title
Minutes for the Stormwater Management Board meeting on October 31, 2007
body
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Date: October 31, 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 8:30 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 Formon - 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:
Bernie Auld - BA Engineering
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS
A. Review Stormwater Management/Drainage Ordinance (Attached)
Section 1.4 - Light stated that according to the exemptions listed in the section, it is not required for those exemptions to have a stormwater drainage management plan. Light asked if they still need a grading permit prior to construction on small development. Street said that if the structure had more than an acre it is required. Street also said they chose not be stricter than the federal guidelines. Light said the requirements for a subdivision with its own drainage plan that sells the individual lots requires each individual to have a permit because it is a part of the subdivision. Light asked if they want to require a grading permit for a development with its own plan, less than an acre, but part of a larger development. Not reviewing site plans for single resident construction. Farmer suggested incorporated that into the building permit process. Auld stated that if it goes as a building permit, there isn’t a second set of eyes to confirm the elevations. He suggested the best plan for the City would be to continue with the grading process and give them a second review for erosion control. Farmer suggested putting it under the building permit process. Vance stated that all permits start at planning, then when they leave there they go to Engineering. This would still take two reviews. Panneck suggested having all Stormwater Management Plans and Best Management Practices under one roof.
Daniels asked the City what they look for to issue a grading permit. Light referred the Board to Article 3, Section 3.1. Vance said they are not going to require someone to retain water if they are building approximately 500 sq. ft. on the back of an office building or constructing a new home in an established neighborhood. Every lot has to control the sill. Farmer said they need to recognize that the Ordinance recognizes the grading permit. The Board and staff need to look at the grading permit process in the Best Management Practices ordinance. Light suggested adding section 3.5 for a grading permit. The grading permit gives the right to come in and clear trees and remove shrubs. Engineering is currently issuing grading permits. In the exemption, Vance suggesting they state that this does not exempt them from the requirement of a grading permit. He believes there will be confusion between the ordinances. There is no question that the water quality needs to be in the Best Management Practices. Light asked if everyone was in agreement to require a grading permit to build a residential lot. Vance suggested the following language “this exception does not preclude the requirement of all other grading requirements,” etc. Light said the City has a lot of problems with individual lots. Panneck stated that is where the majority of problems are. The notice needs to be put in the building permit process for the builder’s knowledge. Penneck suggested addressing the grading permit process in the Best Management Practices. Vance suggested accepting the grading permit language as is at this time. Staff stated that the wording is correct, but the practice is not in place. Light stated that there is an approval letter for the plan, and then a grading permit is issued when the construction begins. The Board directed the staff to add language to the definition for grading permit. Light suggested clarifying when the grading permit would be issued.
The Board and staff agreed to add language to the end of Section 1.4 to state grading permits shall be required under all lots.
Definitions. Light stated in the definitions there are some regulatory phrases that are not necessary and need to be reduced to simply state the definition only. The Board agreed that the definitions do not need to be referencing the regulations.
K. Approval Letter. The Board and staff want to take out the last sentence because it is in Section 3. They will also change the title to Compliance Letter.
L. Drainage Easement. The information is covered in Article 5 several times. Staff made the suggestion to strike the repetitive language from the definition.
T. In-Stream Detention. Strike the last sentence from the definition.
FF. Stormwater Drainage Design Manual. Strike the last sentence of the definition.
OO. Owner or Developer. Vance asked if this definition needs to be referencing 500 square feet. The Board and staff agreed to delete “more than 500 square feet of” from the definition.
Section 2.1 - Light suggested rewriting the first sentence for clarity.
Section 2.4B - Light addressed the section on Open Channels. He asked what the maximum feasible use means. Auld is in agreement that is should be specific. Panneck asked if it was regulatory. They are not technically defining what the open channel is; they are specifying use of open channels. Light asked again what the maximum feasible use is. Vance suggested the same verbiage that is in Section 2.4D. Everything engineers will refer to will be in the manual. Light stated that open channels shall be used as much as feasibly possible in lieu of doing enclosed conveyances. The preferred method is open channels. All parties agreed that Section 2.4B needs to be rewritten.
The Board and staff decided to strike definitions “Frequency” and “Retention Facility” because they are not found in the Ordinance.
