title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on December 13, 2005.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BEADLES, GOTT, DAY, ROBERTS, KRENNERICH, HARPOLE, HALSEY, MOORE, SAWYER
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT: TOMLINSON, ROOK, MARTIN AND CREGO
Chairman Beadles called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. (meeting delayed due to voting in progress at Huntington Bldg., polls closed at 7:30 pm.)
On a motion by Mr. Harpole and seconded by Mr. Gott the minutes of the November 8, 2005 meeting were approved by unanimous vote.
Dr. Beadles announced Items # 3 and # 5 had been pulled from agenda.
1. PP-05-10 ROBIN NIX requests preliminary approval for JOHN HARDY MEADOW PHASE II, a 27-lot residential subdivision on 9.25 acres in an R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The subject property is located on Disciple Drive and Mockernut Lane.
Carlos Wood was present as proponent for this item. Stated this is an extension of JOHN HARDY MEADOW PHASE I, would request preliminary approval.
Dr. Beadles ask for opponent, there was none. Ask for comments or motion, Mr. Sawyer made motion to approve and was seconded by Mr. Gott. The vote was unanimous to give preliminary approval.
Carlos Wood asked that for final approval the name of the subdivision be changed to Jacob’s Field per the owner, has a different bill of assurance for this phase. Dr. Beadles ask the commissioners for comment, Mr. Sawyer withdrew his original motion and restated with the name change and bridge at the end of Mockernut Lane. Again Mr. Gott seconded this motion. Again the vote was unanimous with the stated changes.
2. PP-05-11 THE PROVIDENCE GROUP, INC. request preliminary/final approval of CRAIGHEAD ESTATES, a 55-lot residential subdivision on 75.37 acres in an R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The subject property is on the south side of Magnolia Road, east of Prescott Lane.
Bobby Gibson, attorney, spoke as proponent for owners, ask that to save time he speak after opponents so that he would be able to address their concerns. Dr. Beadles asked for those opposed to this request to please stand, approximately 25 people stood. Ask if they had a spokesperson? Skip Mooney, Jr. came forward to speak for opponents. Stated that he usually speaks for developers rather than those against, but said he represents several people opposed to this request. Stated that he has come before this body for several years and that this is the first time in the history of Jonesboro that there has been a request to put rental property in an R-1 residential area. He feels that R-1 is our highest classification and should be reserved for our homes and that some subdivisions have a “bill of assurance” that takes this restriction even further. He feels that the entire city of Jonesboro is in jeopardy if this is approved, it will open up all R-1 to this type of projects. The Magnolia Road area where this project is proposed is all R-1 property. The developers state that this is more than just rental property, there is a clause in the proposal for this project, that the tenant can purchase the property after 15 years. This property is being developed by a group out of Mississippi to get a tax reservation credits from the ADFA. They can build this project and sell it to another group and leave with their tax credits, leaving us with 55 houses that are 1600 sq. ft. built on the minimum size lot that can be put in a subdivision, and if this is approved this can happen anywhere in town. This is what the group that he represents is opposed to, this will cause their property values to go down. That further 75% will be leased to families making less than 60% of the area’s median income, meaning they will be rented for $275 per month. The group states that the property will be maintained, that they will have a swimming pool and amenities, everything that an apartment complex has except it will be single family units. Unlike apartments these will be subsidized or low rent, there will be people living there that don’t have jobs, who can’t afford to live anywhere else, everyone needs a place to live. This does not need to be in R-1 zoning. This should have been presented as PUD, if you let this group do this it will open us up for a lot of problems. Stated that this is preliminary, was corrected by Dr. Beadles that this is actually for final approval. Will have lots of problems because there is to be a property owners association, but there is no owners the developer will be the owner and responsible for maintaining the subdivision. That this would not work because the owner would sell and be gone and we would be stuck with the subdivision. He ask that this request be denied. Stated Mr. Jim Bryant that owns property in the area wishes to speak. Also that according to R-1 requirements the house cannot occupy more than 35% of the lot and he doesn’t believe this is being met. He also stated that if this is approved he believes the developers will build the same houses on the remaining part of the 75 acres, further stating that there is no legal description on the plat submitted.
