseshoe Trail since it is a cul-de-sac and was 321 ft. long. Mr. Bare quoted subdivision regulations 15.16.01 item G, and that the Burks agree to enter into the street improvement agreement. Mr. Crego stated that he agreed that is all that they can require. Discussions were had by both sides regarding the street and improvements. Motion was made by Mr. Krennerich and seconded by Mr. Halsey to approve this plat. Commissioners voted unanimous approval for this motion with stipulations.
5. FP 06-10. Three Sisters, LLC request Final Plat approval for Merrell Estates, Phase I, a 22-lot subdivision in R-1 Single-Family Medium Density on 13.07 acres located north of U.S. Highway 49 South (Southwest Drive) and east of Wilkerson Drive, west of Maple Valley Drive.
Terry Bare came forward as proponent for this item. All original engineering questions were answered. These were: 1. Need weir detail for pond outfall. 2. Residential street cross-section shows 95% modify and requirement is 98%. 3. Where is typical ditch section located? 4. Check for the need of inlet extensions. 5. Need more information for pipe at Sta. 6+00 on Adam Dr.
There was one additional question by engineering: Need typical section and slope information for drainage easement provided on the south side of lots that front Alan Drive & Cove. They will be happy to provide the information to the City of Jonesboro.
No comments by City Planner. City Engineer said all questions had been answered. Dr. Beadles asked about the development of the property since there is only one road out. Mr. Bare stated that there is a concept but does not have those papers with him. Motion was made by Mr. Gott to approve. Second was made by Mr. Day. Commissioners voted unanimous approval for this motion.
6. FP 06-11. Jim Abel requests Final Plat approval for Brookstone Subdivision, a 25-lot subdivision in R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District on 9.34 acres located off Hunter’s Ridge.
Terry Bare came forward as proponent for this item. We are asking for final approval and have answered the prior questions regarding this item from the engineering department which were: 1. Need structure information under Brookstone & Charleston. 2. Where is typical ditch section located? 3. Ensure ponding does not occur on lots that do not have positive drainage to a drainage easement or right-of-way. 4. Check for the need of inlet extensions. 5. Residential street cross-section shows 95% modify and requirement is 98%. 6. Need weir detail for pond outfall.
Additional questions asked by engineering are 1. Need length of inlet extension noted. This was not labeled on the drawing. 2. Additional information will be required on the structures under Brookstone & Charleston for construction purposes. We will get that information to City Engineer. City Planner had a comment about corrected drawings and Mr. Bare stated that they had already brought corrected drawings. City Engineer said all questions had been answered. Mr. Krennerich asked if Charleston Drive and Hunter’s Ridge Drive are both developed streets already. They are developed streets. Motion was made by Mr. Krennerich and motion was seconded by Mr. Roberts. All commissioners voted unanimous to approve.
7. FP 06-12. Jim Abel requests Final Plat approval for Barrington Park Subdivision Phase III, a 21-lot subdivision in R-1 Single-Family Medium Density on 11.51 acres located on extension of Oakmont Drive, south of Woodsprings Road (Hwy. 226).
Terry Bare came forward as proponent for this item. Prior engineering questions that have been answered are: 1. Residential street cross-section shows 95% modify and requirement is 98%. 2. Where is typical ditch section located? 3. Need pond outfall information for review. These questions have been answered and engineering has one additional question, 1. Need drainage easement between lots 27 & 28. We do not have a drainage easement labeled but it is on the plans and the pipe and will label it between lots 27 & 28. A stipulation from the last meeting was made to extend a cul-de-sac to the east to have an east-west roadway. We’re asking that it be removed because we have a concept for future development and the east-west roadway is about 300 ft. north of our cul-de-sac. We are asking that this be reviewed and that stipulation be removed.
City Planner had no comments. City Engineer had no comments. Mr. Halsey motions to approve this item. Mr. Roberts seconded motion. All commissioners voted unanimous to approve.
8. FP 06-13. John Sloan (P&J Development) requests Final Plat approval for Prospect Farms Phase II, a 41-lot subdivision in R-1 Single Family Medium Density District on 10.12 acres located south and east of the intersection of Aggie Road and Paragould Drive.
John Easley came forward as proponent for this item. All prior engineering questions have been answered. Those questions were as follows: 1. Need detention pond details and drainage report for proposed development. 2. Need temporary channel details, with elevation data, to detention pond until future development is approved. 3. Need flow information in each pipe. 4. Need detention constructed first for downstream property protection. 5. Check Prospect Farm Lane for stormwater traveling over 600 ft. 6. Label contours on the drainage plan. 7. Ensure ponding does not occur on lots that do not have position drainage to a drainage easement or right-of-way. A new comment by engineering was 1. Ensure that detention area is constructed first to protect downstream properties. We will do that.
City Planner requested that a partial overall plan be made available for the final plat review of Prospect Farms Phase II and that had been done. City Engineer had no comments. Mr. Krennerich commented on the single entrance into this subdivision. There was discussion between commissioners regarding this comment. Mr. Halsey motioned to approve this item. Mr. Roberts seconded motion. Mr. Krennerich voted no for this item. All other commissioners voted to approve.
9. Administration: Status report zoning ordinance revisions.
City Planner reviewed code and feels that R-6 should be deleted and two separate districts being made to handle multi-family districts. R-4 would be the lower moderate density six dwelling units per acres. This would cover duplexes, triplexes and four plex units. R-5 would be the more intense district where there could be 12 units per acres. We suggest anything higher than that would go through some limited use overlay district or some form of planned unit development. Limited use district and planned unit development restrictions are being looked at to put some guidelines that will be more helpful to the applicant as well as our staff from the review perspective. Previously the City Council did get rid of the R-2A and R-3 of the zoning resolution. Any of those who already have property would be considered non-conforming uses and would be protected from the new restrictions and guidelines. There was discussion of these zoning revisions between Commissioners and City Planner. These items will be brought up in the next meeting.
Meeting for next month was scheduled for June 15, 2006, at 5:30 p.m.