Section 2.5A(2) - Light requested a definition for public ownership. The staff needs to know what constitutes public ownership. He asked if an easement is public ownership. The Ordinance references operation and maintenance of certain drainage structures, but it is unclear if that due to having a right of way. Daniels said it is stated throughout the document that the owner is responsible for maintaining the easement. The only thing the City has a right-of-way on is street, everything else is easements. Vance stated that they need to define which ones the city maintains and which ones the homeowner maintains. This issue needs to be addressed somewhere. It is a difficult issue and the Board and staff held a lengthy discussion about how to decide who maintains the easements. Farmer said it would be a costly responsibility for the City to have. The parties discussed possibly basing it on how much the ditch carries. If an owner chooses to put pipe in, that is not the City’s responsibility. They want to promote open ditches. Katherine was designed as an open ditch, but was not finished as an open ditch. The owner did not want an open ditch because it did not look good. The City cannot be in the business to maintain side lot lines. It was asked how other cities handle the situation. Some parties believed other regions leave it up to the developer. The Board and staff need to carefully define public ownership. Farmer said they need to determine where the underground pipe should begin. It would cut out manual maintenance. Only ditches along streets may currently be maintained by the City. Hooton stated that the easement gives the City the right to go in and maintain it as well. The staff can provide recommendations but will need input on public ownership. Culpepper commented that they should take more time on the issues and do it right. The issues are as follows: (1) public ownership and easements; what is the City’s responsibility for open ditches and pipe; (2) finished floor elevation; and (3) side lots; ditch development by a developer for future maintenance.
Vance suggested grouping the problem areas in the Ordinance and addressing them continually because the Board and Staff are getting hung up on things. Farris suggested that the issues be addressed in the Best Management Practices. Panneck asked if it was necessary to have three separate ordinances. Vance suggested they were trying to put too many details into the Ordinance. They should design the process to where the manual has all the details needed. Then only the manual would have to be updated. This is the same practice as building codes has.
Floor elevation was addressed an example of the issue to include something in the manual and in the Ordinance. It was suggested that this issue be addressed in the Drainage Manual or the Best Management Practices. The Ordinance has to establish the policy, and the complicated issues and financial obligations should be addressed in the manuals. There should be a technical bulletin put in the front of the appropriate manual.
Section 2.5B - Light asked when the maintenance agreement should be provided, pre or post construction and what is an appropriate agreement? The Maintenance agreement is pre submitted. They should state in the Ordinance that it is required. Zolper agreed it should indicate when the plan and agreement should be submitted. The maintenance agreement should be submitted with the final stormwater drainage plan. They could include the easements along with maintenance agreements. This way the location of the easements could be viewed. The easement should be issued with a grading permit.
Panneck was asked when he would prefer that the easements and plan be submitted. They need to maintain a temporary basis of the runoff during the construction period. The grading permit and compliance letter gives authority to go in and start building. Zolper suggested the easement and maintenance agreement be submitted prior to the final completion or they are not granted a Certificate of Occupancy. The stormwater management portion of the plan is reviewed before the grading permit is granted. By clearing the land you increase the runoff. If EPA or ADEQ come in, they only deal with quality of stormwater. This is a developer issue, not a homebuilder issue. As long as it is documented and fair across the Board, others should understand. Homeowners will also have to understand that property prices will go up. Vance suggested the staff establish a policy that gives the city enough time to review and approve. It could be possible to file a supplemental document at the courthouse that establishes floor elevation. Zolper made the statement that the document will have to be acknowledged and the land description will need to be included. If they want it recorded they will have to go thru that procedure. The City could start requiring on the plats of subdivisions that this is subject to the minimum finished floor elevation. The City has currently been receiving letters with established levels.
There was discussion at great length about the floor elevation. The board reviewed the building code that was handed out at the previous meeting by Hooton. The process of enforcing land elevation has been an ongoing issue with this Ordinance.
It has to be economically feasible to establish the criteria for requiring measurements of floor elevation. Architects actually establish the conditions. They use engineering to check it. It would be difficult to have a set measure for elevation. It would be necessary to ask engineers to determine where the water flows through the development and set finished floor elevations on those areas. Engineers are the only ones who can make those determinations. The question is, where the City would place this information for the homeowner to know where the elevation level is. The only suggestion made was putting it on the plat. All minimum floor elevations should be placed on the engineering plans.
The Board wants to find an opinion of how they will reference or record the elevation level. It has to be done to require the minimum floor elevation.
It was suggested to get an opinion from PELS Board on how to certify to elevation on a plat. All parties need to decide the technical side of it.
The Board ended their review of the Ordinance at the beginning of Article 3.
The Board and staff decided to move the regularly scheduled November meeting from the 21st to the 28th due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Farmer adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m.