title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on October 14, 2003.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beadles, Damron, Gott, Day, M. Johnson, Moore, Vance, G. Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Krennerich
The minutes of the September 9, 2003 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Gott, second by Mr. Damron and unanimous vote.
#1 Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing standards for the location, development, construction, and maintenance of Off-Premise Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards).
Randy Wheeler, JRI Properties, stated that he and the other installers helped prepare this ordinance. One item that Mr. Wheeler wanted the MAPC to look at was the provisions in Section 2 on page 4 and continuing to page 5 regarding the maximum size of a sign. His question was whether this would always limit the developer to having to sell two separate signs on one side or could they be combined without a walkway. Removing the phrase 672 square feet would clear that up and allow two panels to blend together. The Commissioners agreed that it could be cleared up.
A couple of typographical errors were noted, in Item (g) (2) on page 5, it should be “to the” bottom of the framing, and correcting the sub-numbers under (g) to be (1), (2), (3) & (4). Another error was on page 7 in (k), first paragraph, change all to “shall be accompanied”, and in (k) (8) remove the words “Advertising Sign signs”.
Tom Givens, Lamar Outdoor Advertising, asked for clarification of whether or not you could stack two signs or combine the two into one large sign face.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that you could have two or you could blend them together to make one sign. Mr. Givens stated that he was not opposed to the sizes allowed, but the 1,200 square feet exceeds the industry standard nationwide. Mr. Givens went on to say that the regulations need to be toughened up a little to prevent any ill feelings among the public. The industry standard size sign nationwide is 672 square feet total. He suggested that the board may want to look at 800 square feet or somewhere about that. A 1,200 square foot sign could stir up a neighborhood.
Mr. Wheeler stated that some areas are more appropriate for the larger signs and some are not but they wanted to be able to do both.
Commissioner Damron stated that he really needed more time to study the ordinance and maybe see some of the state standards and what some other cities have done. Mr. Damron requested that this information be sent in advance of the next meeting.
Commissioner Vance stated that the big thing that he sees missing in the ordinance is that the location of where the signs are placed on the property is not addressed. Mr. Vance stated he did not think you should be allowed to lease just enough property to cover the sign and then be able to put it on the property line or up against a neighbor’s property or even 5’ away from the line. Placement of signs in developed commercial areas is not addressed in the ordinance. A different standard should apply to developed areas of town both commercial and residential as opposed to open areas along the bypass. Size limitations need to be scaled back in some areas. Setbacks and densities need to be looked at carefully so that the rights of adjoining property owners are protected. It has to be something other than just zoning to trigger some standards. Typical side building setbacks would not be enough protection. On-premise advertising needs to be regulated as well.
A motion was made by Mr. Damron and seconded by Mr. M. Johnson to adopt a resolution to recommend to the City Council that they extend the moratorium on the Off-Premise Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards) until such time as the ordinance has been finalized. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Vance, Gott, Damron, M. Johnson, G. Johnson, Moore, Day. MOTION CARRIED.
The MAPC scheduled a workshop on November 6, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. All sign companies are invited.
#2 Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing standards for the location ,development, construction, and maintenance of wireless communication facilities.
A couple of typographical errors were noted in the ordinance. On page 5, item 6, GA should be changed to “AG” and on page 7, item (i) (1) change just to “shall”. Commissioner Gott raised a question about the definition that defines the MAPC as the designated planning and zoning authority for the City of Jonesboro. Mr. Gott also questioned who will enforce all of the requirements of the ordinance to which Mr. Batten responded by stating that the Planning and Inspection Department would be responsible for that.
Commissioner Vance said he has the same problem with this ordinance that he has with the sign ordinance in that nothing is specified about a minimum size parcel. Leasing a piece of property that only accommodates the tower base itself doesn’t seem to be the thing to do. Mr. Vance requested that information be sent to them as soon as possible regarding industry standards.
It was decided by the MAPC to include this ordinance in the workshop scheduled for November 6, 2003 along with the sign ordinance.
