↓
 

2022 Minutes

City of Mayflower, Arkansas Posted on by

MAYFLOWER PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETINGS @ 7:00 PM

JANUARY 11, 2022 

The regular meeting of the Mayflower Planning Commission was held, in person, Tuesday, January 11th at the Mayflower City Center. The following members, being a quorum, were present and acting: Jana Green-Fornash, Danny Hester, James Oliver, Angela Patterson, Chad Patterson, and Cliff Wekkin. Delbert Dawson, Sammy Reynolds, and Stephen Smedley were absent.

Approval and/or Changes to Minutes:  Minutes from the December 14th meeting were approved on a motion made by Commissioner C Patterson and seconded by Commissioner Oliver.

Public Comments:    Jim Murphy, representing the River Plantation Subdivision POA, came to discuss adding fire access roads since there are currently more than 30 homes.  The Commission explained that Mayflower has no jurisdiction over the subdivision. Mayor Holland responded by saying that County Judge Baker has planned another road for the Plantation and Metroplan is mapping it for Faulkner County.

General: None

Reports: None

Unfinished Business: None

New Business:  The Vineyard Subdivision, Phase II: 99 Lots

Tim Lemons, Lemons Engineering, representing J.M. Crites, provided an updated preliminary plat to the Commissioners based upon comments received, which will become part of the minutes. Both Mike Watson and Brian Vines, HALFF Associates, Inc., attended to represent Mayflower in the development of the next phase planned in The Vineyard Subdivision. Mr. Crites anticipates, pending further approval from ADEQ and utilities, the construction of eight to ten homes to begin March 1, 2022. The home sizes will range from 1400-1600 sq. ft. and prices will begin at $190,000. The POA will assume responsibility for the retaining pond between lots 78 and 79 in the common area.

Commissioner Hester made a motion to allow Mr. Crites to move forward with the project, contingent upon all requirements being met and approved by Mayflower, and was seconded by Commissioner C Patterson. The motion was passed with all ayes.

Announcements:  Chairman Green-Fornash announced February 8, 2022 as the next regular meeting date.

Adjournment:  There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote on a motion made by Commissioner Wekkin and seconded by Commissioner Hester.

FEBRUARY 8, 2022

The regular meeting of the Mayflower Planning Commission was held, in person, Tuesday, February 8th at the Mayflower City Center. The following members, being a quorum, were present and acting: Danny Hester, James Oliver, Angela Patterson, Chad Patterson, Sammy Reynolds, and Stephen Smedley.  Delbert Dawson, Jana Green-Fornash, and Cliff Wekkin were absent.

Approval and/or Changes to Minutes:  Minutes from the January 11th meeting were approved on a motion made by Commissioner Hester and seconded by Commissioner Reynolds.

Public Comments:    Andy Timmer, representing the River Plantation Subdivision POA, asked what services Mayflower provides to the subdivision. The Commission explained that Mayflower has no obligation beyond water/sewer and fire protection because they are not within the city limits nor 1-mile planning jurisdiction anymore. Commissioner A Patterson will send annexation requirements to Mr. Timmer.

General: None

Reports: None

Unfinished Business: The Vineyard Subdivision, Phase II: 99 Lots (Lemons Engineering) Sam Kreimeyer and Brian Vines, HALFF Associates, Inc., were unable to review the updated detailed plans prior to the meeting. However, comments regarding the Drainage Report and what should be on a site plan, was provided to and discussed with the Commission.

Mr. Crites stated again that the POA will assume responsibility for the detention area between lots 78 and 79, labeled “Common Area” on the preliminary plat.

