Planning Commission

Planning Department July 23, 2012 The Russellville Planning Commission will hold its Regular Meeting July 23, 2012, at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Welcome Visitors 1. A request to review and approve the minutes of the June 25, 2012 regular meeting. 2. Tabled from the June 25, 2012 meeting. A request to review and recommend approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow operation of a wrecker service facility, parking of wreckers on site, and storage of towed vehicles in a C-2 zone, for property located at 2911 Hwy 7 South, submitted by Keith Cogswell, on behalf of Cogswell Properties, LLC. (SP.12.06.112) 3. A request to review and recommend approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow car sales in a C-2, for property located at 2711 North Arkansas, submitted by Ray Black, Jr. (SP.12.07.113) 4. A request to review and approve variances from Land Subdivision and Development Code standards to allow a 20-foot street with 2-foot shoulders, and without curbs and gutters for Riverstone, a large tract subdivision located between Sheppard Drive and Skyline just south of the Bent Tree Subdivision, submitted by Morgan Barrett of Barrett & Associates, on behalf of Alan Covington. (SD.12.06.252 & MS.12.07.69) 5. A request to consider various revisions to the Russellville Zoning Code to correct textual incongruities. 203 South Commerce, P.O. Box 428, Russellville, AR 72811, (479) 968-2098  Russellville Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission met in its regular meeting on Monday, July 23, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Vice-Chair Eric Westcott Secretary Aldona Standridge Gaylon Smith Jimmy Davenport Jimmy Sims Richard Perkins Nick Patel Herschell Hargus Burke Larkin, Council Liaison Also present: Mayor Bill Eaton, City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Planning Assistant Lequitta A. Jones, Building Official Brian Holstein, Public Works Director Michael Oakes, Fire Marshall Richard Setian, Alderman Ron Knost, Price McMillen, Elizabeth Nokleby/River Valley Leader, Kurt Jones, Alan Covington/Riverstone Project, and Morgan Barrett/Barrett & Associates. WELCOME The First Order of Business: A request to review and approve the minutes of the June 25, 2012 regular meeting. Commissioner Westcott made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davenport and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business: A request to review and recommend approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow operation of a wrecker service, with storage of towed vehicles in a C-2 zone, for property located at 2911 Hwy 7 South, submitted by Keith Cogswell, on behalf of Cogswell Properties, LLC. (SP.12.06.112) Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris to describe the item and issues involved. Mr. Harris said this was tabled in June to allow petitioner to meet application requirements. Mr. Harris stated applicants would be able to go ahead with their other operations, which include sales/service of farm equipment, trucks and heavy equipment, at the site because those activities are continuations of similar permitted activities the previous business had performed on this site. Only the wrecker operation is required to go through the Special Permit process. Mr. Harris said he did not see any problems. Applicant was not present. Commissioner Hargus made the motion to approve the Special Use Permit as requested. Commissioner Patel seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business: A request to review and recommend approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow car sales in a C-2, for property located at 2711 North Arkansas, submitted by Ray Black, Jr. (SP.12.07.113) Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris to describe the item and the issues involved. Mr. Harris said Commissioners might consider tabling this request as was done with the Cogswell request last month, until applicant can meet all notification requirements. Commissioner Sims made the motion to table this request. Commissioner Davenport seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Fourth Order of Business: A request to review and approve the Final Plat for Riverstone, a large tract subdivision located between Sheppard Drive and Skyline Drive just south of Bent Tree Subdivision, submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates, on behalf of Alan Covington. (SD.12.06.252) Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris for a report on this item. Mr. Harris said the plat was given Preliminary Plat approval July 2011 and came back last month for Final Plat and some issues were raised. The final result at the end of the June meeting was that Final Plat was approved with the condition that the applicants return to Planning Commission with a list of the specific variances they were requesting from the street cross section standards included in the Land Subdivision and Development Code for Commission review. Mr. Harris went on to say that he felt he had already made a case that the street cross section had been discussed at the July 2011 Commission meeting and, though there was clearly a difference of opinion among Commissioners present, the plat had been given preliminary approval by a 5-2 vote. Mr. Harris stated that, at least in his experience, it was very unusual for items clearly discussed as part of a preliminary request that was given approval to be subject to a second round of review. Mr. Boyd said in regards to the staff report he felt it would also be appropriate to hear from the Director of Public Works, Mr. Oakes. The Chair then asked Mr. Oakes to give his perspective on this item. Mr. Oakes asked for them to be more specific in asking his perspective on this request. PW staff was obviously part of the process in reviewing the Preliminary Plat and were here at the meeting when it was approved 11 months ago. We have since received construction plans, which have been reviewed and approved. That is our perspective as far as our role in the process to this point. Mr. Boyd said the question before the commission is the 20-foot wide street, which varies from the code standards. Are there public health or safety issues that would come into play? Is the 20-foot wide street adequate? 