Mr. Jim Bryant came forward to oppose and thanked the commission for allowing him to speak. He lives at 2009 Magnolia Road has lived there for 38 years and has been a justice of the peace in that area for 17 years. We are concerned with what this subdivision will do to their community and the traffic problems it will cause. The residents ask the city street department to put in a traffic counter and for a 24 hour period there was 1,112 cars traveled down Magnolia Road. With the additional cars from this subdivision the traffic will increase, the school bus has difficulty stopping now, with the additional children from this subdivision the problem will increase. He would respectfully ask that the commission deny this request.
Bobby Gibson as proponent asked to clarify that this is to be considered final subdivision approval and Dr. Beadles confirmed that it is final. He said that the major part of his presentation was to request final approval so his presentation would be considerably shorter. To address a few of the issues brought up by Mr. Mooney, he doesn’t think that the City of Jonesboro wouldn’t want to provide affordable housing for its citizens, of course there are several ways to do this, such as apartment complexes and that many have been attempted on the south side of town and have been turned down due to the fact there are several on that side, and that development needs to go to the north. He thinks the commission will recognize that the north side is not booming with development and that this opportunity to develop this area is a good thing. These developers do intend to do this, not with a project like Ridgepointe or other developments but with something that there is a need for here in Jonesboro. Stated he doesn’t think this committee can do anything but what the law allows it to do. He did not hear Mr. Mooney site any ordinance that states you can distinguish between owned or rental property in the R-1 district. The fact is that this plat meets the requirements for R-1 zoning and he appreciates the residents’ concerns with property values, but the fact of the matter is that if I submit a plat to this committee that conforms to the zoning requirements, it doesn’t matter if it is next to Ridgepointe, if I want to build 1200 - 1400 sq. ft. homes, I am allowed to do this, it may not be of the same character as my neighbors but if it complies with the zoning, then I think you should approve. It is the developer’s risk of putting something in that maybe is not as nice as the neighbors; this is not the committees risk to put themselves in place of the developer. There is nothing in the ordinance that states this property cannot be rented. There are subdivisions in the city that did not turn out as the developer planned so they turn to lease/purchase or straight rental. He doesn’t think the City of Jonesboro wants to get involved in regulating and this committee doesn’t have the authority to do this. He wants to make this short as he knows they have several things to consider. He thinks the plat as presented meets all the specifications. As far as what Mr. Mooney questioned he may have been referring to the preliminary, there might have been a glitch, but the plat submitted on December 2, he did not know of any unnumbered lots but if someone will show him what is in question. Dr. Beadles stated that the space was located next to lot 46, Chip Johnson, engineer for the project stated it was green space and would not be used as a building lot. Mr. Gibson ask if there were any more questions from the committee, Mr. Johnson would be available to answer. If there are any more questions there are representatives of The Providence Group here and they will try to answer them. Mr. Person the owner was unable to attend due to a family emergency, but they are open to any question you might have.
Dr. Beadles ask for questions from city planner, he questioned setbacks and his question was addressed by Chip Johnson. Stated if they required 25 ft setbacks they could comply, Mr. Day ask that they do 25 ft setbacks on corner lots instead of the 20 ft. as stated on plat.
Claude Martin, engineer, stated they had met all engineering requirements, and ask if the commission would require any upgrading of Magnolia Road. Dr. Beadles stated that they had always required road improvements. Mr. Martin stated there were none listed on plat.
