title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on April 15, 2003.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, April 15, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vance, Damron, Gott, Moore, Krennerich, G. Johnson, Krennerich, M. Johnson, Day (present for items 6-18)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Beadles
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Batten, City Planner; Claude Martin, City Engineer; Teddy Hooton, City Engineer; Brian Wadley, Planning Coordinator
The minutes of the March 11, 2003 meeting were approved as prepared on a motion by Damron, second by Gott and unanimous vote.
Vice-chairman George Krennerich welcomed Mitch Johnson as a new appointment to the MAPC.
#1 PUD03-1 Home Depot requested approval of rezoning from the Commercial C-3, General Commercial District, to the Commercial C-3 PUD, Planned Unit Development District, for the Home Depot Addition containing 6 lots on 21.5228 acres. The general location of the property is on the south side of E. Parker Road, west of Harrisburg Road.
Tom McCaleb, Engineer for Home Depot, explained the PUD zoning is being sought so that they can subdivide the property with six (6) out lots that will only have frontage on a private drive on the interior of the Home Depot site.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, explained that the subdivision regulations only allow lots to be developed that front on a dedicated city street. These lots will not have frontage on a public street. The only way to accomplish this is through the PUD.
Mr. Vance questioned if City Council approval of the PUD would have to be sought if this is a rezoning. Mr. Batten responded that it would not require Council action.
Mr. Vance made a motion to allow Home Depot to develop their site under the PUD regulations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Damron, M. Johnson, Vance, G. Johnson, Gott, Moore. MOTION CARRIED, REQEUST APRPOVED.
#2 RZ03-5 Bob W. Harrison and Jeff Green requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Medium Density District to the Residential R-2A, LU-O, Limited Use Overlay District, for Tract C of Parker Lands containing .99 acre. The general location of the property is on the west side of Parker Annex Road, south of Parker Road.
Mr. Harrison stated the purpose of the rezoning is to construct some triplexes on this acre lot adjacent to an apartment building he built and still owns.
One neighbor who owns an industrial building spoke in opposition to the request because of the incompatibility of the two uses. One question raised was what street improvements would be made to Parker Road Annex which at this location is marginally improved.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that there was concern about how the property would be screened and properly separated from the adjoining industrial use. This was the purpose for selecting the LU-O so the MAPC could be assured the site would be screened and buffered. After reviewing Mr. Harrison’s plans he believes this can be accomplished and approval is recommended. Mr. Batten said that in regard to street improvements that curb and gutter will be required on the west and north sides of Parker Annex Road to meet city standards where it adjoins this development. A site plan will be required prior to starting construction that must be approved by the City Planner and the City Engineer.
Claude Martin, City Engineer, stated that he needed to see a site plan to review the drainage aspects of the development prior to issuing a building permit.
Mr. Gott made a motion to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Ms. Moore. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were G. Johnson, Vance, Day, Gott, Moore, Day, M. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
Mr. Vance requested that the City Planner get a written opinion from the City Attorney regarding the interpretation of Section 14.44.05 (b) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance regarding changing a request by the MAPC to a more restrictive or less intense classification.
#3 RZ03-6 Patsy Odom and Tim Meredith requested approval of rezoning from the C-3, General Commercial District to the Residential R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District for Lots 3, 4 & 5 in Block B of Apple Hills Subdivision. The general location of the property is on the northeast corner of Warren Street and Daybreak Drive.
City Planner Glenn Batten explained that this is really a down zoning from C-3 to R-1 to accommodate a single family subdivision and approval is recommended.
No opposition was expressed by any in attendance.
A motion to recommend approval of the request to the City Council was made by Mr. Damron and seconded by Ms. Moore. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#4 RZ03-7 Doyle Yarbrough requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District to the to the Commercial C-3, LU-O, Limited Use Overlay District for 33.07 acres located on a part of the NE ¼, NW ¼ of Section 11, T13N, R3E. The general location of the property is on the southeast corner of Valley View Drive and Weaver Road.
