title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on February 8, 2005.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, February 8, 2005
Members Present: Beadles (Chair), Damron, Krennerich, Gott, Day, Moore, Harpole
Members Absent: Vance
Staff Present: Crego, Martin, Shipley, Harris
Draft minutes from the January meeting had not been corrected by staff to incorporate editing remarks made by several Commissioners. Chairman Beadles asked for a motion to accept the minutes as edited. Mr. Damron so moved, and was seconded by Mr. Krennerich. The motion carried unanimously.
Before introducing the first agenda item, Dr. Beadles announced that, inasmuch as both items to be considered tonight had been discussed at length in previous MAPC meetings, public comments in support of or opposition to the proposals would be limited to twenty minutes per side.
#1 PP-05-01 Nix Fowler Development, LLC requests preliminary approval of plans for Preston Oaks, a residential subdivision containing 38 lots on 34.33 acres in the R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is between Woodsprings Road and Pebble Beach Drive, and will be served by an extension of Sea Island Drive.
Chad Dulaney, of Associated Engineering was present as a proponent of the item. David Mosesso, who resides at 2305 Sea Island Drive was present to voice concerns about the proposal. Mr. Mosesso stated that he wants to be sure that the proposed development has direct access to Highway 226. He also stated his concerns about the effects construction and construction related traffic were having on his property. Mr. Mosesso presented several copies of a photograph showing a track hoe and pickup truck sitting at the end of the pavement on Sea Island Drive. Just beyond the equipment, the unpaved segment of Sea Island Drive that will serve the proposed development continues up and over the ridge. There is mud along the paved street in the foreground, apparently due to construction traffic. Mr. Mosesso stated that the street had been in the condition illustrated in the photograph for about six weeks. He requested that the connection to Highway 226 be established, and construction traffic routed that way.
Claude Martin, City Engineer, stated the applicant had addressed, or agreed to address, all engineering concerns regarding the drainage easement behind Lots 28-32, and the weir structure and storage area to control runoff. David Harris, City Planner, stated that cul-de-sacs shown on the plat needed to be named, and the names placed on the plat. Mr. Damron stated a desire to see an additional access to the west utilizing Sea Island Drive, and asked if there would be one. Mr. Dulaney answered that the developer would like to stay with the street layout as shown, with access at Highway 226, and Sea Island Drive.
As there were no additional requests to speak, and no further comments from the commissioners, Dr. Beadles asked for a motion. Mr. Day moved for approval of the request, with the stipulations that Sea Island Drive not be opened until it is paved, so as to reduce the effects of the construction traffic, and that all staff concerns be addressed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harpole. Dr. Beadles called for a vote, which resulted in four votes for approval (Krennerich, Moore, Day, Harpole), and two votes against (Damron, Gott). Dr. Beadles then voted in the affirmative, thereby giving the 5 affirmative votes necessary for approval. Mr. Damron questioned whether the Chair could vote in cases other than a tie vote. The question regarding the propriety of the Chair’s vote was put to the City Attorney. After perusing the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, staff was unable to determine definitively whether the Chair could vote under these circumstances. Dr. Beadles then called a point of order, stating that Mr. Damron was correct, the Chair only votes in case of a tie. The vote remained 4-2 for approval. The motion failed for lack of the required five votes.*
*NOTE: After further review, the City Attorney, on February 9, 2005, offered the opinion that the Chair’s vote was proper. Therefore the proposal had been granted preliminary approval, and no further action on this matter was required.
#2 PP-05-03 Nix Fowler Development, LLC requests preliminary approval of plans for Plantation Estates, a residential subdivision containing 17 lots on 61.37 acres in the R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is on the north side of Woodsprings Road, near the intersection with Farmstead Road. This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
#3 PP-05-04 Delta-Coleman, Inc. (Paul Throgmartin) requests preliminary approval of plans for Throgmartin Estates - Phase V, a residential subdivision containing 15 lots on 4.85 acres in the R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is north of Prospect Road, west of Elizabeth Lane, and will be accessed by an extension of Nathan Drive. This item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
#4 FP-05-03 BKR, LLC (Bob Harrison) requests final approval of plans for Beaver Creek Subdivision, Phases I-IV, a residential subdivision containing 122 lots on 31.79 acres in the R-1 Single-Family Medium Density District. The property is located on the north side of Flemon Road, near the intersection with Wilkinson Drive.
George Hamman was present to represent the developers of this project. He stated that all issues raised by the City Engineer had been addressed. Ray Osmond, one of the project’s developers, was also present to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Osmond stated that when preliminary plat approval was granted two months earlier, only Dr. Jim Sanders was present to voice concerns about the density of the development. Mr. Osmond also remarked that the developers knew there were problems with water runoff in the area around the development, but that their development would not worsen those problems. Mr. Osmond also stated that concerns about the type of housing to be built were unfounded. He stated that the minimum housing type to be constructed would be $120,000.00, which he indicated was well above the median house price in Jonesboro last year. Mr. Osmond closed by stating that the developers had met all the minimum requirements of the City, and had tried to meet with all the concerned neighbors.