Dr. Beadles ask if he wish to stipulate this, he said if the commission so desired. Mr. Day asks what Mr. Martin would require, he stated they had asked on previous subdivisions they do 24 ft. of pavement where there is no curb and gutter. Dr. Beadles ask the commission for comments, city planner stated that there is no statement as to what the undeveloped portion of the land is used for and that they provide legal description for used and unused portion of the land. Also if the detention pond was included in the legal description, Mr. Johnson stated the detention pond was being built along with the project and was included in the legal description for develop portion. Mr. Day stated they have 56 lots with the remaining portion of land being lot #56. Mr. Johnson stated that this is correct. Dr. Beadles ask if there were any other questions or a motion. Mr. Krennerich ask about 40 ft. right of way for Magnolia Road. Mr. Johnson said he discussed with Jeremy in engineering and did not get a classification but that 40 ft. covered their half of the 80 ft. total, Mr. Krennerich ask if this is from center line, Mr. Johnson said that this is correct. Mr. Harpole ask city attorney (Phillip Crego) about the perimeters of the commission as to how much subjectivity do we have, Mr. Crego stated that there is nothing in the codes that says we can make a distention, by all appearances they have met all the requirements and are within the legal requirements of R-1. He stated that he has concerns about this project. Mr. Crego stated he has no quibble with the statements about R-1 requirements this may be the minimum requirement in R-1 zoning but the minimums have been met and there is no provision in the City of Jonesboro that the city can attempt to control rental property. You can go into any R-1 zoning and find rental property, there are no codes that restrict this and that there is no stipulation that it be owner occupied only that it be single family. Again this may be a development that is coming in on the minimum standards but it is within the standards. I hope this is answering what you are asking. Mr. Harpole said it did he has concerns because he lived in apartment city 20 years ago when he was in college and sees how it is now. Stated he represented these people when he was on city council and like them he has concerns with rental property in the middle of a residential area, he wants to state this publicly but there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do about it. The only thing he ask, as a commissioner that the integrity of the development be delivered in the manner it is presented. Mr. Day stated he wanted to know if this was submitted earlier and every stipulation has been met. Mr. Krennerich stated it was not and he doesn’t understand why this is being considered as final. Mr. Day stated he wanted to understand why we are here and if it was done wrong before, that we get this right so they will not make this mistake again. Dr. Beadles clarified that in the past as a commission we have said if certain guidelines are not met that we will not consider it, this is not ordinance rules but that of the commission. The ordinance states within 30 days after submission the planning commission shall indicate its approval, disapproval or approval with conditions and that the conditions be stated. In the past as a commission if it didn’t come in on time or if it didn’t meet our check list and some of these items didn’t meet our check list, but our former planner wrote a letter and said that all things looked in order, so we can’t from now forward not take any action on anything that comes before the commission. This should not have been on the agenda, and that anything that does not meet requirements should never be on the agenda. Anything put on the agenda we have to approve or deny or they can choose to withdraw. And if there are major changes to be made they have to bring it back within a 6 month period. Mr. Day asks can we stipulate that they have a performance bond. Mr. Crego stated this is already a requirement, they will have to have bond before any permits are issued and before selling any lots. Mr. Day asked to have the deadlines restated. Deadlines for subdivision submittals is 9 days before the meeting. Dr. Beadles ask for a motion. Mr. Day made motion to approve as final with the stipulations 25 ft. minimum setbacks, upgrade Magnolia Road to 30 ft wide roadway as their half and enclosing ditch to city standards and bond as stated. Seconded by Mr. Harpole, the vote was unanimous with all commissioners voting yes to recommend approval as final subdivision plat.
3. PP-05-12 BOB TROUTT request preliminary plat approval for WILDWOOD ADDITION, a residential subdivision on 39.21 acres in an R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is located east of Old Paragould Road and south of Prospect Road. NOTE: This item pulled from agenda.
4. FP-05-07 RICK TURMAN request final plat review of STONERIDGE PHASE I, a 63-lot subdivision on 22.14 acres in a R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is on the east side of Keller's Chapel Road, north of Darr Hill Road. NOTE: Engineer submitted wrong copy of final plat, please see corrected plat with all lots.
Carlos Wood, Engineer spoke for owner as proponent, explained that this had final approval but they had submitted the wrong plat. They had to extend some lots due to extending a ditch on the east side and this increased the subdivision by one lot, kept the same layout and lot dimensions. Asking for final approval. Dr. Beadles ask that wouldn’t this have to come back as preliminary. City planner stated he thinks this was a mistake because two people were working on plat and he feels they just submitted wrong copy. Dr. Beadles ask if there were any comments or a motion. Mr. Day made motion to approve or reapprove this as final plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved with a unanimous vote.
5. FP-05-10 PULLED FROM AGENDA BY APPLICANT.
6. FP-05-11 SCS DEVELOPMENT request final plat review of JAMESTOWN MANOR PHASE II, a 33-lot residential subdivision on 14.32 acres in an R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is on the west side of Darr Hill Road.
Dr. Beadles ask for proponent for this item. Carlos Wood as proponent for the developer asking for final approval. Has met with Claude and have met all stipulations on the preliminary. Dr. Beadles ask for opponents, there was none. Ask city planner if he had questions. Stated he had concerns about street offset. Dr. Beadles ask city engineer for comment, he stated that bond for this project had run out and he would like for them to renew that bond. Mr. Day made motion that this be approved with the stipulation that a performance and payment bond be issued for both Phase I and Phase II and that the 125 ft. center line street offset be met. Motion seconded by Mrs. Moore. The motion was approved with a unanimous vote.