Skip Mooney, Sr., Attorney for Mr. Yarbrough, stated that the Yarbroughs own many acres in the area and live adjacent to this property. The area is changing in many ways and his clients wish to rezone their property to commercial zoning which is being recommended by the City Planner; however, there are some limitations in use recommended by the Planner that need further discussion. As proposed there are specified uses that Mr. Yarbrough wants to be able to do with his property. The City Planner has recommended further uses to be excluded from that list which are an auditorium, stadium, college or university, hospital, hotel, motel, museum, and schools. The ones that Mr. Yarbrough want included are stadium, hotel, motel, and school.
Mr. Mooney also objected to the City Planner’s recommendation that the entire tract of land, all 33 acres, shall be served by public water and sewer prior to the issuance for any construction. The development of this land will probably occur over a number of years and will be phased in and to require these services to all the land isn’t a reasonable recommendation. A master plan will be prepared and submitted in phases for permitting and at that time the restriction should only apply to the current phase and not those that are not being developed.
Mr. Mooney further objected to the City Planner’s recommendation that an alternate route around the Valley View School campus shall be under construction prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction on this land. This is an extremely unfair restriction to recommend for this property because his clients have no control whatsoever over the construction of a new road or how they will be developed. Mr. Mooney stated that the Yarbroughs have given large of amounts of right of way for the development of roads in this area and are currently negotiating with the Mayor and others about giving or making land available for an alternate route off Southwest Drive over to Lawson Road.
City Planner, Glenn Batten, stated that this proposal is consistent with the land use plan but the regional commercial has moved closer to the bypass with the announcement of the new mall. While it is consistent, Mr. Batten stated this would locate two regional commercial centers really close together. There are two essential issues to be dealt with on this property, traffic and utilities. Right now a lot of traffic is moving through the Valley View School campus to the point that it is becoming disruptive and an alternate route is needed. The property does adjoin the Valley View School property. This tract could accommodate large square footages of commercial uses that would pull even more traffic through the campus and Mr. Batten also questioned some of the uses in the list of specified uses. The reason for making these recommendations was to encourage the rapid solution of that particular problem. Even a partial development there is going to be a significant generator of traffic going through the campus. As far as water and sewer, the sewer closest to the land is not deep enough to service all of the property. Sewer service could come from two locations but would have to cover all of the property to get the north side. This area could be the nucleus of a new community and a master plan would need to be put in place to guide the development and some of the uses would not be consistent with a ”village center” designed to serve the surrounding residential area.
Mr. Vance asked if anyone knew the proposed route for bypassing the school. City Engineer Claude Martin stated that the proposed route around Valley School starts at Mr. Yarbrough’s driveway and goes just to the east of the church property and then goes north to Valley View Drive. The route actually leaves this property very quickly and Mr. Yarbrough has agreed to dedicate part of his property to facilitate this proposed route. Mr. Yarbrough does not own the other property where the road is proposed.
Mr. Vance made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council as follows:
1. Leave the uses of stadium, hotel or motel, and schools (elementary, middle, high) in the list of limited uses.
2. Prior to subdivision of land the petitioner shall submit a master plan to MAPC for development of the total tract of land. This plan should be prepared by an experienced land or site planner, and must consider land use, streets, utilities, drainage, and other issues that might be expected to impact the property and its surroundings.
3. Delete #3 of the City Planner’s recommendations entirely stating this should be addressed with the site development plan and not included in a rezoning ordinance going to the City Council.
4. Delete #4 of the City Planner’s recommendations entirely stating that this owner has agreed to cooperate with the city on the right of way across his property and that is all he can do.
The motion was seconded by Mr. M. Johnson. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 absent. Those voting aye were Vance, Moore, M. Johnson, Damron, Gott, G. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#5 RZ03-8 Mabe Spurlock requested approval of rezoning from the I-2, General Industrial District to the C-3, General Commercial District for Lot 20 of Harmon Industrial Park Second Addition. The general location of the property is on the southwest corner of Highland Drive and Nestle Way.
WITHDRAWN.