#3 RZ03-22 Larry Brantley requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Medium Density District to the Commercial C-3, General Commercial District for a part of the SW ¼, NE ¼ of Section 10, T14N, R4E, containing .34 acre. The address of the property is 1722 Airport Road and the general location of the property is on the east side of Airport Road, south of Johnson Avenue.
Mary Helen Duggar representing the Brantleys stated that if rezoned, Super D Drug , will be purchasing this property to combine with the property next door that is already zoned C-3. The traffic count at this location is one of the highest in the City and is already approved by the AHTD for a traffic signal that should be installed in the next five years.
No opposition was expressed at the meeting.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that because this is a general use rezoning you have to consider all uses permitted under the C-3 zoning when making a final decision. In analyzing the proposal using the criteria set out in the zoning ordinance, Mr. Batten stated that he made the following determinations. First, the proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan which shows this strip of Johnson to be thoroughfare commercial.
Mr. Batten explained that the proposal is also consistent with and promotes the public interest, particularly in that along with a traffic signal, it would hopefully stimulate the redesign and improvement of the entire intersection. The land uses are essentially consistent with other uses in the area. Airport Road is residential going south. The proposal should not adversely affect those residential uses provided that this particular site is well screened and well buffered from the surrounding area. This would be looked at and considered in great detail when the site development plan is submitted along with the improvements to the Airport Road intersection with Johnson Avenue. The primary impact on the community is going to be traffic. This project is expected to generate some 300 to 400 vehicles per day which is not significant. All things considered, the proposal appears to be reasonable and appropriate.
Mr. Vance made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council with Mr. Damron making the second. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Vance, M. Johnson, Damron, Day, Gott, G. Johnson, Moore. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#4 RZ03-23 Larry Williams requested approval of rezoning from the Commercial C-3, General Commercial District to the Residential R-2, Multi-Family Medium Density District for Lots 18-23 of East Washington Subdivision of Patrick’s Third Addition, Block 3. The general location of the property is on the southeast corner of Hope Avenue and McAdams Street.
No opposition was expressed at the meeting.
City Planner, Glenn Batten, stated that as with the previous request this is a general use rezoning proposal and all uses permitted have to be considered. There are a variety of mixed uses in the area. The most appropriate use is probably multi-family uses. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would promote the public interest by providing additional housing resources for this neighborhood and new investment. It would likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Based upon these findings, the rezoning appears to be appropriate.
A motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council was made by Mr. Gott and seconded by Mr. Vance. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Day, G. Johnson, Gott, Vance, Damron, Moore, M. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#5 CU03-11 Sprint PCS requested approval of a conditional use to construct a communications tower in the Commercial C-3, General Commercial District at 2400 E. Highland Drive. The tower will be constructed on the roof of the Regions Bank building. The general location of the property is on the northwest corner of Highland Drive and Stone Street.
John C. Dorr, Gulf Coast Real Estate Consultants, stated that his application in reality does not involve the construction on an actual tower, instead, antenna panels will be attached to the walls of the penthouse on the top of Regions Bank. The antennas will be stealth or camouflaged so that they will not be noticeable. This will provide the coverage necessary for this area of the city. Sprint tries to use existing structures whenever possible.
No opposition was expressed from any in attendance.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that this proposal is in agreement and in alignment with the proposed ordinance that will be discussed later on this agenda where the use of existing support structures is encouraged. This proposal is exactly what many in the city would like to see which is to downplay the support structure as much as possible and this one does that very well. The stealth technology used here is an innovative way of providing wireless facilities and therefore justifies granting the conditional use.
A motion to approve the conditional use was made by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Ms. Moore. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Moore, Gott, Damron, Vance, G. Johnson, Day, M. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED.
#6 FP03-9 Janice Mounce requested final approval of plans for Landing Park Subdivision, a subdivision containing 9 lots on 2.67 acres. The general location of the property is on the north side of Prospect Road, east of Edwardian Lane.
John Easley, Associated Engineering, stated that he had received the engineering stipulations and he has addressed those and revised the plans and submitted them to the City Engineer.
