Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jonesboro planning panel denies conditional-use request for Elmhurst Drive storage facility
Summary
The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission declined a conditional-use permit for a proposed climate-controlled and non–climate-controlled storage facility at Elmhurst Drive after public safety and design concerns and changes to the previously approved site plan were raised.
The Jonesboro Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on Jan. 14 denied a conditional-use permit request from Glenwood Limited Partnership to develop a storage facility on a 6.18-acre parcel along Elmhurst Drive.
The request would have allowed climate-controlled and non–climate-controlled storage units in the city’s C3 general commercial zoning district. The commission rejected a motion to approve the conditional use following public comment and discussion about traffic, design changes from an earlier approval and site access.
The applicant’s representative, Barrett Davidson of Davidson Engineering, told the commission the project had been previously approved Feb. 27, 2024, but the legal description of the parcel changed after the developer shifted the site westward when a new street extension (referred to in the meeting as “Naughty Pine Lane” / Elmhurst extension) was designed. Davidson said the revised plan also changed the mix of climate-controlled units to an approximate 60/40 ratio of climate-controlled to non–climate-controlled space and reduced some building square footage after updated market analysis and construction cost estimates.
Resident Patty Lack urged denial, citing traffic and safety concerns along Elmhurst and nearby intersections and said local police reports showed 60 accidents in the area over two years. Lack also said Arkansas Department of Transportation staff had not received permits related to proposed roadway work and she worried the project would open before planned Harrisburg Road widening and other street improvements.
City staff presented standard conditions that would accompany approval, including that all required local and statewide permits and inspections be obtained and that any development over 75,000 square feet receive site plan approval from the MAPC. Commissioners questioned why the project differed substantially from the large “big-box” style facility previously approved and whether the altered design addressed traffic and visual impacts.
A motion to approve was made and seconded; the chair called for an aye/nay voice vote and later stated, “So it looks as all the conditional uses failed,” reflecting that the motion did not carry. No roll-call tally was recorded in the meeting transcript. City staff advised the applicant the decision could be appealed to city council or the applicant could wait six months to resubmit.
Commissioners and the applicant discussed possible next steps: the applicant asked what changes would be required to obtain support, and staff said detailed design features would need to be revised and would be considered at a future submittal if the applicant reapplied or appealed.
The commission’s denial leaves intact previous conditions from the February 2024 approval only as historical record; because the legal description changed and no construction began within the required timeframe, the commission treated the conditional-use request as a new matter.