#6 RZ03-9 Bryan Wagner, Mike Power, Chris Barre’, Jim Abel, and Mark McNabb requested approval of rezoning for the following tracts:
Tract 1, from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Medium Density District and the C-3, General Commercial District to the C-3, General Commercial District for a part of Lot 13 of Senter & Company’s Addition containing 1.08 acres; AND
Tract 2, from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Medium Density District to the C-3, General Commercial District for a part of Lot 13 of Senter & Company’s Addition containing 3.16 acres; AND
Tract 2, from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Medium Density District to the Residential R-2, Multi-Family Low Density District for a part of lot 13 of Senter & Company’s Addition containing 3.62 acres. The general location of the property is on the northwest corner and northeast corners of Highland Drive and Wofford Street.
WITHDRAWN.
#7 RZ03-10 Marvin T. Ancona, dba Best Diversified, requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-2, Multi-Family Low Density District to the I-1, Limited Industrial District for Lots 1-8 of Block 2 of Cole’s Subdivision of Block 4 of Flint’s Addition; AND from the C-2, Downtown Fringe Commercial District to the I-1, Limited Industrial District for the Best Diversified Replat of Lots 9 and 10 of Block 2 of Cole’s Subdivision of Block 4 of Flint’s Addition. The general location of the property is on the south side of Burke Avenue, west of Flint Street, north of Krewson Street and east of McClure Street.
Ken Stacks, Architect for Best Diversified, stated the reason for rezoning is to allow an expansion of the existing plant on the north side of Burke. The property is currently a parking lot. This will be a much needed improvement in the neighborhood.
City Planner Glenn Batten recommended approval of the rezoning as submitted.
A motion to recommend approval of the request to the City Council was made by Mr. Vance and seconded by Mr. George Johnson. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were M. Johnson, Day, Moore, G. Johnson, Gott, Damron, Vance. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#8 RZ03-11 Robin Nix requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District to the Residential R-2, Multi-Family Low Density District for Lot 9 of Block 12 of the Ridgecrest Addition. The address of the property is 2605 Circle Drive.
Mr. Nix explained to the Commission that his previous request for C-3 zoning was disapproved and now he is requesting an R-2 classification. If rezoned, the small, older house on the property, which is not in good condition, would be removed and replaced with either a triplex or fourplex. It is zoned C-3 on two sides, and R-1 on the other two sides and the R-2 zoning would be a good buffer between the C-3 and R-1. The new building would be built on the north side of the lot which would provide more separation between the homes and the commercial uses.
Several neighbors spoke in opposition to the request stating that there is a lot of natural buffering of trees, shrubs, and bushes that are there now. This is a stable community of older homes and long time residents and some young families with children who play there. The neighborhood is shielded from Southwest Drive and is a very quiet neighborhood and the commerce is hardly noticed. There are 12 to 14 children typically playing on this street in this curve and they are all aware of them being there. Devaluation of property was also expressed as a concern for having apartments next door.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that this is a very nice neighborhood. The house on this property is not one of the better homes in the neighborhood. The new construction and new investment in the area would probably help stabilize the neighborhood. With proper site planning and development, buffering and screening could be done successfully.
Mr. Damron made a motion to disapprove the request with Mr. Gott making the second. Voting was 3 in favor, 2 opposed, 2 abstaining. Those voting aye were Damron, Gott, M. Johnson. Those voting no were Vance and G. Johnson. Those abstaining were Moore and Day. MOTION FAILED AND NO FURTHER RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE.
#9 RZ03-12 Roy Cooper requested approval of rezoning from the C-3, General Commercial District to the Residential R-3, Multi-Family High Density District for a part of Lot 1Cof David Conrad’s Replat of Lot 1C and 1R of the Replat of Lot 1 of David Conrad’s Replat of Merryman’s Replat of Lots 2, 3 & 4, Block A of White Plaza and a Replat of the north 120’ of Lot 1, Block A of White Plaza. The general location of the property is on the north side of Conrad Drive, west of Caraway Road.
George Hamman, Project Surveyor, stated that the property is surrounded by commercial and multi-family uses on all sides and this seems to be the only way to utilize the property.
City Planner Glenn Batten stated that about the only use the property could be used for would be for expansion of the apartment area and approval is recommended. There are some things that will need to be checked through site plan review process which is how do you get to it and how do you park the cars.