7. RZ-05-22 INHOC, LLC request recommendation to the City Council for approval of rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Medium Density to C-3 General Commercial Limited Use Overlay and R-5 Multi-Family Limited Use Overlay for 6.78 acres located on the north side of Highland Drive between Wofford Street and Rains Street. NOTE: PULLED FROM OCTOBER 11, 2005 AGENDA AND RESUBMITTED WITH CORRECTED LIST OF OWNERS AND PAYING REZONING FEE AGAIN.
Dr. Beadles ask for proponent for this item. Jim Lyons, attorney, came forward with Terry Bare as proponents. Mr. Lyons stating that as indicated by the drawings provided this is an upscale residential area which will occupy approximately 70% of the 6.78 acres and about 30% to be used as commercial. It is to be C-3 LUO on the front and R-5 LUO on the back which is bordered by Wofford and Rains Streets. A number of issues have been brought such as traffic, certainly traffic is an issue. Ask to turn to page 6 of booklet that was provided to show the intersections of Highland Drive and state Hwy 1, which showing numbers of cars that pass this intersection daily. Another issue raised was the number of accidents at this intersection. Again referred to handout showing the number of accidents for the past 2 and 5 years, that the accidents have actually gone down. The number of accidents is low considering the number of cars passing this intersection on a daily basis. Ask to turn to page 14 of the booklet and you will see that one of the main arterial streets in Jonesboro is Highland Drive. This is true because of the traffic count and just by driving down this street. Another issue raised, has been cured by installing a traffic light at Rains, which has made this area safer. It is our position that this is going to be very nice condominiums on the north side of the property and the commercial development is a very nice commercial area on the south. We feel this rezoning should be approved and the Limited Use of R-5 and C-3 are stated on page 3 of the booklet and this would answer any question you may have about them. With these statements we believe the best use of this property would be commercial on the front along Highland Drive and proposed residential along the back. Ask for any questions before passing to the opposition. Mr. Halsey stated that he had only one call and they thought this was a good idea, his concern was that Wofford be closed and create a cul de sac. Stated he did not know if this should be addressed here, but that was their concern. Dr. Beadles stated that as a commission when they rezoned the half lot where the auto parts sales is, that Woffard be made a cul de sac. We would not approve any commercial beyond that point because they had turned down previous request. When this was presented to the City Council the cul de sac was left off because they wanted a traffic study and that is the reason Wofford is not a cul de sac at this time. Mr. Halsey asked if this is something they can still do at this time. Mr. Lyons said the owners are still willing to do this if that is what the commission wants.
Andy Peeler came forward as opponent to this item stated he lives at 2117 Wilkins which is near the property in question. He asks that the people in the audience that are neighbors and oppose to stand, approximately 30 people stood. Mr. Peeler stated the tremendous growth in Jonesboro and the continued improvements in all aspects of the quality of life here for the past 20 years. All of our elected and appointed officials, including this commission, are to be congratulated for doing their jobs to see that growth not only continues but with proper infrastructures and controls. However in my opinion the proposal you have before you is not according to these guidelines. He believes the area is better served as residential with its numerous schools and churches. With the growth that Jonesboro has enjoyed will increase traffic as the studies show, with increased accidents and dangerous intersections regardless what the studies presented show. All the promises made when the lot on Highland and Wofford was rezoned have not been true. The proposed development with the designated parking spaces for each will increase the traffic into and from these properties which will cause even more traffic problems such as we are experiencing now with the 3 traffic lights in the area, will there be a need for a fourth at Wofford and Highland. Let us assume that you approve the rezoning and the sell to the developers happens. There is no assurance that they will not sell to someone who will do what’s legal, but with different plans for the property. Having said all this, the question before you is does this conform to the city’s current land use plan. After studying the 1996 land use plan it shows residential medium density on both the north and south sides of Highland drive from Wofford east to Craft Drive. The facts of this are:
1.This plan was approved by our city government. 2. The city officials chose not to change this plan in almost 10 years of continuous growth. 3. The proposal before you now does not conform to that plan. If I were in your shoes I would be hesitant in violating this land use plan. I employ you to reject this proposal as it is presented.
Marsha Patton came forward to speak as opposed, stated she lives at 2111 Harrisburg Road has lived there for 57 years. That she wanted to state with all the schools in the area using these streets increase traffic and the reason that it is safer is because of the traffic lights. That this is residential with city buses and apartments proposed in the area there will be problems with drainage, noise, litter, etc. That the schools in the area will be there for awhile and all use Rains and Highland.
