title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on December 9, 2003.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, December 9, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beadles, Vance, Damron, Gott, Moore, Day, M. Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Krennerich, G. Johnson
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Batten, City Planner; Phillip Crego, City Attorney; Brian Wadley, Planning Coordinator
The minutes of the 11-11-03 meeting were approved as prepared on a motion by Gott, second by M. Johnson and unanimous vote.
#1 RZ03-24 Ronald Jefford, HJH, LLC, requests approval of rezoning from the C-3, General Commercial District to the Residential R-3, Multi-Family Medium Density District for 11.15 acres located on a part of the SE ¼, SW ¼ of Section 33, T14N, R4E. The property is located on the west side of Stadium Boulevard, south of Planters Drive.
Terry Bare, Project Engineer, stated that his clients own the apartment complex adjacent to this property on the north side and they wish to build something similar to this on this property. Residential uses are located to the west and north. Mr. Bare further stated that he had talked with the City Engineer’s office about any drainage problems with the existing apartment complex or any problems caused by the complex. He said he was informed by them that they were not aware of any such drainage problems. Drainage issues will be addressed when the site plan is prepared.
Clifford Toney, owner of property in front of the property, spoke about this request. Mr. Toney stated that while he had several concerns with the request, he mainly wanted to offer some alternatives for the proposal which would alleviate some of his concerns. Photographs were presented showing the area. Mr. Toney stated the he has a kennel on the property now and has had for several years. Mr. Toney contended that the development of residential uses adjacent to his property would cause damage to his current use of the property. A shopping center could be constructed there. The property line is very close to his house on one side and close to the dog houses on the other. The location of the drive is immediately north of Mr. Toney’s house. As presented, the 60’ of property where the drive is to be would be rezoned and will remain a private drive. This will place residential property between two commercial properties. This along with the private drive will affect the property value. If the 60’ of property extending to Stadium were not rezoned and allowed to remain C-3 this would lessen the impact on his property. It would also help if the 60’ were dedicated as public right of way. This would benefit both properties. Mr. Toney also presented photos of the Nettleton School bus stopping on Stadium Blvd. which stops traffic from both directions at 7:30 a.m. on a street with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The bus will not drive down the private drive. A new commercial subdivision is beginning across the street and a new store for Mashburn’s RV Center which will add even more traffic. Mr. Toney stated that his goal was that either Mr. Jefford or the MAPC would change the rezoning application to allow the 60’ strip to remain C-3 and stipulate that it be a public street. If the street were dedicated it would allow him to ultimately sell his property and move which he feels he will have to do anyway when 200 apartments are built behind him.
Dr. Beadles explained that tonight all the MAPC is dealing with is the rezoning and not a site development plan.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that the proposal as presented is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. Because of the new residential opportunities that will be offered, the rezoning would promote the public interest and the proposal is judged to be compatible with the surrounding areas. The rezoning is both reasonable and appropriate and approval is recommended.
Mr. Batten explained that the 60’ strip of land that will provide access to the complex could either remain C-3 or could be changed to R-3. Property value could be affected if changed to R-3. From a land use stand point, it would look nicer on the maps if it remained C-3 but it is not critical. Mr. Batten said he preferred that it remain C-3 and then rezone just the interior part and mixed zoning is okay. With regard to the issue of public versus a private drive, this issue really needs to be addressed at the time of site review and some of the other traffic issues would normally be addressed at that time as well. Ultimately the decision on the status of the public street or the private drive is up to the owner of the property, zoning has no bearing on this. Construction standards are higher for a dedicated street than for a private drive because of the city’s maintenance responsibility. Separation and buffering of this property from the surrounding property would also be taken into consideration at the time of site review. The site development plan would have to be submitted to the MAPC for approval for anything over 48 apartment units.
Mr. Vance made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council as submitted. The second was made by Ms. Moore. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Vance, M. Johnson, Day, Damron, Gott, Moore. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED,
#2 RZ03-26 Jonesboro Real Estate Holdings Company requests approval of rezoning from the Commercial C-5, Neighborhood Office District and from the Residential R-2, Multi-Family Low Density District to the Commercial C-3, Limited Use Overlay District for Lots 1 through 6, and Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 of Patricks Second Addition, and Lots 7-A and 7-B of the replat of Lot 7, Block 2 of Patricks Second Addition, subject to easements, restrictions, reservations and right of way of record. The general location of the property is on the north side of E. Matthews Avenue, east of Houghton Street, south of Logan Avenue and west of Roland Street.
Mr. Vance recused himself from the Commission when this item was considered.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that this rezoning was the second of its type and is an expansion of the medical center area. The application is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan in that in 1996 it was unforeseen that the medical community would grow as it has to encompass the area that is currently does. The proposal will promote the public interest and the development of the medical center is a very attribute of the city. Much of the surrounding area is being converted to health care type uses and this proposal is consistent with the way area is taking shape. The request is reasonable and appropriate and approval is recommended.
A motion to recommend approval of the request to the City Council was made by Mr. Damron and seconded by Ms. Moore. Voting was 5 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining. Those voting aye were M. Johnson, Moore, Damron, Gott, Day. Mr. Day stated that he had some reservations about voting on this because he has done subcontract work for the owners but not on this piece of property. Those abstaining were Mr. Vance. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
In other business, City Planner Glenn Batten, informed the Commission that Associated Engineering, Peters & Associates, and Carter & Burgess are ready to go finally with the traffic study of southwest Jonesboro. The area has been expanded to now reach up into Nettleton Avenue so that other proposed major developments are included within the study area. Contracts have been signed and they expect it will take from six to nine months to complete the study. A kick off meeting should take pace soon.
Mr. Batten also pointed out a trouble point that has been found in the ordinance with regard to the Agricultural AG-1 Zoning. City Water & Light (CWL) are in the process of drilling new wells and they are all located in the AG-1 District. This district requires that any nonresidential use be located on a lot with a minimum of five acres. Traditionally CW & L purchases one acre parcels for the wells and they don’t need the four extra acres and the farmers don’t want to sell that much. Mr. Batten recommended that the ordinance be adjusted to one acre or less for nonresidential uses of a utility nature in AG-1 and revise the ordinance to reflect that. It will need to be advertised as an amendment to the zoning ordinance and will come back to the MAPC for formal review.
Mr. Day questioned if a variance could be granted and it was noted that the BZA has authority to vary dimension requirements. A variance by BZA and conditional use approval by MAPC would be one possible solution to the problem. Dr. Beadles suggested that further information be provided at the next work session.