title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on October 8, 2002.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, October 08, 2002
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beadles, Damron, Gott, Johnson, Krennerich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vance, Street, Farmer, Shaw
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Batten, City Planner; Claude Martin, City Engineer, Teddy Hooton, City Engineer; Phillip Crego, City Attorney; Brian Wadley, Planning Coordinator
The minutes of the September 10, 2002 meeting were approved as prepared on a motion by Mr. Krennerich, second by Mr. Gott and unanimous vote.
#1 RZ02-32 Bill Cope requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Low Density District to the Commercial C-3, General Commercial District for Lot 29 of Wheeler Heights Subdivision and a part of the NW 1/4, NE 1/4 of Section 11, T14N, R4E containing in the whole 2.73 acres. The address of the property is 5205 E. Johnson Avenue, and the general location of the property is on the south side of Johnson Avenue, east of Oriole Drive.
Marty Lilly, Attorney representing Mr. Cope, informed the commissioners that the home and shop on this property belongs to his client and both are currently vacant at this time. No one has been interested in the property for residential purposes on the five lane highway. Mr. Lilly stated that after reviewing the criteria specified in the zoning ordinance that his client’s request for rezoning did meet that test and was consistent with what has been taking place up and down Johnson Avenue. The way to protect a neighborhood is through stipulations regarding development of the site as the MAPC has done in the past. They are not seeking any type of development approval, just a rezoning, and therefore the commission has the power to control and manage any development that may occur later.
Four area property owners, some representing several in their neighborhoods, spoke in opposition to this request. One owner stated that everything around the property on all sides is R-1. While the property has frontage on Johnson, it also has frontage on Oriole Drive which enters a residential subdivision. There are many children in the neighborhood, at least 16 on Pomona, and others on Oriole and Reno. It was stated that the character of this property is different to others that have been considered in the past. There are homes immediately adjacent to the property on three sides whose back yards adjoin this one.
It would be difficult to establish a buffer as close as the homes are. Concerned was expressed that access would be established off the side street.
Drainage from this lot drains to the south where the homes are located. If a parking lot were to be built here it would cause additional drainage problems. The availability of sewer for a commercial development was also questioned as was the issue of spot zoning.
City Planner Glenn Batten explained that not all the criteria in the zoning ordinance must be given equal weight and other questions and tests may be used in evaluating a rezoning request. The land use plan projects medium density residential for this property and all of the property east of Bridger Road on the north and south sides of Johnson Avenue. The site is completely surrounded by R-1 zoning and R-1 uses and therefore the proposal is not consistent with the land use plan. The current use is consistent with the plan.
Mr. Batten stated that there is sufficient, available land zoned for commercial uses in northeast Jonesboro and this proposal would not contribute to the public interest and therefore the proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance which is to preserve and protect the public interest. The proposal is not consistent with the surrounding zoning, uses and character which are all residential in nature and zoned R-1. If rezoned, potential uses could have a detrimental effect on surrounding properties. Since the uses are not known you can’t determine the exact extent of that effect. C-3 zoning permits a wide range of uses and the commission cannot control the type of uses in the general commercial zoning. A limited use application would limit the uses but that is not what is applied for. If rezoned, there could be increased pressure to rezone adjacent sites. This could lead to commercial stripping which is contrary to the land use plan.
As far as impact on community facilities, Mr. Batten stated that commercial developments generate a lot more traffic than residential uses; therefore, ingress and egress on to Johnson Avenue which is posted at 55 mph would be a major impact. Sanitary sewer is not available at this time and would require an extension which someone has to pay for.
Mr. Batten pointed out that this proposal does not pass the four part test for spot zoning which is: (a) Is the proposed rezoning compatible with the surrounding area in terms of land use and zoning? The answer is no. (b) Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan? The answer is no. (c) Would the proposed rezoning meet a public need or provide a public benefit? The answer is no. (d) Would the proposed rezoning solely benefit the property owner? The answer is yes. Having answered these four questions as such this would be considered “spot” zoning. Other rezoning cases along E. Johnson Avenue that have been approved have all been situated in a manner that did not constitute “spot” zoning and all were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
A motion was made by Mr. Krennerich to disapprove the rezoning due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, inconsistency with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and incompatibility with the surrounding zoning, uses and character. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Damron, Gott, Krennerich, Johnson, Beadles. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST DISAPPROVED.