Dr. Jim Sanders came forward to voice concerns about the proposal. Dr. Sanders first commented that he was unhappy with the time limit on comments asked for by Chairman Beadles. Dr. Beadles reiterated his earlier comment that the limit was an attempt to eliminate multiple restatements of the same points. Dr. Sanders stated that he did not feel that the developers or Mr. Hamman had made good faith efforts to meet with him or Kenneth Hendricks, another concerned landowner. Dr. Sanders also commented that if this development is built, the traffic it generates will require road improvements, which would likely entail the City taking additional right-of-way along his property. He also voiced concerns over congestion, noise and safety problems the development might cause. Dr. Sanders also stated that the response time of police, fire and other essential services will be lengthened by this development. Dr. Sanders then stated that the length of time the proposal has been in review, and the number of variances required, should indicate that there is something wrong with the proposal. Dr. Sanders also challenged the accuracy of the developers’ survey, indicating that it was in conflict with his own survey at many points. Dr. Sanders also voiced the opinion that anyone buying a lot near the detention pond would likely be unhappy when they found that the rear of their lot was part of a drainage easement. With his final comments, Dr. Sanders stated that he had had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain materials about this proposal, and he felt that the City had not been as cooperative as it should have been.
Kenneth Hendricks spoke next, noting his family has farmed in the area south of the proposed development for 50 years. His concerns are in regard to water problems that currently exist in the area, which he feels will be exacerbated by this development. Mr. Hendricks stated that he had researched public records and found that Mr. Hamman had been involved in previous projects that resulted in drainage problems. Mr. Hendricks also stated that a resource engineer at Natural Resources Conservation Service told him the method used by Mr. Hamman to calculate storm frequencies and related drainage figures, which he referred to as the rational method, was obsolete. The NRCS uses only the newer, more conservative TR55 method of modeling. Mr. Hendricks also stated that there were errors on the plan, including a pipe labeled as 30”, when it is actually 24”. He further stated that, based on what he was told by NRCS, the outflow rate from the retention pond would be greater than claimed by the developers. Mr. Hendricks also stated that he felt the statement on the record plat regarding impact on downstream facilities was worded in a fashion to sidestep the real issue. Mr. Hendricks closed by stating that he and his Father’s experience on this land for 50 years gave them insight into how storms affected the area, and that calculations on paper don’t always accurately reflect reality.
Dan Timmerman, who farms property south of Flemon Road, stated he had been asked to grant an easement for a sewer line. He stated that the sewer line would interfere with his operations, and he was not keen on granting the easement. He also stated that City Water and Light would not provide written assurances that any damages caused by construction or repair of the sewer line would be covered by CWL. J.D. Mays, 5410 Wilkinson Drive, stated that the water problems in the area had worsened in the 12 years he had lived at this address, and he felt that the proposed development would make the problems worse.
Dr. Beadles then asked the City Engineer to comment on the existing water problems in the area. Mr. Martin agreed that there were problems in the area, and that some improvements were needed. However, he further stated that Mr. Hamman, as a certified engineer, was stating that the proposed development would not result in any increase in the rate of runoff from the subject property. Mr. Martin also stated that all stipulations made when preliminary plat approval was granted had been met. Mr. Harpole asked Mr. Martin to address the adequacy of the runoff measures included as part of the plan. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Hamman, as an engineer, was certifying on the plat, that there would be no increase in runoff due to this proposal. Mr. Damron then asked Mr. Martin for a clarification in regard to the two methods of computing storm frequencies and runoff. Mr. Martin said there were several accepted methods of doing the computations. Generally, the rational method is acceptable for projects under 200 acres (Subject project comprises 31.79 acres), while TR55 method is used for larger projects. Mr. Damron asked staff if the project met all requirements. Ron Shipley, acting City Planner at the time the proposal was granted preliminary plat approval, stated that the project did meet the minimums. Mr. Damron asked if there was a requirement for open space. Mr. Hamman replied that he had found no such ordinance requirement for the R-1 District.
Mr. Hendricks took the podium and stated that he had met with Mr. Hamman following the MAPC pre-meeting on February 3, 2005. He stated that he told Mr. Hamman that one of the drain inlets was in a location that would render it ineffective, and that it needed to be moved down slope to function. He stated that he also told Mr. Hamman he was concerned that the high point of the street below the last drainage inlet was inadequate, and that heavy rains would result in water cresting the hump in the street and then running downgrade onto his fields. Dr. Beadles and Mr. Damron inquired of the City Attorney what recourse property owners would have if the project did result in damages. Mr. Crego stated that the damaged parties would have to file suit to recover damages.
Mr. Osmond restated his desire to develop a good project and be a good neighbor. He also restated that they had met all requirements of the City. Dr. Beadles asked the City Planner what the developer’s responsibilities were in regard to existing runoff and runoff after project completion. Mr. Harris stated that the developers do not have to address existing problems, they simply have to ensure that there is no increase in the rate of runoff due to their project. Ms. Moore asked if there were some way to postpone this development until the downstream problems could be addressed. Those problems could be given top priority to minimize the length of postponement. Mr. Martin stated there were no projects pending to address the current drainage problems in the project area, but that by late Fall 2005 action should be underway.
Mr. Harpole stated that, based on MAPC review and staff comments, the developer apparently had met all the minimum requirements of applicable ordinances, and the project engineer, using a method deemed acceptable by the City Engineer, had certified that there would be no increase in runoff due to this project. In consideration of those facts, Mr. Harpole stated that there seemed to be no basis to refuse approval of the plat. Mr. Harpole then moved that Final Plat approval be granted. Mr. Krennerich seconded the motion. The motion carried with five affirmative votes ((Krennerich, Moore, Gott, Day, Harpole) and one abstention (Damron).
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.