title
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, July 12, 2005
body
Commissioners present: Krennerich, Roberts, Sawyer, Day, Harpole, Beadles
Commissioners absent: Moore, Gott, Vance
Staff present: Martin, Harris
Call to order by the Chair at 7:00 P.M.
Approval of minutes of the June 14, 2005 meeting.
The Chair announced that two items had been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicants. The items were PP-05-07 Windsor Landing Phases IV-IX, and B&G Land Company’s rezoning request.
#1 FP-05-07 Rick Turman requests Final Plat review of Stoneridge Phase I, a 62-lot residential subdivision on 22.14 acres in an R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is on the east side of Kellers Chapel Road, north of Darr Hill Road.
Carlos Wood, Engineer, was present as proponent for this item. No opponents were present. The City Planner had no comments. The City Engineer stated that all stipulations attached to preliminary approval had been met. The Chair called for discussion or a motion. Mr. Sawyer moved to grant final approval of the plat, was seconded by Mr. Harpole, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
#2 FP-05-08 Jim Darnell requests Final Plat review of Woodridge Place Phase IV, a 30-lot residential subdivision on 7.513 acres in an R-3 Multi-Family High Density District. The subject property is east of Sandino Drive and south of Charles Drive.
Carlos Wood, Engineer, was present as proponent for this item. No opponents were present. The City Planner had no comments. The City Engineer stated that all stipulations attached to preliminary approval had been met. The Chair asked for discussion or a motion. Mr. Harpole moved to grant final approval of the plat, was seconded by Mr. Sawyer, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
#3 RP-05-38 HAML Investments, LLC requests approval to replat Lot 6 of South Caraway Village, a 5.57 acre parcel in a C-5 Neighborhood Office District, into 13 lots.
Mr. Latourette was present as proponent of this item. The Chair asked if there were opponents present. A nearby resident asked what could be built on the lots if the plat was approved. The City Planner read excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance listing the uses permitted in the C-5 zone. Another nearby resident stated that her understanding was that when this development had been before the MAPC some months earlier, apartments had been prohibited. The Chair explained that all that was before the MAPC today was a request to replat, not a request to change zoning. The current zoning, C-5 Neighborhood Office District, does not allow large apartment complexes, but does permit up to a 4-plex. Mr. Ryan asked if a traffic study had been done for the area in question. Mr. Terry Bare stated that a traffic study for the whole area had been prepared and presented at the time of the original subdivision. Mr. Ryan restated his concern that this development and other multi-family development would overtax existing roads in the area. The Chair asked Commissioners for discussion. Mr. Day asked how many units could be built on the existing lot, and how many could be built on the smaller lots if the replat was approved. After consulting the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planner stated that more units could be built on the single existing parcel than on the smaller parcels the applicant was requesting. (Planner’s Note: A later check of the Zoning Ordinance indicated that the unsubdivided parcel could theoretically hold 67 units, versus the maximum of 52 units if all 13 smaller lots were utilized for fourplexes.) A neighboring property owner asked if any other uses could be built on the land just to the east of the replat. Mr. Day and The Chair responded that the land she was referring to was zoned C-3 General Commercial, and could not be used for residential development. Mr. Day moved to approve the replat as requested, was seconded by Mr. Roberts, and the motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
#4 PP-05-07 Chastain Development LLC requests Preliminary Plat review for Windsor Landing Phases IV-IX, a residential subdivision comprising 149 lots on 39.72 acres in an R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The subject property is on the west side of Clinton School Road.
THIS ITEM WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
#5 RZ-05-08 B & G Land Company requests rezoning of 33.52 acres from R-1 Single-Family Medium Density to R-5 Multi-Family, and the rezoning of 16.16 acres from R-1 Single-Family Medium Density to R-6 Multi-Family. Both parcels are located along the north side of the Union Pacific Railroad (former Cotton Belt Railroad), southeast of the curve where Aggie Road becomes Paragould Road.
THIS ITEM WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
#6 RZ-05-18 The City of Jonesboro and St. Bernards Regional Medical Center request rezoning from R-2 Multi-Family Low Density to C-1 Downtown Core Commercial for Lots 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Block 1 of Allen’s Subdivision and Lot 1 of the Cobb & Lee Survey of Section 18, T14N, R4E. The property is on the south side of Washington Avenue, east of Bridge Street and west of Kitchen Street.
Brian Wadley, the City of Jonesboro’s Operations Director, and Judge Dale Haas were present as proponents of this item. The Chair asked if any opponents were present. Mr. Paul Stotts came to the podium and identified himself as representative for several owners of property along Kitchen Street near the subject property. Mr. Stiles stated that his property had been in his family since 1939, and he inquired what rights private citizens had in this matter. The Chair responded that all citizens had the right to appear at the public hearing and voice their opinions. Mr. Stiles stated that at present traffic during rush hour was extremely heavy along Kitchen and Matthews, and that he was concerned that the rezoning and subsequent development would make matters worse. Neither the City Planner nor the City Engineer had comments to add. The Chair asked commissioners if there were questions.