#2 RP02-49 Bill Cope requested approval of a replat of Lot 29 of Wheeler Heights Subdivision and a part of the NW 1/4, NE 1/4 of Section 211, T14N, R4E. The address of the property is 5205 E. Johnson Avenue, and the general location of the property is on the south side of Johnson Avenue, east of Oriole Drive.
WITHDRAWN.
#3 RZ02-34 Kent Arnold requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Low Density District to the Residential R-3, Multi-Family High Density District for 25.67 acres located on a part of the SE 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 35, T14N, R3E. The general location of the property is on the south side of Kellers Chapel Road, approximately 1/4 mile west of Southwest Drive.
Mr. Arnold stated that with the new mall development at the intersection of Southwest Drive and Kellers Chapel Road this area is going to change drastically. He stated that he is trying to be consistent with the Land Use Plan and more particularly the Village Residential concept and developing a transitional zone adjacent to the commercial zoning that is and will be taking place along Southwest Drive at Kellers Chapel Road. A mix of various types of residential uses would be developed including low density residential, medium density residential and high density residential, and manufactured housing with the center point being commercial which is the mall. Kellers Chapel Road will be a feeder road for a lot of points trying to get to the mall and a high volume of traffic is expected.
Several people in attendance spoke in opposition to the rezoning A petition containing approximately 100 signatures of persons opposed to the rezoning was presented to the MAPC. The major points of opposition were the high concentration of people in a small area (potentially up to 1,400 people on 25.67 acres), high crime statistics from other R-3 apartment developments, particularly “The Links” and “Caraway Commons”, and the traffic that would be generated by this many people on a narrow, two lane road. One opponent questioned what guarantee is there that Mr. Arnold will build what he has stated. It was stated that apartment developments do not add to the tax base and there would be little tax funds generated to help fund any street improvements for Kellers Chapel Road. Opponents stated they were not opposed to development of the land as currently zoned but were opposed to an R-3 high density zoning.
City Planner, Glenn Batten, pointed out that the Land Use Plan projection for this area of town is Village Residential. Glenn explained that this type of development allows for a wide variety of housing types from zero lot line, to condominium, to single family and others. This will provide housing for all types of people at varying levels of income and therefore the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Plan and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning for the entire area is R-1 except for the Elks Lodge at the corner of Southwest Drive and Kellers Chapel Road. Innovative site planning techniques and good execution of those techniques in development of an area such as this could be the model for the future development of Jonesboro. The property could be developed as zoned but because of its proximity to the mall the opportunity exists to provide a wider variety of housing to meet the needs of a broader base of people. Good site planning techniques should prevent any detrimental effects on nearby property. The development of Southern Hills Mall will have considerable impact on community facilities. This development alone will change the neighborhood and area immediately surrounding it and there will be increased demands for services such as street, fire, police and other emergency services, schools, etc. This particular rezoning is unlike the previous request and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Krennerich asked the City Planner if there was any way to guarantee that a Village Residential Development would be built there if it is rezoned or would it be wide open to any R-3 type development. Mr. Batten stated they could put any type of residential that they wish, the whole range of uses permitted in R-3 zoning. Mr. Batten recommended to take it to an R-3 LU-O district which would limit the uses to only those specified and provide some assurance and control over the development. When asked if he would consider R-3 LUO, Mr. Arnold responded that he did not understand what limited use was and the consequences that go with it.
Mr. Krennerich made a motion to recommend disapproval of the request considering that approval of a Village Residential Overlay is not being requested and neither is a limited use overlay and therefore there are no guarantees that this is what would be developed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Johnson. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Johnson, Krennerich, Gott, Damron, Beadles. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST DISAPPROVED.
#4 RZ02-37 Tipton Ross requested approval of rezoning from the Commercial C-5 Neighborhood Office District and the Commercial C-3, General Commercial District to the Residential R-3, Multi-Family High Density District for all of Lot 6 and the west 130.05' of Lot 4 of Harrisburg Road Addition. The general location of the property is on the south side of Lakewood Drive, west of Wood Duck Cove.