Janet Gehring came forward to speak as opposed. She lives on Wofford adjacent to the proposed property. After hearing the traffic issues, at the intersection at Wofford and Highland that most people have to turn and go around the block and come back to access Highland.
Barbara Weinstock came forward to speak as opposed. Stated she lives on Wilkins, a street without sidewalks. Anyone trying to cross Highland knows there is a traffic problem. The traffic on Highland will only increase with the new Mall at Turtle Creek and this is good for Jonesboro, but the congestion on Highland will force traffic to Wilkins and Nettleton which will be a danger to the elderly that live in St. Bernard’s Village located on Wilkins. Have had several calls about this rezoning that will change a nice quite residential area to commercial.
Dr. John Hall who lives on Rosewood Circle uses this route as does his family several times a day. This area has been R-1 for 57 years and needs to remain R-1 as it has been said this is near 3 schools and this area cannot withstand the bottleneck in this area that this development will create. This is only a money making matter for the developer, at the expense of the people that live in this neighborhood.
Leveta Howerton who lives in Rosewood came forward as opposed. She stated that as mentioned there are several schools in the area. The Jonesboro Schools bus shop is very close to this area and there are several buses leaving this area at the same time both in the morning and in the afternoon at the intersection of Southwest Dr. and Highland. The traffic at times is at a standstill. These buses do not have an alternate route so therefore there is a lot of congestion.
A.C. Williams who lives on Rains came forward to oppose. Stated that he doesn’t think the people who live in the area should have to take a reduction in their property values for the developer, who knew what the property was zoned for to make more money.
Walter Stewart came forward to oppose. Wanted the commission to think in the future when the traffic would be worse because there is only one street that goes all the way from Mathews to Highland and that is Rains. With the proposed overpass from the Washington/Matthews intersection, this will increase the traffic on Rains with residents in the southwest part of the city using Rains as an access to this overpass.
Dr. Beadles ask for questions or motion, Mr. Krennerich made a motion that they make a recommendation to the City Council that they deny this request noting the commissions previous statement to deny any further commercial past Wofford. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gott. The proposal was denied with Commissioners Harpole, Day, Gott, Krennerich and Sawyer voting yes and Commissioners Halsey, Moore and Roberts voting no to deny. Dr. Beadles informed the applicant they can appeal to the City Council.
8. RZ-05-31 THAD BROWN, III request recommendation to the City Council for approval of rezoning from R-2 Multi-Family Low Density District to C-5 Neighborhood
Office District for .38 acres located at 800 and 802 Patrick Street, south of Matthews Avenue.
Dr. Beadles ask for proponent, George Hamman came forward as proponent for the owners. Dr. Beadles ask for opponents, there were none. Ask for questions or motion. Mr. Gott made motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Krennerich. The vote was unanimous to approve.
9. RZ-05-32 HERB STALLINGS AND SAM BROWN request recommendation to the City Council for approval of rezoning from R-2 Multi-Family Low Density District to C-5 Neighborhood Office District for 1.34 acres located on the north side of Stallings Lane and west of Stadium Boulevard.
George Hamman came forward as proponent. Dr. Beadles ask for opponents, there were none. City Planner had no problems with this request. Dr. Beadles ask for questions or motion. Mr. Harpole made motion with stipulation that the barrier to the residential area be solid 8 ft fence or solid vegetation at least 6 ft. tall to block view. This was seconded by Mr. Krennerich. The vote was unanimous to approve with Mrs. Moore abstaining.
10. RZ-05-33 W. L. GILLESPIE request recommendation to the City Council for approval of rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Medium Density to C-3 General Commercial for 1.5 acres located at 3701 E. Johnson Avenue.
Jim Lyons came forward as proponent for this request. Stated that the property to the west is Bill’s Fresh Market that is C-3, across the street is C-3 and the property to the east is C-3 Limited Use Overlay and they feel this is the best use for this property.
Jim Carter came forward as opponent, lives at 3013 Maplewood Terrace for about 40 yrs. Stated this does border Bill’s Fresh Market, but there is a long established residential neighborhood behind this property. There is Maplewood, a little dead end street that has 15 homes with several cars to each house. They could not have this little street become the connection from commercial property on Johnson to go to Airport Road. This is a street that kids play on and this would not be safe. The school buses cannot go down this tiny street and since coming into the city the garbage trucks can barely make it with no one able to pass until they are gone. He ask that the commission table this or come up with stipulations that will make it possible for them to maintain their neighborhood as they know it.