2 Mr. Oakes stated that we are probably better off with 20-foot roads, specifically for the purpose of enhancing pedestrian safety in regard to passing vehicles. A widely- accepted current understanding is that the slower you go, the safer you are. The reduced cross section lowers the speed at which drivers feel comfortable. Interstate highways utilize a 12-foot lane and other physical characteristics that are very forgiving, giving most drivers an acceptable comfort level to drive at relatively high speeds. In a neighborhood the idea is to utilize street standards that encourage drivers to go slow by reducing their comfort level. Even with signs telling drivers to slow down, signs warning that there are children playing, and signs posting a limit of 45 mph, people are still going to drive faster if road conditions allow them to feel comfortable doing so. We like the 10 foot lanes. We believe this design will slow the traffic. Mr. Perkins asked about locations on the proposed street where horizontal and vertical sight distances were reduced. What speed should be allocated to that road regardless of the width? Mr. Oakes replied that he thought the design speed was 25mph. Mr. Perkins asked if there would be adequate stopping sight distance to some of those vertical curves? Mr. Oakes said that he hadn’t gone to the site, but that he had seen the subdivision designs. He also stated that Kurt Jones had looked at it. Mr. Oakes said he is confident of the subdivision design and PW has accepted it. Mr. Oakes said he has never seen a crash because of a stopping sight factor, other than at an intersection. Mr. Oakes said he would give the design a closer look. Mr. Oakes also stated that any sag curves with nighttime visibility issues would require street lights. Mr. Perkins said he had seen a couple of people get killed because of the stopping sight distance, so his experience is a little bit different from Mr. Oakes'. Mr. Oakes said he would recommend 10-foot lanes, however, it is up to the Commission and the City Council. Mr. Barrett said the request is for approval in concurrence with the decision made last year on the same issue. He asked if Commission was again questioning the approved typical section, or are they talking about other issues related to engineering and technical issues? The sight distances of horizontal and vertical alignments are not related to what is being requested, which is simply approval of the typical section with 10 foot lanes, just as was proposed and approved last year. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the City should come up with something, regardless of the width of the road, in regard to the horizontal and vertical alignment. I have been involved in many lawsuits and I believe the City is opening themselves up for a lawsuit. Mr. Perkins asked Kurt for what speeds the proposed sight distances were adequate. Mr. Jones stated that he had checked vertical sight distances and that all of crest curves met a minimum stopping sight distance for 25 mph. The sag curves met a minimum stopping sight distance of 15 to 20 mph. He further stated that this was a nighttime issue and that stopping sight distance was not really a factor on sag curves during daylight hours, but was dictated by headlight angles. He said Mr. Barrett had agreed 3 that street lights would be placed in areas of those sag curves that did not meet the 25 mph stopping sight distance. Mr. Hargus said that, according to the minutes, the applicants were supposed to submit a letter requesting the variances and no letter had been received. Mr. Harris stated that the variances discussed by Commission at the June 2012 meeting had been covered in the Preliminary Plat approval given in July 2011, and reviewing those items a second time did not seem to conform to normal procedure. However, at the June 2012 meeting Commission did direct the applicants to submit their requests in letter form, so, whether or not that was an appropriate action on the part of the Commission, you did ask them to submit a letter and they did not. Mr. Harris concluded by stating again his belief that the variances were approved as part of the preliminary plat approval granted in July 2011, and that the notion those items should be part of a second request is unusual. Mr. Barrett said applicants submitted a letter July 2 requesting a variance to be revisited even though their position was that the variances had been approved. The submitted letter listed some of the reasons supporting the requested variances. Mr. Harris told the Commission that the letter was included in their packets. Mr. Perkins suggested that the road should at least be between 24' and 25' wide. He stated he would accept 22' road and 5' shoulder, but that a 20' road and 2' shoulder seemed to him to be completely inadequate. Mr. Barrett asked Mr. Perkins if he had designed roads. Mr. Perkins said he had, but he had never designed a 20-foot road in his life and had built 