Mr. Vance made a motion to recommend approval of the request to the City Council as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. M. Johnson. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Moore, M. Johnson, Gott, Damron, Vance, G. Johnson, Day. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#10 RP03-15 Roy Cooper requested approval of a replat of Lot 1C of the Replat of Lot 1C of the Replat of Lot 1 of David Conrad’s Replat of Merryman’s Replat of Lots 2, 3 & 4, Block A of White Plaza, and the replat of the north 120’ of Lot 1, Block A of White Plaza, Lot 2, Block A of White Plaza and Lots 3 & 4, Block A of White Plaza. The general location of the property is on the north side of Conrad Drive, west of Caraway Road.
A motion to approve the request was made by Mr. Damron and seconded by Mr. Vance. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were G. Johnson, Moore, Vance, M. Johnson, Gott, Damron, Day. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#11 CU03-2 Joel Taylor requested approval of a conditional use to construct a communications tower in the Commercial C-3, General Commercial District. The general location of the property is in the 2300 block of Browns Lane, on the east side of Browns Lane, north of Ecumenical Drive.
Mr. Taylor explained that there are some dead spots in the city that will not transmit the signal for cell phones. He has been seeking a location in town that will eliminate this area where phone signals are not getting out. The existing towers in the area are not tall enough to get the signal where it needs to be and height restrictions will not allow them to grow taller and co-location will only allow so many companies on one tower. Height restrictions due to the airport location is creating the need for more towers. A 90’ tower will only accommodate about 4 companies on the tower. It looks like there are lots of towers but very few of them are actually cell phone towers. They have tried to locate on other MAPC MINUTES towers without much success. This tower would be approximately 140’ tall and would be 1,500’ away from the tower on Dr. Gray’s property on Fowler Avenue. This site was chosen because it sits down a little from the hillside and is triangular piece of property bordered on one side by trees, a hedge row and a fence. The only side that is seen is that from the street which can be screened. No objections have been voiced from any owners in the area.
City Planner Glenn Batten stated that he had spoken to Alltel and that it was his understanding that Mr. Taylor is the site acquisition company that is purchasing the property who plans to then assign the property to MOARK Communications who will build the tower, own it and manage it, and will lease space to at least one company including Alltel. A questionnaire was sent to Alltel several weeks ago and an answer has not been received at this date. This lack of information has left many concerns and questions unanswered. The development standards and review guidelines as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.24.02 supposed to be used for any conditional uses, one of which would be cell towers. This raises another issue that the City does not have a communication tower ordinance and therefore there are no regulations and standards that would control things that are unique to the communication towers such as setback from adjoining properties and minimum parcel size. This particular proposal is using the standard setbacks which apply to any building and there is always the question as to how close they should be to adjacent properties and further what happens if the tower should fall. It is a tight sight and is very close to The Frame Shop. While some of the criteria in the evaluation list can be answered positively, Mr. Batten stated that in his opinion there is not enough information provided to really assess and evaluate this proposal and its effects on the surrounding area and therefore approval is not recommended.
Mr. Vance stated that the need exists for communication towers and even more so for regulations governing them because they are here to stay and are not going away. The conditional use for approach communications towers does not work , they need a set of regulations particular to them. Safety is the most important consideration here.
Mr. Batten informed the Commissioners of an impending moratorium that was being considered by the City Council but was not in effect at this time. This request and another request on this agenda will have to be dealt with now.
Mr. Damron made a motion to disapprove the request based upon the City Planner’s recommendation and stating that the location is not appropriate, the proposed parcel of land is way too small, and the closeness of an existing structure. The motion was seconded by Ms. Moore. Voting was 4 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstaining. Thos voting aye were Damron, Moore, G. Johnson, M. Johnson. Those voting no were Day, Gott. Those abstaining were Vance. MOTION FAILED. No other motion was made.
#12 CU03-3 John DeLuca, dba, Spartan Towers, requested approval of a conditional use to construct a communications tower in the Residential R-1, Single-Family Medium Density District. The address of the property is 1421 W. Nettleton Avenue, and the general location of the property is on the south side of Nettleton Avenue, east of Brookhaven Road.