The project representative asked to present drawings of the proposed project to those in attendance. The building is to be a 19,125 square foot County health facility to serve City and County residents. He stated that the current 5,000 square foot facility was inadequate to serve all the citizens. He stated that the site was currently mostly vacant, and that a very nice building costing approximately $1,700,000.00 was to be constructed. He also stated that the City intended to signalize the intersection of Bridge Street and Washington Avenue. Additionally, the proposed use will fit with surrounding uses such as the St Bernards auditorium. He finished by stating that the desire was to offer better services to the citizens of the County. Mr. Stiles inquired as to why the State Services Center could not be used for this purpose. The Chair answered that the Center location was less convenient for many citizens. Mr. Wadley stated that the Center was controlled by Arkansas State University, and that when bonds were retired in 2008, ASU would begin charging market rates for leased space at the Center, which would result in greater expense for the health center than would the proposed Washington Avenue facility.
Mr. Krennerich moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested rezoning. He was seconded by Mr. Harpole and the motion carried 5-0. Mr. Day spoke up to clarify that the MAPC only makes recommendations in regard to rezonings, and that Council renders the actual decision.
#7 RZ-05-19 Berl A. Smith requests rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Medium Density to C-3 General Commercial for a .9143 acre parcel at 2001 East Nettleton.
Brandy Brown, of Barrett & Deacon, was present as proponent for this item. No opponents were present. There were no comments from the City Planner or City Engineer. The Chair asked for discussion or a motion. Mr. Day moved to recommend approval to the City Council, was seconded by Mr. Roberts, and the motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
#8 RZ-05-20 Ronnie J. Johnson requests rezoning from C-4 Neighborhood Commercial to C-3 General Commercial for a .29 acre parcel at 3425 East Highland.
No proponents or opponents were present for this item. The City Planner recommended to the Chair that the item be considered even though no proponent was present. The site is directly across from the Mall site, and adjacent to property recently recommended for rezoning from C-4 to C-3. Additionally, no opponents were present and no one had contacted the Planning Department to object to the request. Mr. Krennerich agreed, and moved to recommend approval of the rezoning to Council, with a stipulation that screening consisting of plants and privacy fencing be erected to protect adjoining residences. He was seconded by Mr. Day, and the motion carried on a 5-0 vote.
#9 RZ-05-21 Renee Capital, LLC requests rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Medium Density to R-2 Multi-Family Low Density for a .36 acre parcel at 207 Holmes Road.
Jason Marshall was present as proponent for this item. A 38-year resident of Holmes Road, stated that he thought granting the request would be spot zoning, and would compromise the neighborhood, which he characterized as primarily single-family. The Chair asked if he was representing any other citizens. He responded that he was, and approximately 12-15 individuals stood in support of his statements. The City Planner stated that Mr. Marshall did have multi-family on three sides of his property, but that rezoning to multi-family a third of an acre in the middle of a very large area of R-1 was, almost by definition, spot zoning. An unidentified Commissioner asked if the other nearby multi-family uses had been annexed as non-conforming uses. Mr. Marshall responded affirmatively. He further stated that the Zoning Ordinance allowed those non-conforming uses to continue, to expand up to 25%, and be rebuilt if destroyed. He stated that he felt that made it likely that the surrounding multi-family uses would remain, and that approving his request would simply allow his property to be developed in a manner similar to that of the adjacent properties.
Ms. Helen Adams of 311 Holmes Road stated that she owned 3 houses on the street. She stated that she and her husband had bought two lots on Holmes some years back, with the intent to build duplexes. When they learned their neighbors were against this, they replatted the two lots into three, and built single-family homes. Ms. Adams stated that real estate appraisers had informed her that the houses would appraise much higher if the multi-family uses were not nearby. She also added that several new single-family houses had been built on Holmes recently. Ms. Adams also stated that she was representing several neighbors who could not attend. She also voiced her concerns that if this request were approved that rezoning to multi-family of additional vacant parcels in the neighborhood might occur. Ms. Adams finished by stating that the some of the multi-family uses were poorly maintained and had been the site of criminal activity.
The Chair asked if any Commissioner was ready with a question, comment or motion. Mr. Krennerich stated that he felt additional multi-family would be injurious to the neighborhood, that the other multi-family uses had come in the City as non-conforming uses, but that the multi-family uses should not be allowed to expand, and that granting this request would be a textbook case of spot zoning. Mr. Krennerich then moved to deny recommendation of the request to City Council and was seconded by Mr. Sawyer. At this point Mr. Marshall stated that he wanted to table the request if he was not allowed to speak. The Chair gave Mr. Marshall the floor.
Mr. Marshall stated that the Comprehensive Plan called for the concentration of multi-family housing. His parcel is surrounded on three sides by multi-family, and there are other multi-family uses on the street. He further stated that the lot in question was not developable as single-family because of the adjoining multi-family, and would likely sit vacant and become blighted without the rezoning. Mr. Marshall stated that the broad zoning of large tracts as R-1 during the large annexation several years ago resulted in his property being spot zoned at that time, because of the adjoining multi-family uses. Mr. Marshall also stated that the MAPC seemed concerned about a possible domino effect if his request were recommended, but the characteristics of his situation were dissimilar from those on nearby properties not surrounded by existing multi-family uses. The Chair thanked Mr. Marshall, then stated that a motion and a second were on the floor. On a roll call, the motion to deny recommendation to Council carried by a vote of 5-0. The Chair reminded Mr. Marshall of his right to appeal the MAPC recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Marshall responded that he thought he had a right to table the request. The Chair responded that the request could have been withdrawn prior to the motion and vote.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.