100s and 100s of miles. Mr. Barrett asked about Cove Landing. Mr. Perkins said he did not design Cove Landing. Mr. Barrett asked if Mr. Perkins had designed any part of Cove Landing. Mr. Perkins replied that he didn’t know, but that he might have. Mr. Barrett stated that he thought Mr. Perkins had designed part of Cove Landing, and that it included a 20-foot road. Mr. Perkins said he did not think that was correct, but that he was unsure. Mr. Perkins stated again his belief that the City should not approve 20' roads with 2' shoulders. Commissioner Standridge made the motion to approve the request to allow the 20-foot street and 2-foot shoulder that was approved as part of the Preliminary Plat approved over a year ago. Commissioner Davenport seconded the motion. Mr. Boyd asked if there was any further discussion before voting. Mr. Boyd then asked for a voice roll call. Hargus, Westcott, Patel, Smith, and Perkins voted no, while Standridge, Davenport, and Sims voted yes. Motion failed, 5 to 3. Mr. Perkins then stated that Mr. Patel had suggested that he offer a compromise. Mr. Perkins stated that he would accept a 22' roadway with 5' shoulders. Mr. Barrett said that was not what they had asked for. Mr. Perkins said okay. Mr. Boyd told the Commission that they had a memo from Mayor Eaton addressed to the Planning Commission. He further stated that he knew Commissioners had not had 4 an opportunity to review it before the meeting. There are a few other concerns that the Council had discussed at their Agenda Planning meeting. Mr. Boyd asked City Attorney Smith should we discuss the letter tonight or give the Commission a month to review it. Mr. Smith said to review it tonight. Mr. Boyd read the letter and it is as follows: Mr. Boyd said it appeared there were four items that need to be discussed: (1) street lights, (2) streets not complete as required before Final Plat approval, (3) septic system requirements, and (4) Section 11 of the Land Subdivision and Development Code (Acceptance of Public Dedications). Mayor Eaton said those were items that Council felt deserved further discussion and that was my reason for the letter. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Harris to address the street lights. Mr. Harris said there is a requirement for street lights in the Subdivision Regulations, however, it only applies to subdivisions that have underground utilities. It sounds as though the developer has agreed to provide streetlights at some locations. It is somewhat unusual, since we don’t have a requirement for provision of streetlights in subdivisions with above ground utilities, to make a requirement that is not included in the regulations. It appears the applicants intend to provide some streetlights. Mr. Oakes will still review those even though they are not required because he has asked for lights in the sag curves. 5 Mr. Perkins said the City needs a lighting engineer to look at where to put the lights in the vertical sags, how many lights are needed, and how the lights should be dispersed. Mr. Perkins wished them luck if they intended to allow 15 mph vertical sag. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Oakes had stated earlier that on any sag curves with night visibility issues that lights would be provided. Applicants' have indicated they intend to have streetlights at certain locations. Mr. Harris stated the point he was trying to make was that, since the Subdivision Regulations do not require streetlights in the present circumstances, it is unusual for the City to go ahead and require them anyway. Mr. Hargus said his concern was cars coming over the hills at 25 mph in the dark. Mr. Perkins said it is going to be dark. Mr. Perkins said you can improve the sag vertical by building the vertical up and making it into 25 mph with lighting. If the City wants 25 mph roads out there, then the roads should be constructed so that 25 mph standards are the absolute minimum that would be required and they should build their sags up to a profile that would allow for 25 mph. Then the vehicle headlights would cover it. That is fixable, but you have to improve the vertical profile. Mr. Boyd asked the Mayor what the Council's issues were in regard to streetlights. Mayor Eaton said that the preceding discussion had covered the issues. The submitted plans do not show streetlight placement, and Council wants to be sure that adequate lights will be provided. It had been mentioned that Entergy placed the lights where they saw fit. Lights uniformly placed throughout the subdivision might not result in lights being where they were most needed for safety. Alderman Larkin said streetlights have come up before and not just in that subdivision. It doesn’t say if you have over head power that you have to have streetlights. He agreed it was unusual to force developers to do something that is not a requirement. Mr. Perkins said it is unusual to put transmission line poles in sags. Generally they are placed on either side, and the lines span the sag. Mr. Perkins restated his notion that the street ought to be designed for 25 mph speed, day or night, and there shouldn’t be 15 mph sag verticals where the headlights of an oncoming car would not be visible. You are going to have a bad accident, and maybe kill someone. The 2' shoulder for kids to walk on is not adequate. Mr. Larkin said he found it hard to believe that they would ask for Final Plat approval without roads or water lines being completed. He said his concern was that with Final Plat approval the developer can start selling lots without water or streets. The buyers will start calling the City wanting roads to be paved. I just feel like they need to get a lot closer before they ask for Final Plat approval. And when they receive that approval, I would ask how many inspections on density, and road crossings, and water lines will be performed. The roads are going to have to be compacted and they are going to have to be inspected. Technically, a year from now the City would take over maintenance. 