Jonesboro planning commission denies conditional use for Elmhurst Drive storage facility after traffic and design concerns

The Jonesboro Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on Jan. 14 denied a request from Glenwood Limited Partnership for a conditional use permit to allow a storage facility on 6.18 acres west of 3319 Harrisburg Road.

Applicant Barrett Davidson of Davidson Engineering told the commission the project had previously been approved on Feb. 27, 2024, but the developer resubmitted after the property’s legal description changed when a planned extension of Elmhurst Drive (now being called Naughty Pine Lane) shifted the parcel. “It’s about 60 40 split,” Davidson said when describing the updated mix of climate‑controlled and non‑climate‑controlled units. He said the design changes also reduced the overall square footage and shortened one interior building by 40 feet to improve turning radii for fire access.

The commission’s city planner said staff would recommend approval only with standard conditions: that all required local and statewide permits and inspections be obtained; that any development with more than 75,000 square feet of gross floor area receive site plan approval from the MAPC; and that other engineering and drainage requirements be met.

Nearby resident Patty Lack, who said she attended a pre‑application meeting, urged the commission to deny the request until traffic improvements are in place. Lack told commissioners she had obtained a police report and said, “in a 2 year period, you guys, there was 60 reported accidents. That's 60 more than what we need. That's a lot of accidents on that street.” She said the project had changed from the previously presented single large, “big box” design to several long exterior storage buildings, and that the application did not specify the number of units. Lack also reported that the Arkansas Department of Transportation had not received a permit from the city to remove an island near Harrisburg Road and said bids to widen Harrisburg Road are not expected until fall 2026.

Commissioners asked whether the resubmission was required because the parcel’s legal description changed or because construction had not begun within the earlier approval period; the applicant confirmed both factors. One commissioner noted the earlier approval had been presented as a single large, retail‑style building and said the current submission’s multiple exterior buildings represented a substantial change. The applicant repeated that the design and unit mix reflect market research and construction cost estimates done since the original approval.

A motion to approve the conditional use was made by Dennis Zilper and seconded by Commissioner Little. The commission held a voice vote; the chair later reported, “So it looks as all the conditional uses failed,” indicating the conditional use request was denied. The planning staff noted the applicant may appeal the decision to city council or resubmit after a six‑month waiting period.

Clarifying details provided during the meeting included the applicant’s stated parking count (66 parking spaces and 14 U‑Haul spaces), the site area (6.18 acres), the previously approved conditional use date (Feb. 27, 2024), the applicant’s stated unit‑mix ratio (“about 60 40 split” climate vs. non‑climate), the applicant’s change to one building by shortening it 40 feet to increase turning radius, and a resident’s claim of 60 reported accidents in a two‑year span on nearby roads. City planner conditions referenced a MAPC site‑plan requirement for developments over 75,000 square feet and standard engineering, stormwater and floodplain reviews.

The record shows residents’ safety and traffic concerns, the applicant’s design and market considerations, and the commission’s formal denial. The applicant may appeal to the city council or wait six months to resubmit.