Mr. DeLuca stated that as a consultant the companies that he is working for are much in the same shape as the previous applicant, Mr. Taylor. There are several dead spots where signals are just not getting out. Mr. Deluca added that the way towers are constructed today they just don’t fall, but if they should come down they are designed to fall within themselves, they do not fall out full length because of a stress point that is designed at some 45’ above ground. There are more companies that plan to locate here and they will be needing tower space. This location is due south of the YMCA building and will placed where one of the unused tennis courts are now. The site is adjacent to a ditch and has many trees nearby and is approximately 200’ away from anyone’s house. This tower will be a150’ monopole tower, 6’ round at the bottom and 2’ at the top and is growable to a height of 190’. The site would be screened good utilizing the many trees on the south and west sides and a green slat, privacy fence would be installed along with landscaping that would make the site attractive. Mr. Deluca noted that under FCC guidelines, radio frequency (RF) emissions are not permitted as reasons for denial.
Some nearby residents spoke in opposition to the tower construction. One point of opposition was the potential health impacts from RF emissions and electromagnetic radiation. The appearance of the cell site and reduction in property values were raised as concerns as well. There was concern expressed for the great number of children that are in the area on any given day at the YMCA and at the park or the church. Another property owner said his front door would face this tower every day. Some suggested that there are other methods other than building more towers such as the use of repeaters.
City Planner, Glenn Batten, stated that although there was more information provided with this request, that his comments were the same as the previous item and recommended disapproval.
Mr. Vance made a motion to disapprove the request stating that the criteria established in the zoning ordinance for approval of a conditional use does not adequately address the safety issues associated with communication towers which is his primary concern. Mr. Vance further reiterated the urgency for the City of Jonesboro to act quickly in the preparation of an ordinance that would establish standards particular to communication towers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mitch Johnson. Voting was 6 in favor, 1 opposed. Those voting aye were M. Johnson, Damron, Moore, G. Johnson, Moore, Vance. Those voting aye no were Day. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST DISAPPROVED.
#13 PP03-4 Jim Abel requested preliminary approval of subdivision plans for Maple Valley Subdivision, Phase II. The subdivision contains 23 lots on 7.04 acres. The general location of the property is on the west side of Maple Valley Drive, north of Cordova Lane.
Carlos Wood, Project Engineer, stated that this plan conforms to the overall plan that was submitted a few years ago with the first phase of Maple Valley Subdivision. Mr. Wood said he and his client had received the City Engineer’s comments and had no problem with compliance.
Mr. Day made a motion to approve the request with the following stipulations:
1. Owner(s) signatures and surveyor’s/engineer’s signatures and seals need to be affixed to the final plats
2. Add the following language to the plat, “prior to the sale of any lot or lots within the subdivision, all improvements must either be completed or have a bond posted with the City of Jonesboro to cover the cost of the improvements as estimated by a registered civil engineer”.
3. It was further stipulated that all drainage improvements be completed prior to issuing building permits.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were M. Johnson, Day, Moore, G. Johnson, Damron, Gott, Vance. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#14 PP03-1 Rick Turman requested preliminary approval of plans for Turmans Commercial Park, a commercial subdivision containing 21 lots on 10 acres. The general location of the property is on the east side of Stadium Boulevard, north of Ole Feed House Road.
George Hamman, Project Engineer, reminded the commissioners that they had seen this proposal a couple of times but no action has been taken on it. A copy of the City Engineer’s comments were provided and Mr. Hamman stated his client had no problems with any of them and would address all issues on the final plat.
There was a considerable amount of discussion regarding the length of the cul-de-sac exceeding 400’. At this time, the criteria for a cul-de-sac longer than 400’ is not set and it needs to be to address this subdivision and all future subdivisions. The MAPC has the authority to extend the length but justification has to be provided. Street width, no parking, additional turn around space, etc… whatever it needs to be to justify the length needs to be specified.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, explained that during a previous review that the developer was requested to seek an additional access to the property. Mr. Batten said he was told that Mr. Turman had a conversation with Roy Cooper about access to Ole Feed House Road but was unable to accomplish that. In the alternative, it was suggested that the main reason for getting the additional access was for emergency vehicles into the subdivision. Subsequent to this the pavement width was increased to 36’ and the cul-de-sac enlarged and the Fire Department has signed off on it. There is not a street to the north to tie into presently and there is a creek at the east end.
