title
Minutes for the Master Street Plan Committee meeting on May 13, 2014
body
Members present: Mike Cameron, Marvin Day, Paul Hoelscher, Ben Owens (chair), Bill Smith and Councilman John Street
Members absent: Josh Brown and Ann Garner
Mr. Day motioned, seconded by Mr. Cameron, to approve the minutes for the April 10, 2014, and April 24, 2014, meetings. All voted aye.
Discussion was held concerning what the committee would discuss in future meetings. Chairman Owens noted there is a September deadline. He recommended having two hour meetings every first and third Thursday in order to get all the work done before the deadline. (NOTE: It was later noted that the meetings are held on the second and third Thursdays of the month, not first and third). One person indicated they sometimes have conflicts with the meetings, but the committee can move forward as needed. Chairman Owens stated that for anyone who cannot attend the meetings, minutes are taken.
City Engineer Craig Light explained a few meetings ago discussion was held concerning studies that had been done in the past, so they provided the committee members with copies of those studies (see attached). He discussed each study.
Discussion was then held regarding the Master Street Plan outline (see attached). Chairman Owens stated it is his understanding that the plans were for a 20-year timeline. Mr. Light agreed.
Chairman Owens then questioned whether the committee thought this was a reasonable timeline. It was noted that the further out the timeline goes, the higher the risk is that the city will have to ask for right-of-way for areas where there may or may not be development. Mr. Light explained they plan to use the Master Street Plan on a day to day basis. He further explained some roads may be used as collectors now, but in the next 15 years it could be a minor arterial, which would require additional right-of-way. In 50 years, that same road may be a major arterial that would require even more right-of-way. That’s why it’s important to figure out the timeline and think ahead for the future. How far out they decide to look may have an impact on enforcement of the map.
It was questioned how often they will be looking at the plan. Mr. Light stated the Mayor wants them to look at the plan every other year. Historically, the city has made plans with a 25-year timeline but to update it on a regular cycle.
Mr. Day motioned, seconded by Councilman Street, to make a 20-year plan for the notes and study that is being prepared. All voted aye.
It was questioned whether there has been a population study to show the size of Jonesboro in 20 years. It was noted that a study was done that indicated that in 15 years Jonesboro will be over 100,000 in population. It was added that Jonesboro typically has a 3% growth rate.
The committee then discussed extraterritorial jurisdiction. Mr. Light explained currently the city regulates only within city limits, but state law allows for two miles outside of the city limits. He noted that would be a lot of additional work and the need for additional staff, but not additional revenue. There have been proposals to just regulate subdivision platting. That would still require the review of every subdivision plat that is filed at the courthouse and would still result in a lot of work. City Planner Otis Spriggs stated they are now looking at 4 to 8 subdivision plats per week. Mr. Light noted if there was doubled due to the land mass of the regulated area doubling, then the city would be reviewing 8 to 16 subdivision plats per week.
Mr. Spriggs noted the Land Use Committee discussed the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction with the county at a recent meeting. The Judge’s Office was reluctant, but open to coordination with subdivision platting and planning. Councilman Street stated legislation was passed last year saying that county’s do not have to adhere to city street regulations. He questioned whether that would be within that two mile radius or outside of it. Mr. Light explained it is his understanding that if Jonesboro regulated within the extraterritorial jurisdiction, then the county would have to follow it.
Mr. Day stated he doesn’t think it’s the committee’s decision to determine whether or not city staff should be planning, coordinating and regulating in the county unless they’re specifically asked to weigh an opinion. Mr. Cameron agreed. Mr. Light explained the proposed map stops jurisdiction at the city limits, except in the case of growth areas. Councilman Street stated they need to take into consideration other nearby towns such as Bono, Bay and Brookland and make sure those cities affect Jonesboro’s planning as well. Mr. Light further explained this committee can make a recommendation as to whether or not the city should or shouldn’t do something in regards to regulations in the extraterritorial jurisdiction in order to ensure right-of-ways are preserved. He added he would like the committee to make a recommendation and point the city staff in the right direction.
Mr. Spriggs questioned whether the county would be okay with preserving right-of-ways on county roads in the future. Mr. Cameron answered the county already does that and they do have construction standards regarding subdivisions. Councilman Street agreed, stating the county has made some progress and are moving more towards city standards.
Mr. Cameron motioned, seconded by Mr. Day, for the Master Street’s study area be parallel with MPO’s study area. All voted aye. It was questioned whether the study could be layered so that it starts off with the MPO’s area, then the closer you get to the city limits there would be more restrictions. Mr. Cameron stated that would be great if it could be done, but he’s not sure how they could go about doing that due to county cooperation. Councilman Street noted some of that may be able to be taken care of by the MPO. He explained some of the cities that are part of the MPO are interested in working with Jonesboro and have been very cooperative with MPO planning. He added the county seems to be more reluctant. Further discussion was held concerning cooperation with the county and future planning.
