title
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 1993
body
MEMBERS PRESENT: Coleman, Little, Damron, McCracken, Findley, Alston, Baker, Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
The minutes of the 11-9-93 meeting were approved as prepared.
At Mr. Coleman’s suggestion, the Commissioners entered into discussion about electing the slate of officers for 1994. Ms. Finley made a motion to keep the same slate of officers as 1993: Jon Coleman - Chairman, Hardy Little - Vice Chairman, Jim Damron - Secretary. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCracken. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed.
#1 PUD93-1 The Lindsey Family Trust, c/o of Lindsey Management Company requested approval of final plans for a Residential Planned Unit Development. The development covers 18.52 acres and contains 240 units in 20 buildings. The property is located south of Gladiolus Drive, west of Harrisburg Road and north of the Shadow Ridge Subdivision.
This is the second phase of Park Lake Addition which is located immediately east of the first phase that was final approved in November of 1991.
Mr. Dan Mulhollen stated that there have been several changes made in the final plans. There were 12 units in the gladiolus Estates section of the development, 2 have been deleted, reducing it to 10 buildings, 120 units, also, one of the lakes has been extended and one of the basketball courts has been moved. Mr. Mulhollen also said that there has been a landscape plan developed for the property including tree planting, shrubbery and fencing of the same type installed in the first addition. Additional ponds are planned as well as one of the lakes being enlarged.
Those opposing this development voiced concerns about safety, especially concerning traffic accidents and also the number of units that will be in the development. Some felt that this parcel of land was much too small to put so many people on.
The property owners stated that did not object to having neighbors but were strongly opposed to having so many neighbors. On resident stated that even with the reduction from 264 to 240 units was still the same animal to them. Some also feared what would happen on the remaining lands, zoned the same as this tract and owned by the same owners of this tract. Skip Mooney, representing the project, stated that his clients were willing to write in the deed a self-imposed limitation stating that multi-family development would not be allowed to occur on the remaining acres owned by these owners.
Those in favor of the development were primarily residents of the existing Park Lake Apartments. Most stated that the apartments had given them better housing and more opportunities they could not have afforded elsewhere in the city.
When asked about subsidized housing, it was stated that here are no government subsidized housing units in this development, however, there are tax credits if rents are kept low and cater to a low moderate income level. Mr. Lindsey stated that the credits would only apply to 120 of the units. Mr. Lindsey further stated that the tax credits expired after ten years but the apartments had to be maintained as is for an additional five years.
There was some concern voiced about the exterior siding of the buildings. Some Commissioners stated that they wanted to see a durable, long life material on the exterior of the buildings that would last beyond the years for which the tax credits were valid and the additional five years. Manufacturer’s warranty and expected lifetime should be approved by the Planning Department prior to development.
Guy Lowes, City Engineer, stated that the storm water detention date was not sufficient for a complete review of the project and additional information should be supplied. There are, also drainage easements needed for existing ditches.
Mr. Alston made a motion to approve the final plans subject to a drainage easement and storm water retention date being approved by the City Engineer. Included in the motion was a statement that the, developer follow through with plans on the fencing with brick columns and tree plantings as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker. Voting was 5 in favor, 2 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#2 RZ93-48 Lonnie Clark requested approval of a rezoning from Residential (R-1) to Industrial (I-1) for .50 acre located on the west side of N. Patrick Street, north of Magnolia Road.
Mr. Troy Sheets stated that the adjoining property owners had signed a statement saying they were not in opposition to the rezoning. The owner said he would build a nice building and put up privacy fencing.
It was noted that here was not commercial or industrial zoning anywhere close to this small tract of land. All of the surrounding land is zoned R-1 including the retail store on the corner of Magnolia and Patrick. Much of the land east of this property is undeveloped and the remained of the land is residential.
McCracken made a motion to deny the request citing spot zoning as the basis. The motion was seconded by Mr. Alston. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST DENIED.
#3 MP93-75 Lonnie Clark requested approval of a one lot plat containing .50 acre. The property is located on the west side of N. Patrick Street, north of Magnolia Road.
This request was withdrawn.
#4 RZ93-49 Melvin Brown requested approval of a rezoning from Agricultural (AG-1) to Industrial (I-1) for 30.35 acres located on the southeast corner of E. Highland Drive and Moore Road.
The entire area surrounding this property is either industrial or commercial. The Industrial Park is on the east and west sides of the property.
Ms. Shaw made a motion to approve the request subject to the right-of-way requirements being met on Moore Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#5 RZ93-50 Mike Watson requested approval of a rezoning from Residential (R-1) to Residential (R-2) for the north 35’ of Lot 5, Block H of Meadowlark Acres. The property is located on the west side of Leslie Ann Drive, north of Barbara Ann Drive.