Mr. Vance made a motion to grant preliminary approval of the subdivision with the following stipulations:
1. That Mr. Hamman and the developer study the issue of the cul-de-sac length and address it some fashion and explore an access to the north
2. Owner(s) signatures and surveyor’s/engineer’s signatures and seals need to be affixed to the final plats
3. Add the following language to the plat, “prior to the sale of any lot or lots within the subdivision, all improvements must either be completed or have a bond posted with the City of Jonesboro to cover the cost of the improvements as estimated by a registered civil engineer”.
4. Removing roll over curb from plans and detail sheets, it is not permitted in commercial developments
5, Provide flood plain information on final plan
6. Need rip rap at FES Z-2
7. Change plans to reflect 4” ACHM and 8” SB-2 for a commercial street
8. Need top of banks and flow line of Higginbottom Creek
9. Add Corps of Engineer easements to plat
10. Run drainage pipe between Lots 15 & 16 to the south easement and build junction box to turn water to the east
11. Need typical section of ditches in the utility and drainage easements
12. Complete all drainage improvements before issuing building permits
The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 6 in favor, 1 opposed. Those voting aye were Vance, M. Johnson, Damron, Gott, Moore, Day. Those voting no were G. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#15 PP03-2 Rick Turman requested preliminary approval of plans for Bridlewood, a subdivision containing 194 lots on 50.51 acres. The general location of the property is on the south side of Longcrest Drive, east of the Union Pacific Railroad, and north of Higginbottom Creek.
Carlos Wood, Project Engineer, stated that when these plans were previously submitted there was some questions about the improvements in Mr. Turman’s other subdivision on Rook Road. Mr. Wood said that he and Mr. Turman had met with the engineering department and they have come to an agreement on those improvements. Mr. Wood further stated that he had received the City Engineer’s comments on this item and he and Mr. Turman are in agreement with them.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that this is a relatively high density for single family development, and decreasing the density and adding open space for active and passive recreation would create a more attractive and livable residential area. There are 19 lots backing up to RR and they do not have extra depth to help separate them from the environmental effects of the RR. A screening and buffer area needs to be established along the railroad tracts for this purpose. Mr. Batten questioned if Lot 3 was presently used for residential purposes.
Mr. Wood stated that Salisaw is intended to line up with Hargis but they do not meet with this proposal, there is a gap between them. Mr. Wood said he could see the possibility of two or three coves in place of the 19 lots backing up to the RR that would provide a buffer. An additional access to the south should be considered for final approval. Churchill Drive will connect to vacant property to the south but is not owned by Mr. Turman. Details will be provided on the ditch on the south side of the property because there has been some flooding in the area east of here. A minimum floor elevation should be imposed to prevent flood damage.
Mr. Vance made a motion to grant preliminary approval of the subdivision with the following stipulations:
1. Owner(s) signatures and surveyor’s/engineer’s signatures and seals need to be affixed to the final plats
2. Add the following language to the plat, “prior to the sale of any lot or lots within the subdivision, all improvements must either be completed or have a bond posted with the City of Jonesboro to cover the cost of the improvements as estimated by a registered civil engineer”.
3. Need PVI’s on profile
4. Need 10’ drainage easement from top of bank on south side and show top of bank on plans and check capacity of ditch
5. On page 3 of 6, PVI on plan and profile do not match, one at sta. 6 other at sta. 7
6. Need to rip the pipe ends on ditch on south side, may need to put 45° elbow about 10’ north of pipe end and possible flood gates.
7. Add flood plain information to the plat
8. Complete all drainage improvements before issuing any building permits
The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Vance, M. Johnson, Damron, Day, Gott, G. Johnson, Moore. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#16 PP03-3 Tim Meredith requested preliminary approval of subdivision plans for Meredith Meadows Phases I, II & III containing 32 lots on 8.78 acres. The general location of the property is on the northeast corner of Warren Street and Daybreak Drive.
Claude Martin, City Engineer, stated that they have discussed several issues with George Hamman, Project Engineer, but have seen no documentation on the changes. Drainage improvements should be completed before any building permits are issued.
