title
Minutes for the Master Street Plan Committee meeting on June 12, 2014
body
Members present: Mike Cameron, Ben Owens (chair), Bill Smith, Councilman John Street
Members absent: Josh Brown, Marvin Day, Ann Garner and Paul Hoelscher
Mr. Cameron motioned, seconded by Councilman Street, to approve the minutes. All voted aye.
Chairman Owens announced there are three new members to the committee: Jim Abel, Garry Tate and Robin Nix, Sr. (It was noted after the meeting that these members’ appointments had not yet been approved by City Council.)
City Engineer Craig Light presented the committee with copies of the acceptable and preferred cross sections that were approved by Council with the Master Street Plan (see attached). He also gave the committee copies of the Master Street Plan 3.0 document (see attached). He explained this document is what they will be passing along with the Master Street Plan when it’s presented to Council.
Discussion was then held concerning roadway spacing. The Master Street Plan 3.0 document suggests principal arterials every three to four miles, minor arterials approximately one mile from other arterials, collector streets one-half mile from arterials and local streets as needed (page 6). Mr. Light questioned whether the committee agreed with these recommendations. Mr. Smith asked if the recommendations were coming from staff. Mr. Light stated former MPO Director Dr. Marsha Guffey got the recommendations from the American Planning Association. He added it’s also mentioned that they should use either a standard or modified grid system. He prefers to use a modified grid system based on existing roads taking into account the natural and man-made road barriers in the areas, such as railroads and Highway 63. He stated they should at least have decent spacing between roads so they can serve a larger area. Mr. Cameron agreed with having principal arterials every three miles. Councilman Street also agreed, along with Mr. Smith.
Crime Analyst Basia Combs stated she doesn’t think having principal arterials every three miles will solve the traffic congestion problem in the city, especially on north Johnson. Mr. Smith noted that the eastern bypass would help relieve congestion off Johnson. Mr. Light agreed, adding the study that was handed out at the last meeting indicated about 5,000 cars per day would use Commerce (an eastern bypass) as opposed to Stadium if Commerce was to be improved. That will give drivers alternatives. Mr. Cameron explained when Stadium was originally constructed it was named Highway 1 Bypass by the Highway Department and was intended to be a bypass. It did not fit into Jonesboro’s master planning; rather, it was just a bypass the Highway Department decided they needed. He noted this will just be a tool and not definite.
Mr. Smith motioned to approve the roadway spacing recommendations. There was no second. All voted aye. (NOTE: During the July 10, 2014, meeting this motion was voted on again with Mr. Hoelscher seconded the motion and the committee approving it.)
Discussion was held regarding access management as described on page 10 of the Master Street Plan 3.0 document. Mr. Light asked if the committee wanted to make a recommendation to Council and the Planning Commission that existing regulations regarding access management should be revisited and possibly develop new ordinances if needed. He noted this part of the document will generally say the committee recommendations looking at some sort of access management. Councilman Street stated he agrees with access management, just not in the way that was previously proposed at a past meeting. He explained spacing from major intersections needs to be looked at due to traffic and future construction, but it may not always be feasible to have two companies use one driveway. Mr. Light further explained to the committee that current regulations allow for as many driveways as the developer wants, as long as they meet the distance requirements from intersections and that they’re at least 50 feet apart and the driveways have to be 40 feet wide. Traffic Engineer Mark Nichols noted that on Red Wolf Blvd. when he performed traffic studies some areas only reflected a 35 mph speed even though the limit is 45 mph because of all the driveways slowing down traffic. He also suggested making driveways further apart to allow for more deceleration lanes so vehicles can slow down to get into a driveway without blocking traffic. Mr. Light stated they hope the committee will recommend some access management be looked at to preserve the existing roadways in the future.
Councilman Street motioned, seconded by Mr. Cameron, to keep the language in the document referring to looking at access management. All voted aye. Mr. Light explained that this will make a recommendation to the Council and Planning Commission that the existing subdivision and site development ordinance be revisited with regards to driveway access to roadways. He noted that it will just say there’s a problem and rules need to be developed to address that problem. He added there was a document that was presented in the past, but they may have asked for too much so now they’ll need to scale it back.
Discussion was held concerning connectivity. Mr. Light stated this will mostly be with local streets and developments on those streets. Ms. Combs explained that with respect to crime cul-de-sacs and dead end streets help prevent the escape of burglars and do serve a purpose. Mr. Smith added that emergency responders may have problems with those types of streets.