Mr. Light questioned whether the committee wanted to move forward with a recommendation to work with the MPO to preserve some sort of right-of-way in the future. Mr. Day stated he thinks there should be some language suggesting the Mayor and Council consider the value in regulating extraterritorial area and the value of attaining those right-of-ways. He explained that wouldn’t be the committee weighing in on the issue, but it would be the committee suggesting an action. Councilman Street agreed, saying the decision would then be left with the legislative body. He noted there should be a cooperative agreement with the county or else that will affect what the committee can do.
Mr. Day motioned, seconded by Mr. Cameron, to include in the body of the document that the committee asks the Mayor and Council to consider the value of regulating outside of the city limits and/or trying to preserving right-of-way for any street corridors falling outside of the city limits but within the boundaries of the state law and the Mayor and Council determine how the regulations should be made. All voted aye. Councilman Street questioned whether the city really has regulations when it comes to streets outside of the city limits, even within the planning area.
Discussion was then held concerning functional classifications and information that was handed out at previous meetings. Mr. Day questioned whether both cross sections maps have been adopted by Council. Mr. Light answered yes, but additional regulations must be passed to enforce the sidewalk requirements. Mr. Spriggs explained the regulations are there, but have not been enforced in the past. There are also no requirements for sidewalks on local streets. Mr. Light noted they need to put in place rules that can help with enforcement. Mr. Cameron questioned whether that would fall under the committee’s responsibility. Mr. Light stated he thinks it is the committee’s responsibility to make those types of recommendations to the Council and MAPC.
Discussion was held regarding future streets projects and how to pay for them. Mr. Light questioned whether they want to make a distinction between principal arterials in urban and rural areas or if there are differences in roadways in residential or commercial areas. Mr. Day suggested having language reflecting everything being in an urban area unless the Council or the City Engineer says it’s rural, but would not let the decision lay with MAPC.
Councilman Street questioned whether curb and gutter is needed for everything. Mr. Light explained the Stormwater Ordinance states there are to be no open ditches on the front side of lots unless a variance is received from the Stormwater Board. Councilman Street stated he doesn’t think curb and gutters are always needed. Discussion was then held regarding gutters and ditches.
Mr. Cameron motioned that this part of the Master Street Plan be deferred to the Public Works Committee of Jonesboro Chamber of Commerce. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Cameron then motioned, seconded by Councilman Street, that the committee supports the City Engineer and the flexibility he has with the current cross-sections. Mr. Day abstained. Mr. Smith voted nay. Motion failed. Mr. Smith stated he voted nay because the vote would’ve essentially done nothing. Motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Day explained one of the biggest problems they have at CWL is when there’s a ditch with a sewer system that someone is mowing and causing problems to the collection system. He stated he assumes it costs the city more money to maintain a ditch than an appropriately designed stormwater system. It was noted that land is the key, so it would be more important to regulate and enforce right-of-way before curb and gutter enforcement. Councilman Street explained CWL is not putting curb and gutter in the county, but the city probably can’t afford to annex a lot of territory. It was stated that common sense flexibility needs to be in place concerning regulations and whether or not they apply to everyone in every situation. Councilman Street stated he agrees.
Mr. Cameron motioned that the committee does not want to make a distinction between principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors or local streets based on whether they are located in residential or commercial settings or urban or rural settings; further, the committee does not want to delineate urban and rural areas on the map. Mr. Smith asked if they are not going to make distinctions, then what is the purpose of the committee. Mr. Cameron stated they are there to plan a road network, not determine whether people put curb and gutter on a street because that is a city function. Mr. Light explained the city needs direction on whether or not they should or shouldn’t be determining those designations. Mr. Spriggs clarified that the process would stay the way it is. Mr. Cameron agreed. No one seconded the motion.
It was proposed to continue with the existing Master Street Plan acceptable and preferred design details except for deleting Collector Street 1, which does not have curb and gutter.
It was then proposed to accept the existing documents as approved by Council and include in the body of the document that the study area is considered to be urbanize within the city limits of Jonesboro and to allow the Planning Commission staff the flexibility to have rural cross-sections as would be appropriate.
It was motioned, seconded by Councilman Street, to use the existing Master Street Plan acceptable and preferred street details and that they include in the body of the document language detailing that within the city limits of Jonesboro that all areas are to be considered an urbanized development and to allow city staff, as approved by the Planning Commission, the flexibility to use a rural cross-section as would be appropriate. All voted aye, with the exception of one committee member who voted nay. Motion passed.
Mr. Light questioned whether the cross-sections would be revisited. It was explained that they should just go with what they go without the option of the rural option unless city staff recommends it and the Planning Commission approves it.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.