title
Minutes for the Stormwater Management Board Meeting on September 16, 2020
body
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Date:
September 16, 2020
Location:
Municipal Center
First Floor Conference Room
300 South Church
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Time:
8:30 a.m.
Opening:
In Attendance marked in bold
Members:
Susan Merideth - 8:35
Jeremy Bevill
L.J. Bryant
Charles Coleman
Jerry Farris
Woody Freeman
Jeannie Gillis, Co-Chair
Chris Kidd - 8:33
Brett Provost
Matt Taylor
Rick Wyatt, Chairman
Officials & Staff:
Harold Perrin - Mayor
Derrel Smith - Director of Planning & Zoning
Craig Light - Chief City Engineer
Roger Gibson - Stormwater Manager
Marvin Day, Craighead County Judge
Eugene Neff - Road Superintendent
Bobby Clark - ASU
Tracey Cooper - Secretary
Danny Burns - Horizon Land Surveying
Michael Boggs - Tralan Engineering
Matt Davis - Stonebridge Construction
Rob Hester - Stonebridge Construction
Mike Downing - Chief of Staff, City of Jonesboro
I. CALL TO ORDER
Wyatt called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*Minutes for the August 19, 2020, Stormwater Management Board Meeting
Motion to approve the minutes was made by Bryant and seconded by Coleman. The minutes were unanimously approved.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
V. OLD BUSINESS
Light stated that he was ask at the last meeting to bring back language for the Utility Line Ordinance. The Ordinance is attached. The proposed language is Section B, 1-4. He met with Merideth and CWL was concerned about #4 stating “Joint use…”. After discussion, we decided adding “Platting of new joint use…”. There are many joint use easements in the City. Wyatt questioned if this is the final draft. Light stated yes. CWL’s concerns have been addressed. Bryant made a motion to forward the ordinance with the noted change to the Public Works Committee. Kidd seconded. All voted Aye.
VI. OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
Light began by stating that typically appeals are the result of a denial of an application but there is an issue that came up and the City has not officially denied it but it needs to be resolved so they can move forward. The City needs to get direction or possibly a motion from the Board on how to move forward. At the last meeting, it was discussed that no front or side lot lines shall be open ditches and that they all have to be enclosed. We recently got informed that they want to plat a lot adjacent to Bill’s Fresh Market that is part of the original lot. This brings forth the code we discussed last meeting. The developers got comments back that said the ditch needs to be enclosed. The Code has always been there but at the last meeting, we brought it to the Board as what we thought it said and got confirmation that was correct. Since the Code has not historically been interpreted that way, they have been put in a bind with the sale and future development of the property. The existing drive for Bill’s will be shared by both properties. The building will be built as it was originally planned but it will be on two separate lots and there is where it became an issue. When it was one lot, they could have built without enclosing the ditch. Light stated he has talked to ArDOT and they are not opposed to having enclosed ditches but when it becomes enclosed either the Developer or the City becomes responsible for the enclosed conduit on their Right-of-Way. If something does happen, it is not ArDOT’s responsibility for maintenance. That is the position of ArDOT and there has been nothing worked out with ArDOT regarding maintenance of the pipe.
Light stated there are details to be worked out and some work to do to make things work along State routes. This will take a while and delay them unreasonably, so for that reason it is the recommendation they get the variance for this project. This has been in the process for a while now and with the interpretation of the Code they are in situation they did not anticipate when the project was started.
The client is concerned since a purchase price has been established and it has moved to contract that the added cost of site work for the development adds to the cost and causes delays. The client would be putting improvements on property that they do not own. Bryant agreed that the variance should be granted but questioned Light on how we move forward. Light stated anyone requesting this will have to come to the Board for a variance. Ultimately, it is the Board decisions.
Light stated that what makes this one unique is the complication of the State route, the timing, and the time it would take to get the issue resolved is an unreasonable delay for the Developer. Light needs to get with ArDOT and determine how a situation like this will be handle so when the next one comes up, it is not an issue because we know how things will go.
Wyatt ask if there is a negative impact that would come back on the City if the variance were granted. Light stated that with all of the development in the area with improvements such as curb and gutter, sidewalks, drainage systems, etc. there would be a “gap” area this property lies in. It is the intent of the Code when things change on properties; the properties are brought into Code.
The Developer would have to do improvements across both lots because the improvements have to be done to the subdivision. Both lots make up the subdivision.
Kidd questioned owning infrastructure on Right-of Way when something goes wrong. Light stated that is something that has to be worked out. The City and ArDOT have different policies on who owns what on the Right-of Way. ArDOT’s policy is they allow individuals to own infrastructure on the Right-of-Way that they are responsible for. The City allows it also but it is done by an indemnification agreement.
Downing addressed the Chairman. He stated the Mayor recommends a variance be granted because of the reasons you have heard being the State Highway and other issues.
Light stated the Developer will still have to do stormwater mitigation but the City will not ask for the ditches to be enclosed.
Kidd stated he was in favor of granting the variance because it had been there so long and they will be mitigating the stormwater. Kidd made a motion to grant the variance. Coleman seconded. All voted Aye.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Meredith ask if the City would have to work with ArDOT on the development across the road. Light stated the way the drainage is falling there may be no piping on the Right-of-Way. If it does, the discussion will begin.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Wyatt adjourned the meeting at 8:59 a.m.