No opposition was expressed by any in attendance.
Teddy Hooton, City Engineer, stated that they had received the revised plans but they have not had time to review those revisions.
Mr. Vance made a motion to grant final approval of the plans subject to the City Engineer giving his approval for the revised plans. The motion was seconded by Mr. M. Johnson. Voting was 6 in favor, 1 abstaining. Those voting aye were Vance, M. Johnson, Damron, G. Johnson, Gott, Moore. Those abstaining were Day. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
# 7 PP03-7 Kensington Development Corporation requested preliminary approval of plans for Riveroaks Phase I, a subdivision containing 45 lots on 16.22 acres. Conceptual approval is also being sought for the overall development. The general location of the property is on the north side of East Craighead Forest Road, west of Harrisburg Road.
Terry Bare, Project Surveyor, stated that the items that were discussed at the September meeting have been addressed in the revised plans. Particularly, additional exits have been added to the adjoining properties for a total of five exits when the subdivision is completed. The routes chosen were the least constricted. The existing creek is going to be retained on the site. With regard to the trees located in the detention area, they have contacted the Arkansas Forestry Service who has provided a letter regarding those trees. A copy of the letter from the Forestry Commission is attached to these minutes. Mr. Bare stated that he had received the engineering comments and had met with the Engineering Staff today and answered those and will be making some revisions and alterations on some existing pipes in conjunction with the city.
Larry Johnson, an adjacent property owner, raised the question of who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the detention pond. He also questioned who would make sure that 10 years from now that the pond is still functioning properly.
Teddy Hooton, Civil Engineer, stated that the Engineering Department has requested that a property owners association be formed and they would be responsible for maintaining the detention pond which will be dry except when it is raining. The pond will have grass planted and will be mowed. The city will be responsible for maintaining the ditch where it leaves the pond and travels eastward.
Mrs. Larry Johnson questioned how far away the detention pond would be located from her property line and what the fate of the existing trees is. There is currently a ditch on the west and south sides of her property that she asked about as well.
Terry Bare, Project Surveyor, stated that there will be no construction of the pond on any adjacent property. There will be some trees retained in and around the detention pond and a walking trail installed.
Pam Honeycutt, whose mother owns property on the south side of Craighead Forest Road, addressed the commission on a variety of issues. Ms. Honeycutt questioned whether easements or right of ways had been obtained to facilitate completion of the proposed exits from the property. She also wanted to know what improvements were going to be made to Craighead Forest Road. Increased traffic congestion in the area was the main concern. It was pointed out that Craighead Forest Road is only 24’ wide now. The street should be a minimum of 27’ wide with no heavy traffic. It is expected that 2,000 trips per day would be made from this subdivision. Most of the houses on Craighead Forest Road have short driveways and back into oncoming traffic on a road with no shoulders. Ms. Honeycutt further stated that the corner of Harrisburg Road and Craighead Forest Road is hard to maneuver now because of vision problems with the hill to the south. There is also a deep ditch at the corner that needs to be fixed. Along with widening Craighead Forest Road, a traffic signal will be necessary to allow proper traffic movements.
Ms. Honeycutt stated that she is not asking for the proposal to be denied but to make sure that the improvements to this road are completed. She stated that she spoke with City Engineer Claude Martin who estimated the cost of improving 1700’ of the road to be $200,000, but said he could not predict when the improvements would take place. At best would be a year but could be five to six years. Ms. Honeycutt also questioned the use of taxpayer’s money for these improvements and stated that they developer should bear this cost. She contended that this developer should be required to install the roads before the houses are built or post the appropriate amount of funds to make sure they happen.
Chairman Beadles stated that the MAPC typically requires right of way to be dedicated to the end of their property and then when the adjacent property is developed their street is required to align with the existing and the street extended.
Traffic problems on Forest Hill Road were discussed by Marvin Poole, another property owner in the area. Mr. Poole questioned whether easements had been obtained to facilitate the outlets to the north. Several hundred houses empty onto Forest Hill which is very narrow. Traffic backs up at Harrisburg Road and Forest Hill Road. Mr. Poole asked what improvements were going to be made to Forest Hill and will there be a traffic signal at Harrisburg Road? He also wanted to know if any buffering was going to be installed on the north side of the development.