Concerns:

    1. Source of title is missing, please provide Deed Record and Page number or Instrument number. JM Crites is not listed as the owner of record on parcel maps, please provide correct owner information or a document from the owner allowing Mr. Crites to act as his agent to plat the property.
    2. A proposed Bill of Assurance or proposed covenants and restrictions was not provided for review.
    3. There appears to be a ditch traversing southeasterly across the common area but there is not enough information with the contours to determine if the watercourse leaving this tract is sufficient to handle the increased runoff from this ditch. Please provide additional information regarding the watercourse leaving this property.
    4. There appears to be an existing sanitary sewer line and an overhead electric line on Lots 79, 80 and 81 that do not have existing or proposed easements indicated.
    5. The Certificates – Certificate of Owners and Certificate of Surveying Accuracy are not executed. There is not a surveyor stamp on the plat.
    6. The name of the recorded subdivisions to the east is not provided with the recording information.
    7. The minimum horizontal radius at centerline is 100 feet for a residential street, the two centerline radii for Cabernet Way are 85.00 feet (C2 and C3).
    8. Will this project be phased? If so, indicate phasing limits with heavy black lines and label phases.
    9. The Planning Commission should decide if Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of all residential street and along Highway 89. The “Control of Development and Subdivision Land Regulations” in Section 5.8 -A states Sidewalks should be placed on both sides of a residential street platted for single-family detached housing development.
    10. A connection to the south should be considered, yes, the land to the south has steep terrain but it could allow for an additional egress/ingress of this subdivision as the land to the south is developed. The property to the south does have access to Center Street on the southern portion.
    11. The runoff coefficients used to model pre- and post-construction runoff appear to be sourced from the City of Little Rock Drainage Manual for 10-yr return periods. Please provide a source for the runoff coefficients used. If Table 2.2 of the City of Little Rock Drainage Manual is to be used, coefficients should agree with the soil types present on site. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey characterizes this land as a combination of silty loam with 1-3% slopes, sandy loam with 3-8% slopes and rocky soils of 12-40% slopes.
    12. The site map showing drainage catchment areas and locations of proposed improvements should include a scale, a north arrow and a legend or sufficient annotation to clarify the intended meaning of the markings.
    13. The site plan appears to show drainage improvements which will have both regulated and unregulated outfalls. Post-development discharge should be the sum of unregulated discharge and discharge from the proposed weir.
    14. Manning’s Equation is not a standard method for modeling discharge from a trapezoidal weir. Please revise the discharge calculations.
    15. The applicant is advised that the drainage report indicates that some inlets may collect runoff volumes which greatly exceed the capacity of conventionally sized on-grade curb inlets. A final storm sewer design may require additional structures to limit the spread of runoff within the roadway during the design storm.
    16. Is there enough room to build a home on the lots with the powerline right-of-way and still be able to meet the

            setback requirements of the city?

It was recommended that Lemons Engineering and Halff Associates communicate directly to address the concerns before submitting it again.

New Business:  Mayflower Schools Agri Barn and Baseball Lockers (Lewis Architects Engineers) Ricky Lewis represented Mayflower Schools and fielded questions about ADA compliance and the use of ground materials before addressing concerns.

 Concerns:

    1. The two proposed buildings do not show up on the 20 Year Master Plan provided and the Site plan provided for the Baseball Locker Room and Agri Barn does not show boundary lines or locations as the proposed buildings relate to the boundary line and other buildings other than the Agri Building.
    2. There are no building dimensions on the site plan.
    3. Building Setback lines should be indicated on the site plan.
    4. Parking areas should have lighting provided.
    5. No landscaping is shown for proposed buildings.
    6. The proposed grading and drainage is a concern on the Agri Barn area as the water will drain toward the existing Agri Building and there is a concrete area for ADA Parking at the Northwest corner of the Agri Building that could be affected and it is not shown on the site plan.
    7. Should there be a sidewalk for a pedestrian connection between the Agri Building and the Agri Barn?
    8. The North Arrow on the 20 Year Master Plan is pointed South.
    9. There is no Drainage report submitted with the project.
    10. There is Quantitative Data provided for Parcel size; proposed building coverage of the site and no parking spaces shown.
    11. There is not a Boundary survey stamped by a registered land surveyor included in the submittal
    12. Were the Public Hearing requirements met? Legal notice in the newspaper and mailing of notice to all affected parties within 300 feet of the site development site.