Glenn Lovett, Attorney, stated this is the third rezoning of parcels in this same area for the same owners and is an upgrade in zoning and is consistent with other zoning and uses in the area.
Glenn Batten, stated that all the facts here are the same as those of the two previous requests and is really a continuation of the previous rezoning. Mr. Batten said he expects the remaining lot to be requested for rezoning in the near future and recommended approval of this one.
Mr. Damron made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Krennerich. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Gott, Damron, Krennerich, Johnson, Beadles. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#5 PP02-18 Delta Coleman requested preliminary approval of subdivision plans for Throgmartin Estates Phase IV containing 12 lots on 4.38 acres. The general location of the property is east of Elizabeth Lane, on the north and south sides of Nathan Drive.
Claude Martin, City Engineer, expressed concern about only having one way in and one way out of the subdivision which now consists of a series of dead end streets. George Hamman, pointed out on the overall plan that there are three streets that are dedicated to the adjacent property.
Mr. Martin noted that drainage easements are needed for the drainage going to the east and the amount of discharge is needed for the ditch on the south side of Nathan Drive at FES A-3 and FES B-3. The storm drain needs to be shown on the profile sheets. A drop inlet is needed on the northwest corner of Troy Cove and Nathan Drive. The plans state that typical paving section is on sheet 12 of 13 but the last page is 10 of 10. Mr. Martin also pointed out that if sidewalks are going to be installed they need to be shown on the plans in compliance with ADA requirements.
Mr. Krennerich made a motion to grant preliminary approval of the subdivision plans with the following stipulations:
1. Granting or securing a drainage easement of adequate width for drainage going east to the big ditch
2. Providing information on the rate of stormwater discharge for the ditch on the south side of Nathan Drive to the City Engineer
3. Adding a drop inlet to the northwest corner of Nathan Drive and Troy Cove
4. Correct page numbering on all pages of plans
5. Compliance with the Americans with Disability Act on sidewalk installation if they are installed
The motion was seconded by Mr. Gott. Voting was 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Johnson, Krennerich, Damron, Gott, Beadles. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#6 Affirmation of the site improvement requirements for Bill’s Fresh Market located at 3605 E. Johnson Avenue.
Jim Pinson, a neighboring property owner, addressed the commissioners regarding the improvements that have not been installed particularly the buffering. He was specifically seeking to know if the MAPC had changed or removed the stipulations from the site development. Mr. Pinson said Mr. Phillips had promised to complete the improvements in several conversations but never followed through with them. Mr. Pinson said he’s receiving a lot of talk but no action. He has spoken with several members of the City Council but has not received any action there.
Tim McCall, a member of the City Council, stated he had had trouble obtaining information on the issue and received most of he knows from the newspaper. Mr. McCall said he was having a hard time explaining to the citizens why the City had not been able to enforce the laws in place.
Stacy Schratz, a neighboring property owner, stated that she had been getting different stories from different officials. She said the store has been opened over a year and nothing has been done to make them comply. She was concerned that the City would not be able to enforce any provisions on any other developer if they cannot make the Phillips comply how could they make anyone else.
Another neighboring owner spoke regarding the light emission from this development and how it greatly bothered her daughter who has some learning disabilities. She requested immediate help to get the lighting and buffering issue resolved.
Dr. Beadles informed those in attendance that nothing had been done to remove the stipulations or eliminate any site plan requirements from this development. He further stated that the MAPC had every intention of helping protect the property owners. Dr. Beadles recommended that the MAPC send a memorandum to the City Council stating that these stipulations have not been met nor has the developer complied with the items on the site development plan that were submitted for approval and that we would like to see them enforced.
A motion was made by Mr. Krennerich and seconded by Mr. Gott requesting Dr. Beadles to draft a letter to the City Council telling them that the developer, Phillips Investments, has not met the stipulations placed on the site development plans in October of 2000 nor have they complied with the items that were submitted on the plans as part of the approval and we need their help to get this done. It should further state that the MAPC has not met at any time to change or delete any of the required or planned improvements. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Gott, Damron, Johnson, Krennerich and Beadles. MOTION CARRIED.