Stacey Shrape came forward to oppose. Stated concerns with property owner being held to stipulations on zoning with barriers for the residential area. Has safety concerns has 11 year old that rides her bike on street behind project. Should look at the commercial in this area and also the residences.
Bob Hankins came forward to oppose, lives at 3108 Maplewood Terrace east of subject property. He is surrounded by commercial property and asks that some stipulation be put on this property as to what can be built there.
John Hatcher who lives at 3105 Maplewood Terrace came forward wanted emphasize that although this property fronted on Johnson Avenue that a least half of the property is adjacent to Maplewood Terrace.
Mr. Lyons states the owner has no problem with placing a barrier on the Maplewood Terrace side of this property with no entrance or exit onto Maplewood Terrace.
Dr. Beadles ask if the commissioners are ready with questions or a motion. Mr. Day said that he would make a motion that they recommend approval to the City Council that they approve this rezoning with the stipulation that there be no access from this property to Maplewood Terrace, that there be a 40 ft. wide landscape easement with a 6 ft. solid fence with landscaping sufficient to break any noise and that this be on any residential property that joins this property. Mr. Krennerich seconded stating that this completes the C-3 commercial node that we are trying to create in this area with this last piece of property facing Johnson will complete the commercial down Johnson just past Airport Road. There was a clarification of the 40 ft. buffer zone that there can be no permits issued for anything in this area and cannot be used for parking. The vote was unanimous to recommend approval to the City Council.
11. CAMTRI ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. request recommendation to the City Council for approval of rezoning from C-3 General Commercial to C-5 Neighborhood Office District for 12.47 acres, lot 5 of South Caraway Village Addition between Latourette Lane and Caraway Road.
Don Latourette representing CAMTRI ROSS INVESTMENTS was proponent for this item. This is a continuation of a project that started several years ago. This was planned to be a residential area going from C-3 to the more restricted C-5. There is C-5 on the west and C-3 and a turnaround was designed to have better flow of traffic back to Caraway Road. This to be used for 4-plexes. Mr. Krennerich stated he thought he was asking for wrong zoning that C-5 was Neighborhood Office District not for apartments but the zoning ordinance book shows 4-plexes allowed in C-5. Dr. Beadles ask for opponents to this item.
Glenna Reeves came forward as opponent stated she lives in Medallion Acres. She stated that if this was Neighborhood Office they had no problem. Dr. Beadles told her this would not be offices. Dr. Beadles said they do not have to state what they are going to build when asking for rezoning. She stated that they have enough apartments around them and asks that they deny request.
Gentleman from this area (could not get name from tape) stated that they have been opposed to apartments in this area for several years. If this is allowed to go through this will set a precedence. The residents would not oppose neighborhood offices, but no to apartments.
Melvin Brown came forward lives in the area. Has one question, these gentlemen came forward and ask for rezoning and was turned down by City Council, wants to know what is different now.
Terry Bare came forward to explain that they had 2 groups working on this project and took the 2 plans and put them together. They also hired a group from ASU to do a marketing study for the needs for Jonesboro and the available lands. Also worked with the planning commission to design a turnaround in the middle of the property so the commercial traffic would not have to drive through the residential area. The western half of the property was designed for residential and the eastern half as commercial. The western half has a different curb and gutter than the eastern half. Came before the MAPC and they voted to rezone to residential but the City Council did not agree. With the C-5 zoning it allows for 4-plexes and allows for 2 4-plexes per acre. Mr. Krennerich made motion that they be granted rezoning with the stipulation that it be held to commercial and no residential. Corrected to C-5 with Limited Use Overlay. Motion seconded by Mr. Gott. With no vote and several minutes of discussion between Mr. Bare, Mr. Latourette, the commissioners and Mr. Crego, Mr. Krennerich withdrew his motion, and Mr. Gott his second. After Mr. Latourette explained the present zoning in the area, Mr. Day made motion that they recommend approval to the City Council. Mrs. Moore seconded. Mr. Krennerich ask that the commission view any site plans or replats of lots in this area, Mr. Day added this to his motion and Mrs. Moore her second. The motion was approved with Halsey, Moore, Day, Gott, Krennerich and Mr. Roberts voting yes and Harpole and Sawyer voting no. Dr. Beadles informed applicant they would need to get item on City Council agenda. Dr. Beadles then adjourned meeting at 9:35 p.m.