Mr. Hamman stated that the owner on the south side of what would be Daybreak Drive has indicated that he is willing to dedicate 30’ for a new street all the way to Patrick. There is 30’ existing on the north side of Daybreak Drive. The right of way has to be decided before Mr. Hamman can proceed with plan preparation.
Mr. Vance made motion to grant preliminary approval of the subdivision plans acknowledging that even though Daybreak Drive is on a section line, the MAPC does not believe it will be a major arterial and therefore 120’ of right of way is not needed. The major arterials in this area will take another route. It was also stipulated that the language be added to the plat that states, “prior to the sale of any lot or lots within the subdivision, all improvements must either be completed or have a bond posted with the City of Jonesboro to cover the cost of the improvements as estimated by a registered civil engineer”.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Day. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstained. Those voting aye were Day, G. Johnson, M. Johnson, Vance, Moore, Gott. Those abstaining were Damron. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#17 Reviewed the results of the traffic study for Sam’s Wholesale Club as prepared by Ernie Peters. The general location of the site is on the west side of Caraway Road, north of Race Street.
Greg Simmons, representing Peters & Associates, informed the commissioners that his firm had prepared a traffic study as a subcontractor for Carlson Consulting Engineers, who serve as the site engineers for the Sam’s Club. The study was done in January, 2003.
Since then a subsequent study has been to analyze the operation of a traffic signal to be installed by Sam’s at their expense. The entrance on the north side of IHOP is the best location because not only does it serve Sam’s but it will also serve other developments across the street. With regard to the business to the north and how it might affect them, Mr. Simmons stated that they utilized traffic analysis software that is a very good predictor of traffic cues at a signalized traffic intersection. To do this study they used the peak hour traffic volumes that included the existing traffic and the additional traffic generated by Sam’s. This program calculates that during the PMP peak hour, which is the worst case scenario for south bound traffic, that the maximum cue than can be expected to be built up 95% of the time is about three vehicles which is about 80’. According to the study, a traffic signal at Sam’s entrance would not preclude the need for a signal at Fowler Avenue. The signal would be coordinated with the signal at Race and Caraway and could be coordinated with any other traffic signal.
The Commissioners questioned Mr. Simmons about his figures for stacked up vehicles. It was stated that what the Commission was looking for when they requested the traffic study was what is best for the City of Jonesboro in this area. The more appropriate location would seem to be further north at Grant Avenue. Elimination of some accesses from the east side of Caraway Road would also help. The traffic study presented tonight is not right based upon real, everyday traffic on Caraway Road between Highland Drive and Race Street. An independent traffic study for the whole area is needed to tell us where we need to make improvements and where traffic signals and other traffic control devices should be. The installation of a traffic signal is not appropriate at this time but once everything is operational, if it is deemed necessary, the MAPC would consider it at that time.
A motion to disapprove the installation of a traffic signal at the private entrance to Sam’s by Mr. Day was withdrawn prior to a second and vote.
NO ACTION TAKEN.
#18 Discussion of parking lot issues at the Thomas and Betts plant expansion on E. Highland. The address of the property is 5601 E. Highland Drive and the general location of the property is on the southwest corner of Highland Drive and Commerce Drive.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, explained that Thomas and Betts decided to enlarge their plant which is in progress right now. They believed they had enough parking without adding any parking spaces. Once the numbers were finalized they found they needed 200 parking spaces. The issue is there is no money in their budget to build a parking lot. They are trying to get a waiver from the city to not put in any parking spaces. What has been suggested is that we allow them to delay building the parking lot until 2004 and we can put a deadline on it. The key issue is that a bond or a letter of credit or something to secure that is needed to cover the cost of the parking lot.
Mr. Vance made a motion to grant Thomas and Betts an extension until October 1, 2004, or later if Mr. Batten feels it necessary, to improve the parking lot as required by ordinance. To accomplish the extension, the dollar amount of the improvement will have to be bonded or secured now by letter of credit or other document satisfactory to the City. The motion was seconded by Ms. Moore. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Vance, Damron, Gott, M. Johnson, Day, Moore, G. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED.