title
Minutes for the Land Use Advisory Committee on May 1, 2014
body
Members present: Todd Burton, Mark Enos, Pam Alexander, Shawnie Carrier and Terry Bare
Members absent: Bill Hall, Carroll Caldwell, Mark Hogue, Dr. Jim Sanders, Faye McCall, Marvin Day, Darren May, Eric Scarbrough, Nadine Straitt, James Dunivan and Wixson Huffstetler
MPO Director Dr. Marsha Guffey discussed what has happened in previous meetings. She stated that the committee has determined they would like to have a one-mile jurisdiction radius, but has not determined whether that radius will be all the way around the city or if it’ll just be in key places, such as Brookland. Ms. Alexander questioned if they should get a legal opinion on the matter. Dr. Guffey answered no because the committee can go either way. She added it’s just a matter of coordinating it with the county. City Planner Otis Spriggs noted that only subdivision requirements would be regulated. Permits would not need to be acquired just for construction. Mr. Enos asked if there are fees related to the subdivision requirements. Mr. Spriggs explained the city currently has fees due to having plats recorded, but he is not sure what the county may also require. Mr. Enos then asked what their workload is like for platting subdivisions that are being constructed within the city. Mr. Spriggs stated that is ongoing because every new piece of development has to be on platted property.
Mr. Enos stated he would like to have the one-mile radius all the way around the city unless the workload would not be feasible for the city. Mr. Bare explained he thinks the county will have to have different criteria than the city, but that can be discussed at a later time. He added he thinks the county could be just a review and need staff approval since the requirements are not going to totally the same as within the city limits. Dr. Guffey noted it was indicated at the last meeting that the committee was looking at doing the full one-mile radius around the whole city, but didn’t actually come to a conclusion. She stated this would just be a recommendation to the MAPC, who would then recommend it to the City Council. Mr. Enos questioned whether the committee would have a say in land use within that one mile. Dr. Guffey answered no, the recommendation would just be concerning subdivision regulations.
Dr. Guffey informed the committee that after the last meeting they reviewed the agreement with the MAPC with County Judge Assistant Tony Thomas. The agreement stated it was for joint planning and zoning. She informed the Mayor’s Office that the agreement indicated it was for planning and zoning, but Chief Operations Officer LM Duncan stated the city couldn’t do that due a decision concerning Bob Rees. She stated she would have to research the topic to see what happened, but, in theory, the committee could look at planning and zoning. Dr. Guffey explained the mayor would like the committee to make a final decision on the growth sectors in theory. If they like the basic idea, then from here on Mr. Spriggs can help make adjustments. She noted the growth sectors matrix has been revised (see attached).
Discussion was then held regarding the proposed growth sectors map. Mr. Bare questioned whether traffic count will play a major role in what can be built in a certain area. Dr. Guffey answered that can be determined by the committee, but the staff decided to have the traffic count included due to the recommendations of the Multi-family Housing Moratorium Committee. Mr. Spriggs noted a square footage maximum can also be included. Ms. Carrier noted that some commercial developers will do traffic counts before they decide whether or not to build in that area. Mr. Bare added commercial developers will typically target areas of high traffic to build on. He expressed concern about limiting development due to traffic and possibly moving growth outside of Jonesboro where there are fewer restrictions.
Dr. Guffey questioned whether the committee was ready to make a decision concerning growth sectors. Mr. Burton expressed concern about how loose the growth sectors are and stated he is not comfortable with them. He explained he thinks growth sectors will make things more up for debate and more confusing. He further explained the lower intensity sectors are pretty clear, but the more intense it gets the more open it is to interpretation. He stated if they do decide to move forward with growth sectors, then they need to be sure to look very closely at the map. He noted there are a lot of areas labeled at “moderate intensity” that concern him. Mr. Burton stated he thinks they do need to take a vote when there is a quorum.
Ms. Alexander then questioned how current residents would be accommodated in areas where low intensity areas are across from high intensity, such as areas around Kellers Chapel. Mr. Spriggs explained that is why there are disclaimers attached to some areas that may require things such as buffering and that should be considered before property is rezoned. Dr. Guffey added if citizens were not okay with the rezoning they could always discuss it with the City Council when the rezoning is presented. Mr. Burton expressed concern that it could give homeowner’s less of a fighting chance. Mr. Spriggs stated Mr. Burton has some valid concerns that could be addressed and recommendations be made. He added he doesn’t think growth sectors are a bad idea, but Mr. Burton’s concern about moderate intensity need to be addressed because they are valid.
Mr. Bare expressed concern about some of the development processes with preliminary and final plat approval. He suggested the processes could be streamlined since the development period in this area so only a few months. Mr. Spriggs stated that is a legitimate concern, but is outside of the Land Use Map. Mr. Bare agreed, but noted that those processes may drive people outside of the city to areas where the processes are easier. Mr. Spriggs explained the subdivision code does not to be re-written and when it is they can look at addressing some of Mr. Bare’s concerns. He noted Mr. Bare’s concerns will largely go back to ordinances that need to be updated.
Mr. Bare then discussed the high intensity areas on the growth sectors map. He asked if developments will still have to go back to the MAPC just like a rezoning review. Dr. Guffey answered yes, it would still have to go back to the MAPC. The growth sectors map will just lay out what can be put in areas as long as requirements are met. Mr. Enos explained he thinks there will be more of a burden put on the developer as to what is going to work and if they fail it falls back on the community to deal with empty property. Mr. Spriggs noted the plan is not a regulating map; rather, developers will still have to ask for rezonings from the MAPC and City Council.
Mr. Burton noted that if they do actually intend on using the map as a guide at some point developers will justify rezonings due to the map. Discussion was then held regarding what is allowed and not allowed in moderate intensity zonings.
Dr. Guffey asked for an unofficial vote of the members present at to whether or not they want to move forward with growth sectors. Mr. Bare voted yes. Mr. Burton voted no, but if it does move forward he asked that a lot of time be spent looking at the map. Mr. Enos voted yes. Ms. Alexander voted yes. Dr. Guffey asked that the members come back with specific instances of what they don’t like concerning the growth sectors and then have an official vote. She noted if people still aren’t comfortable with it with one more meeting, then they may want to consider going back to a more traditional map.
Dr. Guffey announced the next meeting will be on May 15th. That is her last day employed with the city, so she will not be present at the meeting. Mr. Spriggs stated they can keep the meeting on May 15th.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.