 
Commissioner Smedley made a motion to allow the school to move forward with the projects, contingent upon all concerns be corrected, including parking, and all requirements being met and approved by Mayflower, and was seconded by Commissioner Hester. The motion was passed with all ayes.

 Announcements:  Vice-Chairman C Patterson announced March 8, 2022 as the next regular meeting date.

Adjournment:  There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote on a motion made by Commissioner Reynolds and seconded by Commissioner Smedley.

March 8, 2022

The regular meeting of the Mayflower Planning Commission was held, in person, Tuesday, March 8th at the Mayflower City Center. The following members, being a quorum, were present and acting: Jana Green-Fornash, Danny Hester, James Oliver, Angela Patterson, Sammy Reynolds, Stephen Smedley, and Cliff Wekkin.  Delbert Dawson and Chad Patterson were absent.

Approval and/or Changes to Minutes:  Minutes from the February 8th meeting were approved on a motion made by Commissioner Oliver and seconded by Commissioner Wekkin.

Public Comments: None

General: Mayor Holland postponed his presentation of the revised Preliminary Plat Review Items & Checklist until April.

Reports: None

Unfinished Business: The Vineyard Subdivision, Phase II: The developer’s engineer was not present.

New Business: None

Announcements:  Chairman Green-Fornash announced April 12, 2022 as the next regular meeting date.

Adjournment:  There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote on a motion made by Commissioner Reynolds and seconded by Commissioner Hester.

APRIL 12, 2022

The regular meeting of the Mayflower Planning Commission was held, in person, Tuesday, April 12th at the Mayflower City Center. The following members were present and acting: Danny Hester, James Oliver, Angela Patterson, Chad Patterson, and Stephen Smedley.  Delbert Dawson, Jana Green-Fornash, Sammy Reynolds, and Cliff Wekkin were absent.

Approval and/or Changes to Minutes:  In the absence of a quorum, minutes from the March 8th meeting will be held for approval until the May meeting.

Public Comments: None

General:

  1. Mayor Holland explained the revised Preliminary Plat Review Items & Checklist and, along with Alderman Zach Jeffery, presented the Commissioners with personalized laptop bags.
  1. Bernadette Rhodes and Hans Haustein, from Metroplan, brought the most recent draft of the proposed zoning map, answered questions from the Commission and audience, and marked areas for revision.

Reports: None

Unfinished Business: None

New Business:  None

Announcements:  Vice-Chairman C Patterson announced May 10, 2022 as the next regular meeting date.

Adjournment:  There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned.

MAY 10, 2022  *DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED AT JUNE MEETING*

The regular meeting of the Mayflower Planning Commission was held, in person, Tuesday, May 10th at the Mayflower City Center. The following members were present and acting: Jana Green-Fornash, Danny Hester, James Oliver, Angela Patterson, Chad Patterson, Sammy Reynolds, and Cliff Wekkin. Delbert Dawson and Stephen Smedley were absent.

Approval and/or Changes to Minutes:  Minutes from the March 8th and April 12th meetings were approved on a motion made by Commissioner C Patterson and seconded by Commissioner Hester.

Public Comments: None

General:

  1. A memorandum, which will be attached for the record, from Mayor Holland was read by Chairman Green-Fornash outlining the benefits and cost of annexation. The focus was the low increase of approximately $10 per month in property taxes for a home valued at $152,400.
  1. The most recent proposed zoning map was viewed and informally approved by the Commissioners.
  2. Commissioners were presented with information for a training opportunity.

Reports: None

Unfinished Business: None

New Business:  None

Announcements:  Chairman Green-Fornash announced early voting is available from May 9-May 23 and June 14, 2022 as the next regular meeting date.

Adjournment:  There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned.

↑