6 Mr. Perkins said if they want a 20-foot road and a 2-foot shoulder I suggest they close the end like 40-Acre Rock, but they need to maintain it. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Harris for his perspective on final plat approval being given prior to having the streets completely finished. Mr. Harris said he had never been party to a subdivision of any significant size that was completely finished before final plat. He also stated that applicants are not very far along with construction to be asking for final plat approval. At the very least I would say that Mr. Oakes, or whoever is charged with coming up with a bonding number, would certainly be advised to be extremely careful. The earlier in the construction phase that you do the bonding, the more difficult it is to come up with a number that is reasonable, so you want to err to the high side. Our Land Subdivision and Development Code requires that whatever amount is determined to be necessary to complete the improvements is multiplied by 1.5 to determine the required bonding amount. This early in construction, you keep that number up because you are less sure what problems you might run in to that could increase completion costs. I expect the applicants will be looking at really serious number for the bonding. I don’t think that you necessarily have to have everything finished for final plat. Final Plat is still basically us looking at what they are asking to build and giving our final OK. It is not an after-the-fact step, where we look at as-builts and say everything is fine and done and close the book on the project. Mr. Perkins asked if there is a requirement to have final plat approval before selling lots? Mr. Harris said yes. Mr. Perkins said it was his understanding that they have sold lots. Mr. Boyd said I believe that it says no building permits will be issued prior to final plat approval. Mr. Harris said they are not allowed to sell lots, but he did not know if they had done so. He said it had been mentioned that some sales may have taken place. Mr. Perkins said he thought the submitted final plat was changed substantially enough from the plat approved last year to require new review and approval. Commission approved the general alignment, but did not approve the cross section. Mr. Perkins went on to restate his concerns about the adequacy of the vertical and horizontal alignment as far as sight distances are concerned. After a year the City will be responsible for the street. I think when the applicants return that we should tell them to adjust the profiles so that there are no 25 mph vertical curves. Regarding the septic system requirements, Mr. Boyd asked whether there would be any problem including a note on the final plat indicating that lots five through 13 require a septic system. Mr. Harris replied that requesting the addition of a note to the plat to clarify the circumstances regarding septic systems seemed reasonable. Mr. Boyd asked if Section 11.1 of the Code is a requirement. Mr. Harris said that is the section that covers bonding. Mr. Boyd asked City Attorney Smith if it was appropriate that no action be taken on the Mayor's letter tonight. Mr. Smith said yes. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Smith if this item should be on the agenda next month. Mr. Smith said yes. 7 The Fifth Order of Business: A request to consider various revisions to the Russellville Zoning Code to correct textual incongruities. Mr. Harris said most of these are just scrivener’s errors, but because there were so many, it was decided to bring it before the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyd asked if items 6, 10 and 13 would be addressed by the City Attorney. Mr. Smith said item 6 on Sub Section 3.18.7 referenced the Change of Ownership of a tower. If ownership or licensing changes are proposed for an existing, permitted tower, and no new construction is involved, the change should be approved administratively, and I recommend to remove “Attorney” and replace with “Planner”. Mr. Smith said item 10 did not change any meaning of the Zoning Code, and was intended only to clarify confusing language in ZC section 5.2.13, which deals with the general regulations regarding freestanding signs. Mr. Smith said item 13 deals with a Rehabilitation Agreement between the Community Development Department (Code Enforcement) and owners of properties that are dilapidated and must be brought up to code. In cases where the Building Official denies extension of the time limits set by the Rehab Agreement, appeals by the property owner would go to the Board of Adjustment instead of the City Council. No appeals will be heard by the Board of Adjustment until the Building Official has rendered a decision regarding the request for extending the time benchmarks of the Agreement. Mr. Boyd pointed out two minor typographical errors. Line 6 Section 9.3.4 should be 'hear' not 'here', and Section 9.3.40(1) third sentence, should read 'appealed to the Board of Adjustment'. Commissioner Patel made the motion to approve the changes as submitted with the typographical corrections. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Westcott and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned. __________________ Chairman 8