Some of the other lots in this area are zoned R-2 and were annexed that was in 1978. There was in existence at the time of annexation one four-plex apartment units. Mr. Watson plans to use the lot for apartments, 10 units on 1.39 acres. He said he plans to plant shrubs to separate the apartments from the other lots.
Some drainage problems were noted by area residents who feared that those problems would be compounded if dense development occurs. There was also some opposition from neighbors concerning this request who stated that there are 52 single family homes in the subdivision and they felt his was inappropriate development within the subdivision.
Ms. Shaw made a motion to deny the request stating the density of the development was too mush along with the drainage problems that could be increased if additional lands were zoned R-2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker. Voting was 6 in favor, 1 opposed. REQUEST DENIED.
#6 RP93-54 Mike Watson requested approval of Watson Replat of Lot 4 and the north 35 feet of lot 5, block H of Meadowlark Acres. The property is located on the west side of Leslie Ann Drive, North of Barbara Ann Drive.
Mr. McCracken stated that he didn’t like the idea of having mixed zoning on the lots and without the rezoning in item #5, there would be R-1 and R-2 on the same lot.
A motion was made by Mr. Damron to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Ms. Shaw. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST DENIED.
#7 SP93-32 Mike Watson requested approval of site plans for an apartment complex containing ten (10) units in three (3) buildings. The property is located on the west side of Leslie Ann Drive, north of Barbara Ann Drive.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to deny the request because the plans are inconsistent with the type of development in the whole subdivision. Without the rezoning the current plans would not meet requirements. The motion was seconded by Ms. Finley. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST DENIED.
#8 SU93-18 Bobby and Pat Hall requested approval of placement of a mobile home at 4402 Ingels Road.
Mr. Hall plans to place the mobile home where a house is currently sitting. He intends to remove the house a little bit at a time over the next few months.
A motion was made by Mr. Alston to approve the motion with the stipulation that the house be removed from the property within 9 months after occupying the mobile home. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#12 FP93-24 Ridgepointe Development Corporation requested final approval of Ridgepointe Subdivision, Phase IV containing one lot on 4.54 acres. This property is located on the west side of Lacoste Drive South of Vintage Drive.
There was some discussion about a golf cart easement being located in the City’s right-of-way. It was stated that while the right-of-way may be used for golf cart travel there should not be a designated easement within the right-of-way.
A motion was made by Mr. Little to grant preliminary approval of the request subject to eliminating the golf cart easement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Alston. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining.
#13 SP93-33 Todd Gorton, Gorton Hydraulics, requested approval of site plans for expansion of an existing manufacturing operation. The total expansion will contain 4.080 sq. ft. The property is located on the northeast corner of Opportunity Drive and Krueger Drive.
No one was present to speak on this request.
Guy Lowes, City Engineer, stated that here are some flood plain and flood way areas on the property that need to be addressed prior to development.
A motion was made by Ms. Shaw to approve the request, subject to correcting the right-of-way to match the existing right-of-way on Opportunity Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#14 FP93-25 Paul Throgmartin requested final approval of Throgmartin Subdivision Phase III containing two lots on 3.08 acres. The property is located on the north side of Prospect Road, east of Paragould Highway.
In order to meet MATA requirements, 19’ of additional right-of-way will be needed on Prospect Road. Street improvements will be addressed by way of a street improvement agreement rather than requiring improvements at this time. The reminder of the street is not curbed at this time.
A motion was made by Mr. McCracken to approve the request subject to an additional 19’ of right-of-way and subject to a street improvement agreement for future improvements on Prospect Road. The motion was seconded by Ms. Finley. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#15 MP93-74 Bob Hufford requested approval of a three (3) lot plat located on the southeast corner of Southwest Drive and Parker Road.
It was noted that final drainage plans for this plat must be approved by the City Engineer. On a site plan that was seen a couple of months ago the drive off the north side of the property included a pavement width to allow a turn lane. The plans have now been revised to allow the turn lane, but it is now located with permission in the State’s right-of-way and not on this property.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the request acknowledging that the entrance plans have changed but are still satisfactory, and stipulating that final drainage plans should be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED.
#16 Discussion of an ordinance to specify density and parking requirements in the Residential R-2 and Residential R-1 Zoning Districts.
Ms. Finley noted that all parking areas and spaces in a triplex or four-plex should be paved surfaces.
It was also decided that the ordinance should contain a statement that the MAPC may permit up to 20 units per acre, but may impose a lesser density, given the character of the general vicinity of the area.
Ms. Finley suggested having a separate working discussion concerning the ordinance during the day, and, include, the Council Committee in that discussion. It was further stated that the commission would like to see some type of action, either approval or denial, on this ordinance through the whole Council.
Ms. Finley made a motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Ms. Shaw. Voting was 7 in favor, 0 opposed. MOTION APPROVED.