DeLane Hogan, an adjacent owner, questioned where the exit to Forest Hill Road was going to be in relation to his property. Mr. Hogan stated that there is a pond near his home now that much of the water from the area drains into. He questioned if this was still going to be available and how the drainage would be handled? Forest Hill Road has quite a large drop off of the existing pavement that needs to be addressed.
Terry Bare, Project Surveyor, stated that his drainage calculations for the subdivision had taken into consideration all of the adjacent property that drain into this property. The detention pond is designed to capture the water from the subdivision and adjacent lands. Most of the water coming into the subdivision is from the south.
It was pointed out that Sugar Creek Lane is not a dedicated street and could not be used to tie to the subdivision without making it public. Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that there are a lot of impacts with a development this size and most of these have been discussed here tonight. Many of the technical things will be properly addressed by the City Engineer. Mr. Batten stated that it would be good if the trees that are taken out could be replaced on a one on one basis around the detention pond. A walking track around the pond is included in the proposal along with part of an overall city plan to help develop a greenway utilizing the power line easement. This is good for the eastern part, but some detail needs to be given to the western part of the subdivision. Additional open space needs to be considered some place in the central portion of the subdivision. Mr. Batten reminded the Commission that under the subdivision regulations, the MAPC can require up to 10% of the gross acreage of the subdivision to be devoted to open space and recreation area. This needs to be looked at as plans progress. The issue of traffic still remains a major issue. When all phases are completed, there could be as much as 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles trips per day. You have to look at where traffic is going. Much of the traffic will go to Craighead Forest Road but additional outlets to Harrisburg Road need to be looked at as well. The idea is to disburse the traffic in several ways and a direct connection to Harrisburg Road is needed. The location depends on where the opportunity can be created and the developer should be responsible for doing that. Craighead Forest Road will be improved as part of the city’s overall plan but the date is unknown. One critical thing that needs attention is the intersection of Harrisburg Road and Craighead Forest Road. It is not good and needs to be improved which will help a great deal. With regard to the proposed outlets on the north side, the one on the west side would not connect to another dedicated street. The outlet toward the northeast side would tie in with Makala Lane but it would introduce traffic into another subdivision instead of taking it out to a collector. The direct link to Harrisburg Road is critical and the direct link to Forest Hill Road is critical. The links to the north are desirable to get linkages between residential areas but could be a detriment to the other subdivisions with heavy traffic. It all comes down to who should be responsible for improving these streets and intersections should it be the city or should it be the developer who is creating the traffic or a combination of both the city and developer.
Teddy Hooton, Civil Engineer, informed the commission that he had provided a list of comments to the project engineer and felt comfortable that all of those would be addressed on the final plans.
Terry Bare, Project Surveyor, stated that the overall plan is for 224 homes, but only 45 are included in the first phase. The other phases will be developed when the other lots are sold and they have not determined how many phases that will be.
Dr. Beadles posed a question to the Commission about Craighead Forest Road which does not meet city requirements, asking should the developer be required to develop that street and make it wider to meet the needs of the traffic and also should a turning lane be considered?
Commissioner Day said he knew of some instances where a developer did improve a state highway citing the Gladiolus Apartments as being one of them. Mr. Day further stated that he was concerned about the width of right of way being just 60’. This is not sufficient right of way for a collector street which is what Craighead Forest Road is.
Terry Bare, Project Surveyor, stated that they had made provisions along Craighead Forest Road to facilitate future widening. They are dedicating 30’ right of way and a 10’ utility easement now and they are imposing a 50’ building setback.
Commissioner Vance stated that what is normally required and what has been done in the past is for the developer to participate in the improvement of adjoining roads whether he opens his lots onto that street or not. It has to be a balanced approach so that it doesn’t run the price of lots too high for people to buy. There has to be homes in various price ranges for a wide range of people to be able to buy. It could be that instead of totally improving ½ of the street that the developer would improve the whole street without curb and gutter.
