title
Minutes for the Master Street Plan Committee meeting on June 26, 2014
body
Members present: Jim Abel, Paul Hoelscher and Robin Nix, Sr.
Members absent: Josh Brown, Mike Cameron, Marvin Day, Ann Garner, Ben Owens (chair), Bill Smith, John Street and Garry Tate
City Engineer Craig Light questioned whether Eugene Holloway has been appointed to the committee yet. City Clerk Donna Jackson answered yes, the resolution was passed by Council. (It was noted after the meeting that Mr. Holloway has not been appointed to the committee because a resolution hasn’t been presented to the Council.)
The minutes from the June 26th meeting were not approved due to the lack of members present. It was decided to hold the minutes for approval until the next meeting.
Discussion was held concerning right-of-way dedication. Mr. Light explained currently developers are required to dedicate right-of-way when new subdivisions are made, as well as when property is replatted. He noted the City Attorney’s Office has indicated the city is abiding by state law with the current process, so they are not really recommending any changes to the process. He asked if anyone would like to make changes to the process. No committee members expressed any concern with the right-of-way process.
It was questioned how often the city collects right-of-way when the Master Street Plan shows a future route. Mr. Light explained currently with every new subdivision or new platting of property into a lot, the city acquires right-of-way according to the Master Street Plan. It happens approximately two or three times a week consistently. They get some objections, but since the City Attorney says they are abiding by state law then they can continue asking for the right-of-way. It was also questioned if other cities have the same process as Jonesboro. Mr. Light answered yes. Further discussion was held concerning the process.
It was questioned what happens when additional right-of-way is needed at an intersection. Mr. Light stated in the Master Street Plan handout it discusses additional right-of-way requirements for intersections. Right now, they have set requirements for local streets without increases at intersections. But, that is something they may want to look at to change.
Discussion was then held regarding on-street parking. The Master Street Plan 3.0 handout allows for on-street parking. On-street parking and parallel parking is in the downtown area currently. He questioned whether they want to continue with on-street parking and if they want to be in every area or just certain areas. It was asked if on-street parking could be allowed in commercial, but not residential. Mr. Light stated the committee can make that recommendation. He expressed concern about on-street parking due to the cost and maintenance. He noted North Little Rock has a lot of on-street parking, even in residential areas. On-street parking can also help to calm traffic. One committee member stated he thinks on-street parking in commercial areas may be problematic for traffic flow. Mr. Spriggs explained on-street parking should still be left up to the Traffic Committee so that if it’s requested it’ll have to go to that committee for approval. Right now, the only district that allows for it is C-1 Downtown Core. There may also be instances for on-street parking near historic homes that don’t have a lot of parking available on the property. He thinks the code should still regulate on-street parking.
A committee member stated he would like to see more enforcement of on-street parking. He then questioned whether the city has parking meters. Mr. Spriggs stated Jonesboro used to have parking meters, but got rid of them. Discussion was held concerning on-street parking. Mr. Light suggested limiting on-street parking to local streets. Mr. Spriggs added the city could do that unless there is a traffic issue on the local street and then let the Traffic Committee determine whether or not there should be on-street parking. He added it’s really a case by case basis. Mr. Light noted on-street parking is also expensive due to the cost of the signs installation and maintenance. He explained that he brought the issue to the committee because the Master Street Plan 3.0 document indicated that on-street parking should be “encouraged” in areas allowed by law. He’s not sure about encouraging on-street parking. Mr. Spriggs stated he thinks they should allow for on-street parking where it can be. He suggested leaving the issue to be dealt with in ordinance and have the Traffic Committee handle the unique situations. He added he likes the idea of restricting parking on major arterials and collector roads. Mr. Light informed the committee that they could just recommend that on-street parking needs to be looked at, but leave the decisions up to a committee that the Mayor will appoint to look at the issue. He also noted that the committee may want to consider the speed limit of the street when determining whether they wanted to allow on-street parking. He suggested no on-street parking for arterials and collectors due to the speed limits. But, he didn’t see a problem with on-street parking on local streets with lower speed limits. Mr. Spriggs stated they may need to take a look at the map to ensure there are no conflicts and then bring it back to the committee for approval.
Discussion was then held regarding alleyways. Mr. Light explained the Master Street Plan 3.0 document stated alleyways should be utilized. He noted the city is asked to abandon alleyways consistently because they are not used, nor are they maintained or provided services. Mr. Spriggs added that most of the alleyways do not function the way they are intended unless they are in the downtown area. He referred to page 9 of the Master Street Plan 3.0 document that discusses alleyways. Mr. Spriggs added that alleyways also have problems with crime and code enforcement issues, which has helped spur discussion of abandoning the alleyways in the city. Assistant Fire Chief Alan Dunn expressed concern about getting a fire truck down an alleyway that is not built to street standards because that could add hazards to their ability to respond to fires. It was stated that the city may have to enforce no parking in alleyways. Mr. Spriggs added that may want to look at having alleyways be public, so the city is not responsible for enforcement. Further discussion was held. Mr. Light read from the document where it stated that alleyways may be allowed. A committee member indicated that wording was fine. It was then questioned whether the Planning Commission would approve alleyways. Mr. Spriggs explained that by default alleyways would probably have to be presented to the MAPC in the subdivision process. Mr. Light added that this is not a regulatory document; rather, it’s just recommendations for regulations to be passed. He further explained could will add language about alleyways being allowed, but conform to minimum cross sections and there be access requirements for fire trucks and can’t dead end. He stated the minimum width of pavement should be 16 feet for Fire Department access and should be paved or with concrete with no alleyway parking. There should also be overheard clearance of 12 feet for the fire trucks. But, if there is parking then the minimum 16 feet should still be adhered to.
Mr. Light stated the next meeting will discuss the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. They will include transit facilities if time allows.
It was questioned if there are any ordinances in the city relating to sidewalks. Mr. Light explained there was resolution regarding sidewalks that was presented to the Public Works Committee, but he wasn’t sure if it was presented to Council about adding sidewalks to new construction projects. Mr. Spriggs added the code indicates the MAPC may require sidewalks on certain types of commercial versus multi-family developments, but they’ve never been enforced. They attempted to take the issue to the committee for clarification, but it has been stalled there since. He added the committee can come up with some sort of recommendations concerning sidewalks or looking at sidewalks if they wish. A person in attendance explained he was surprised by the results of the 2009 walkability study. He also noted that sidewalks also have a positive impact on cities. He expressed concern about some areas where the citizens are walking in the street in order to get from place to another. He added it is antiquated to have a city without sidewalks. Further discussion was held concerning sidewalks.
Mr. Light stated the right-of-way does allow room for sidewalks, but the city doesn’t have any ordinances requiring the construction of sidewalks. He added that could be something the committee may or may not want to recommend. He noted they are making sidewalks in newer areas, but most of the street funds are used for maintenance. He further explained that if the city does have more sidewalks, then the issue becomes maintenance. It was noted by a committee member that the issue of maintenance has been debated for years. Further discussion was held concerning sidewalks.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.