Mr. Light provided the committee with a handout regarding connectivity (see attached). It was questioned whether this is just a recommendation. Mr. Light answered yes, this will serve as a roadmap to adopt new ordinances relating to connectivity. He noted the document currently recommends encouraging connectivity and limiting cul-de-sacs (page 8). Ms. Combs cautioned that either extreme should not be used - that cul-de-sacs should never be used or that all streets have to be connected. Mr. Cameron stated that unless the issues are a fire or police hazard, then it shouldn’t be of the committee’s concern. Councilman Street added that, as an appraiser, there are a lot of families that like to live on cul-de-sacs, especially those with young children because it limits access and slows traffic. He further stated cul-de-sacs do need to be connected to other streets so there are other streets to travel on and not have another situation like Sage Meadows where there’s only one way in and one way out. He noted as long as fire trucks are able to turn around in the cul-de-sac and meets the fire code, then they’re okay. Assistant Fire Chief Alan Dunn explained one problem they have is when subdivisions are built in phases and are extended, they may start off fine when the first phase is constructed, but there are problems when several more phases are added and the area increases in size. The ability to have good access is lost when a subdivision gets to an increased size. City Planner Otis Spriggs noted they can look at those issues with the Master Street Plan language.
Mr. Jim Abel recommended changing the language in #3 and #4 on page 8 because it discourages cul-de-sacs. Mr. Light stated they can change the language and come back with proposed language.
Discussion was then held regarding blocks (page 6). Mr. Light asked if they want to set a general block layout in high intensity with a more urbanized feel and with moderate and low intensity areas develop however they want. Or, do they want to even consider blocks as opposed to letting everything develop within the grid system. Councilman Street noted that curvilinear streets will help calm traffic. Mr. Light agreed. He added the Master Street Plan 3.0 document recommended rectilinear pattern streets, which would be straight. He then asked if they wanted to restrict flag lots and panhandle lots. He provided the committee with plats of the two types of lots to show as an example. Mr. Light discussed the panhandle lot proposal on Horne Drive (see attached). He explained the purpose is to get four lots on one piece of property without having to do any type of street improvement. Mr. Spriggs added Lot 4 in the proposal will have a private drive to get to the main part of the plot, with no curb and gutter on the private drive. Mr. Cameron noted that Lots 2 and 3 would also access their lots through the use of Lot 4’s private drive. Mr. Nichols also explained that if the property owners from Lots 2 and 3 call the city with issues the city will have to use Lot 4’s private drive to access Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Light noted that would also cause problems with emergency services because they would pretty much have to drive down a private drive in order to get to Lots 2 and 3 if needed.
Mr. Cameron asked what the issue is for the committee to address. Mr. Light stated the issue is whether or not the committee wants more connectivity or if flag lots will be allowed. It was noted this proposal was tabled by the MAPC Tuesday night. It was explained the property owners and developers don’t want to put in a road because it’ll save them money. Mr. Cameron stated he doesn’t think this issue is the committee’s business and Mr. Light and Mr. Spriggs should take care of it within the city. Mr. Light disagreed, saying this is the committee’s business since the rules that are in place don’t prohibit this type of issue. He noted if the developers would make a street that connects to a street on the west, then that would solve the problem but they won’t because of the cost. Mr. Spriggs added this particular proposal on Horne Drive will probably be passed as long as the developers can get Fire Department approval. Mr. Smith explained it sounds like they’ve done just enough to follow the ordinances, but nothing else. It was asked for Mr. Light to bring to the next meeting the rules that the developer isn’t following so the committee knows what may need to be addressed. Councilman Street asked why the proposals would be approved by the Fire Department with those issues. Assistant Fire Chief Dunn explained as long as City Water and Light can provide water service and the road is wide enough to fit a fire truck, then they will be able to provide fire services and will approve it.
Mr. Smith further explained if there was something stating this type of design wasn’t allowed, then developers wouldn’t be allowed to finesse the rules to achieve something that doesn’t really work well.
Chairman Owens questioned why the MAPC doesn’t have rules that prohibit this type of issue. Mr. Spriggs explained the code doesn’t specify that a developer can’t narrow down. He added the code needs to be updated to prevent that. Councilman Street agreed. Committee members agreed that this type of situation needs to be addressed and discouraged to prevent developers from doing this in the future. Mr. Light suggested the committee think about what they’d like to do so it can be revisited before finalizing the Master Street Plan 3.0 document.
Chairman Owens reminded the committee that they will meet on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month at 3 p.m.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.