Mr. Vance made a motion to grant preliminary approval of Phase I only asking the developer to consider and/or address all comments made at this meeting on his final submission. Approval is also subject to the City Engineer’s approval on the drainage revisions. The motion was seconded by Mr. M. Johnson. Voting was 6 in favor, 1 opposed. Those voting aye were M. Johnson, Vance, Damron, Day, Moore, Gott. Those voting no were G. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE OVERALL CONCEPT.
#8 PP03-8 Vance Brown requested conceptual approval of plans for Brownstone II, a subdivision containing 17 lots and located on the south side of Brownstone Drive, west of Makala Lane.
No opposition was expressed by any in attendance.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that his only comments are that it agrees with Brownstone Phase I with lots that are of similar size and his comments regarding the outlet to the south are the same as previously stated which will feed traffic through Russell Hill Drive and Makala Lane.
John Easley, Project Engineer, stated that what his client wanted to do was abandon the right of way for Makala Lane south of Russell Hill Drive and not extend the street and turn his lots facing Russell Hill Drive. In the future, Mr. Brown plans to take an outlet to the west and north to connect with Oakland Drive but he does not want the connection to the subdivision to the south.
Concerns and opposition were expressed over the potential increased traffic through this subdivision from the proposed subdivision by some of the owners in Brownstone Subdivision.
Several opinions were expressed regarding the right of way on Makala Lane and whether it should be connected to Riveroaks Subdvision. It was noted that the right of way for Makala Lane was dedicated years ago as part of Byars Ranchettes.
Commissioner Damron stated that he felt like the Makala Lane connection and the Oakland Drive outlet were both needed. Neither connection would take place until the latter phases of Riveroaks Subdivision.
Commissioner Vance stated that the disbursement of traffic through several outlets should not overload any of the streets and it would be a help to emergency vehicles, sanitation trucks, mail delivery, etc…
Mr. Brown stated that he has an option to purchase the property to the west of Brownstone Phase II which would eventually facilitate the westward connection.
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM.
#9 FP02-16 Mitchell Caldwell requested final approval of subdivision plans for Caldwell Acres Fourth Addition containing 39 lots on 9.90 acres. The general location of the property is on the east side of Richardson Road, north of Keely Drive.
Carlos Wood, Project Engineer, stated that the connector to the south that was requested is included in the plans and will be built with gravel to city specifications until such time as that phase is developed and then it will be paved. The gravel street will be installed as part of Phase IV. As far as the drainage to the east, Mr. Wood stated that the drainage easement document is prepared and waiting for presentation to the City pending approval of the subdivisions.
City Planner Glenn Batten asked if an overall drainage plan had ever been done, and if so, do all phases work together without having a heavy impact on Higginbottom Creek? Carlos Wood, Project Engineer, stated that all phases have been taken into consideration when preparing the drainage for all six phases.
Commissioner Day noted that up to this point no land has been set aside through the first six phases as green space or parks. This will need to be considered in future phases on property to the east.
It was noted that the stipulations from the preliminary approval had been complied with.
Mr. Vance made a motion to grant final approval for Caldwell Acres Phases IV, V and VI which are items 9, 10 & 11 on this agenda with the stipulation that the following statement be added to the final 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”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gott. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were G. Johnson, Damron, Gott, Moore, Vance, M. Johnson, Day. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#10 FP02-17 Mitchell Caldwell requested final approval of subdivision plans for Caldwell Acres Fifth Addition containing 19 lots on 4.30 acres. The general location of the property is on the east side of Richardson Drive, and is a continuation of Keely Drive.
APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM INLCUDED IN THE MOTION FOR ITEM #9.
#11 FP02-18 Mitchell Caldwell requested final approval of subdivision plans for Caldwell Acres Sixth Addition containing 19 lots 4.44 acres. The general location of the property is on the east side of Richardson Road, north of Keely Drive.
APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM INLCUDED IN THE MOTION FOR ITEM #9.