title
Minutes for the October 10, 2007, Stormwater Management Board meeting.
body
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BOARD
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
Date: October 10, 2007
Location: Huntington Building
Conference Room #105
900 West Monroe
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Opening: Chairman Alec Farmer called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
In Attendance marked in bold
Members:
Dewaine Beisner
Don Culpepper
Michael Daniels
Alec Farmer, Chair
Jerry Farris
Betty Shaw
John Street
Gene Vance, Vice-Chair
Jon Wilbanks
Nathan Young
Dennis Zolper
Officials & Staff:
Doug Foreman - Mayor
Tony Thomas - Project Administrator
Erick Woodruff - Public Works Director
Otis Spriggs - Director of Planning & Zoning
Kelly Panneck - Chief City Engineer
Craig Light - Assistant City Engineer
Teddy Hooton - Floodplain Administrator
Janice Patton - Administrative Assistant
Others:
Phillip Crego - City Attorney
Harry Hardwick
Greg Chance - KASU
KAIT8 Representative
Bernie Auld
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Farmer made a brief announcement at the beginning of the meeting regarding an announcement from the media. He stated that Craig Rickert from KAIT8 news announced the Board would be discussing flooding issues in Jonesboro. Farmer stated that this Board is not set up for discussing flood issues.
II. SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS
A. Review and finalize Internal Operating Rules and Regulations
The Board addressed the pending items.
Page 2, Variance Considerations 1e. This item may address an issue such as an industrial project that is adding a new facility. It would be an existing structure that would have an addition to a flood map from the 1970s. It would be grandfathered in under FEMA. Farmer asked Bernie Auld about the definition of a “functionally dependent facility.” Auld said there are situations where a party would have to add an additional structure. The Board agreed to keep the language as follows: The necessity of the ancillary facility.
Page 3, Variance Considerations 3a and 4. These items were tables until the Board received more information on the requirements for historical buildings. The Board and staff were unable to attain all the information before the meeting. Farmer stated that there are separate requirements for historical buildings and FEMA does make some exceptions. Auld stated that he had not researched it, but the City is the administrator of the program and will need to meet guidelines. Auld advised to leave the language as it is. Panneck asked if paragraph 4 was essentially the same thing as 3a. Vance stated that it was the same, but the purpose was to include all the previously listed conditions, with the exception of 3b. Therefore, 3b is the only item under paragraph 3 that applies to historical buildings. The Board agreed to leave the language as is.
Zolper asked for copies to be made of his handouts, which were the Rules and Regulations with his comments, and the Ordinance with proposed revisions. Copies were made for the Board and staff to review.
Page 3, Variance Considerations 1k. Zolper reminded the Board that they agreed to add a catch-all phrase to the end of paragraph 1. Zolper proposed the following language: Any other relevant facts that pertain to compliance with City Ordinances and Regulations or are mandated by Federal or State laws, rules, or regulations. The Board approved the language.
The City Attorney said he is leery of a board permitting a variance to an ordinance. He suggested the board make recommendations to City Council as MAPC does with their recommendations. Crego also suggested the Internal Rules and Regulations be approved and adopted by City Council. The authority of the Board is based on the state and federal laws, and whether or not they enable legislation. With MAPC, a zoning issue is determined by arbitrary capricious, whereas a site plan is not. With site plans, the City establishes guidelines and if the plans meet those guidelines then MAPC approves it and it doesn’t go to City Council. The staff is entitled to perimeters for decisions. Farmer said once the rules and regulations are approved by City Council, the Board will be able to recommend policy, hear appeals on staff decisions, and grant variances. The Board will have to be careful about granting variances.
Page 4, Hearing Procedure. The Board agreed to make a few of the changes proposed by Zolper. Paragraph 3 will be amended to include applicant’s agent as a presenter. Paragraph 6 was discussed among Board and staff regarding a public representative’s 10 day deadline to register with the Public Works Director. Staff explained that if the Board wanted to know who was speaking, the deadline would be necessary for the representative’s name to appear on the agenda. The Board recommended keeping the proceedings more open to the public. City Council has a deadline for agenda items, but allows time for public comment. The Board decided that anyone who wishes to speak should be allowed to speak in regards to the appeal. Further discussion was held. A Board member suggested having a sign-in sheet for each appeal hearing and requiring the representative to sign-in prior to the beginning of the hearing. It was also suggested by the City Attorney that a clause be added for a Board member to motion granting a speaker a certain amount of additional time. The last sentence will be deleted from paragraphs 3 and 4. An additional section will be added to provide additional time as motioned and approved by the Board. The language will resemble that of City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure. John Street suggested the time limit be changed from two (2) minutes to five (5) minutes.
Zolper suggested the public representative register with the Secretary of the Board or her designee, instead of the Public Works Director. The Board agreed to change it.
Other various typographical revisions were suggested by Zolper. Farmer said he would meet with the staff to go over those changes prior to the next meeting when the Board votes on the rules and regulations.
The Board and staff held additional discussion on the duties of the alternate members. All decisions that were made at the previous Board meeting regarding this matter were upheld.
Page 5, Decision of the Board. Paragraph 3 shall be amended to read that all decisions of the Board shall be in writing. No resolution is necessary.
Page 4, Open Meetings. This section will be amended to include Zolper’s comments. All notices of meetings shall be posted on the City of Jonesboro website.
B. Review Stormwater Management/Drainage Ordinance
Zolper handed out copies of the Word version of the Ordinance, including his proposed revisions. The handout differed from the Ordinance that was attached to the agenda for the meeting. Therefore, page numbers and proposed revisions were different. These minutes will reflect the page number according to Zolper’s handout, because that was what the Board most frequently went by during the meeting.
Farmer asked the City Attorney to give input and answer questions about the authority of the Board. There were three actions the Board could take during the appeal process, which were grant, deny, or table. Farmer asked Crego if anything was missing to advise the Board and they will add it. Farmer briefly went over pages 1 through 9. Beisner asked where the Ordinance addressed pollutant water. Auld stated it was in the Best Management Practices Manual.
Street addressed in-lieu contribution fees on pages 10 and 11 under Article 4, Design Criteria and Performance Standards. He requested language be added for allowance of actual cost. Therefore, the Ordinance would not have to be amended a year or years from now. Shaw requested staff be given authority to base the amount on actual cost of the project. Auld suggested the Board come up with the best amount at this time. Panneck agreed. Street said the cost would vary based on where the project is located due to real estate costs. The Board would be dealing arbitrarily with people if they assess a set amount. A formula could be established. The Board continued to discuss in-lieu contribution fees at great length. Section F1(b) is an incomplete sentence and should be corrected.
A project’s cost depends on where it is in the overall watershed. Watershed boundaries were also discussed. Farmer stated that the Board and staff do not have the resources to decide the matter at this meeting. He proposed the Board table it until further information is available from other cities. The Board agreed.
Section F6 was discussed regarding who approves watershed boundaries and the actual overlay of the map on land use plans. The last sentence needs to be amended to be approved by the Stormwater Management Board instead of the Planning Commission.
Page 11, 4.2 Performance Standards. The Board discussed floor elevations under Section F. Farmer stated each lot should have a finished floor elevation. Panneck asked if they wanted every engineer coming into a subdivision outside of the established special flood hazard areas to come in and do a watershed study to establish the 100 year flood. Panneck stated that it would be an undue burden to an engineer to establish that. Teddy Hooten stated it could be treated as a zone A if it isn’t a mapped area and require it to be two feet above the ground. Vance suggested an engineer certify where the floor elevation should be per lot or subdivision, including new and old subdivisions. Street stated that the goal is to protect the citizen. A monolithic slab can get water in it, but the City gets the blame when there is a flood, and people rarely blame the engineer who designed the subdivision. Street stated that this is a real problem and if it requires an engineer to be on site while developing the subdivision, then that is what should be done. The engineer could shoot the elevation at that time. Hooten stated the building code also isn’t being followed. The drainage manual requires the engineer to determine the path of the 100 year storm. Staff said there should be a way to certify that the builder is following the site plans as approved.
The Board and staff agreed that no new house in Jonesboro should flood outside of the 100 year flood. Water should not be in or under the houses. The outstanding question was how to ensure the houses are built to certification. Certification should be done when the slabs are poured. Staff pointed out that there is an exemption in the Ordinance for one new or existing single-family structure. The Board and staff held further discussion of this matter and decided that a final decision could not be made at this meeting.
Hooten gave some statistics. There is a 26% chance a house will flood within a 30 year mortgage plan. There is a 4% chance a house will catch fire within a 30 year mortgage plan. Anyone can purchase flood insurance even if they are not in a floodplain.
Page 14, 6.4 Record Certifications. The Board and staff had extended discussion regarding the record certification process. Engineers determine the path of the 100 year flood flow. Engineering would like to see what the overall elevation is from the 100 year flood, and then determine the finished floor elevations on a house. Daniels suggested having fringe areas on the floodplain map. Panneck asked what would determine a fringe area. Staff advised all to refer to the building code. Farmer said the Windsor Landing flood is a good example that even if developers abide by ordinances, it is still possible for a subdivision to flood even if that subdivision is not in a flood zone. A surveyor or engineer could certify an elevation.
It was stated that the Board is established to recommend policy. The staff can make recommendations for policy to the Board. One policy the Board established during this meeting is that no new structure built in Jonesboro should flood outside of the 100 year flood. When site plans are reviewed, there is no relativity to drainage on those plans. More interpretation of the Ordinance was discussed. The Board and staff agreed that extensive review of the Ordinance will have to take place. Farmer requested the staff to come up with their proposed procedures for certification. He also requested that they review pages 1 through 14 of the Ordinance and present their recommendations at the next meeting. Staff stated that they want the ordinances to reflect what actually happens.
Farmer stated that Section 7.4 Appeals should mirror what is written in the Internal Rules and Regulations. The Board and staff agreed.
III. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Zolper and seconded by Farmer. Meeting adjourned at 11:15.