Planning Commission

October 22, 2012 The Russellville Planning Commission will hold a Regular Meeting on Monday, October 22, 2012, at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Welcome Visitors 1. Review and approve the minutes of the September 24, 2012 regular Meeting. 2. A Public Hearing requesting approval for a Non-Standard Commercial Building to allow renovation of an existing building on property located at 3003 East 17th, submitted by David Dale on behalf of Excel Energy Group. (MS.12.10.73) 3. Discussion only on amending the Zoning Code regarding the proposed addition of landscaping requirements. (MS.12.10.72)  Russellville Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2012 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission met in its regular meeting on Monday, October 22, at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Jimmy Davenport Vice-Chair Eric Westcott Richard Perkins Secretary Aldona Standridge Nick Patel Herschell Hargus Members Absent Burke Larkin, Council Liaison Jimmy Sims Gaylon Smith Also present: Mayor Bill Eaton, City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta A. Jones, Gregg Ricono, and David Dale/Petitioner. WELCOME The First Order of Business was to review and approve the minutes of the September 24, 2012 regular Meeting. Commissioner Westcott made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hargus and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting approval for a Non- Standard Commercial Building to allow renovation of a building on property at 3003 East 17th, submitted by David Dale on behalf of Excel Energy Group. (MS.12.10.73) City Planner Harris said the building is off 17th Street in an area that perhaps might be more appropriately zoned M-1 rather than C-2. If the parcel was M-1 there would be no need for the request. The building faces away from 17th Street with the front facade virtually invisible from 17th. Mr. Harris said he felt, in consideration of the types of uses in the area and the current nature of the surrounding area, that the applicant's proposal was a reasonable compromise to improve the visual aspects of the building. Mr. David Dale, petitioner, said he had been a little surprised to find out that there were design requirements on a building like this and in this area. He also stated their intentions to improve the building so that employees can be happy about where they work. Mr. Dale said they were raising the bar for that area and thinks that their proposal meets the intent of the City's ordinance. Mr. Perkins posed two questions: (1) How high is the cladding on the wall facing the side street; three or four feet? Mr. Dale said they are designed at three feet. (2) How high does the cladding go on the front of the building and how did they determine to go that high? Mr. Dale said there is an existing door with windows alongside. The cladding will go to the top of the window. Mr. Dale said he didn’t have the measurements with him, but that it was somewhere between 8 and10 feet. It is going to be above the windows on the front so they will be completely enclosed. Commissioner Hargus made the motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business was a discussion only regarding amending the Zoning Code by adding landscaping requirements. (MS.12.10.72) Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris to synopsize the chronology of the proposed Landscape Regulations draft. Harris said a draft had been created three years ago and was discussed at several commission meetings, including a public hearing. As a result of those discussions the regulations included in the draft were amended to reduce the minimum landscaped areas and plant counts. There was a large turn-out at the July 27, 2009, meeting including several local real estate developers and backers. Several members of that contingent made clear their feelings that the regulations were too stringent, or perhaps even unnecessary, particularly in a period where development had slowed considerably due to the weak economy. The commissioners voted to table the issue for one year. The draft was on the agenda for the September 27, 2010 meeting and was again tabled. At the October 25, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, a decision was reached to drop the issue indefinitely. The draft that was distributed this week is virtually the same draft that was tabled. At the work session, a suggestion was made to include a prohibition against using rock such as had been done at Aarons on the corner of Knoxville and East Main. Mr. Harris said there was already a provision stating that such use of rock would not count toward compliance with the landscape regulations. He said he felt that would be sufficient to discourage such practices, but that he would add the prohibition if that was what the commissioner desired. Commissioner Perkins said he wanted to comment on the rocks first. Mr. Perkins said he thought it was a good idea to prohibit it because that is just a place for trash to collect and weeds to grow and it is impossible to maintain properly. City Planner Harris said he would amend that item, but would include language that made it clear that river gravel or similar materials could be used for ground cover around planted areas, but that rock beds without shrubs or trees would be prohibited. Chairman Boyd then asked a procedural question as to why the Planning Commission was discussing this matter tonight without having a public hearing on it. He asked if the 2 intent was to run a public notice and hold a public hearing in November, as he felt certain that there would be a lot of public interest in this issue. City Planner Harris said since the draft that was under discussion was the same document that had already been through multiple meetings and the public hearing process he thought it might be appropriate to discuss how commissioners wished to proceed, and to schedule the public hearing for a follow-up meeting. Mr. Harris said that the public hearing could be scheduled for November. Chairman Boyd asked the City Planner to summarize the history of the draft changes for the benefit of the new commissioners. Mr. Harris related that in 2009 there was some interest on the part of commissioners and City Council to add landscape requirements to the Zoning Code. That interest heightened after a couple of commercial developments made extensive use of rocks in place of conventional planted areas. Mr. Harris said his initial action before drafting regulations for Russellville was to review the requirements of other Arkansas cities. He stated that he created tables showing specifics from those other ordinances as to minimum landscaped area and plant count requirements. He then drafted an ordinance for Russellville that he felt was in the 'middle of the pack' as to stringency of requirements, was simpler to apply and administer, and offered developers more flexibility as to how they could bring their sites into compliance. Minimum plant counts and landscaped area were to be based on a combination of factors, such as site area, street frontage, and number of parking spaces. Mr. Harris went on to state that early discussions revealed fairly strong feelings among commissioners, and particularly among real estate developers, that the requirements were too burdensome, particularly in a slow economy. Mr. Harris stated that he amended the draft, reducing requirements for both planted materials and minimum planted area, but that at the public hearing there were still lots of negative comments and resistance, so the commission tabled the item for one year. In October 2010, the commissioners looked at the draft again and decided the timing wasn’t right and decided not to move the issue any further. Commissioner Hargus asked City Planner Harris to give examples of the comparisons he had made between this draft and the ordinances in other cities. City Planner Harris said the Russellville draft requires 6% of the site area to be landscaped. Some of the other cities had a higher minimum, while some had no percentage minimum, but had other requirements that would result in more than 6% of a site being landscaped. A couple of uses established in Russellville over the last two or three years had virtually no landscaping, but still had three to five percent unpaved area just from the 'leftover' portions of the site that could not be used for parking, driveways, etc. City Planner Harris said he looked at North Little Rock's (NLR) recently-passed landscape requirements just before the meeting. The requirement in our draft is one tree for every 12,000 square feet of lot area. In the NLR ordinance the requirement is one tree for every six parking spaces. Even though the requirements are structured differently, the NLR requirement is obviously far more stringent. The Russellville draft states that if there are more than 20 parking spaces in a row, a landscaped island must be provided. Many of the parking lots in town are small enough that they would not have been 3 subject to this item. City Planner Harris said he did a rough work-up on a 30,000- square foot site with a 5,000-square foot building. Unless they had an abnormally large amount of parking for a use of that size, then they basically would have a requirement for 3 trees, less than 20 shrubs, and about 2000-square feet of landscaped area. The City Planner stated his belief that this was an extremely low requirement; one that was not overly-burdensome for property owners. Mayor Eaton said there was one thing he hoped the commission would keep in mind in considering the landscape ordinance. The City is just completing a downtown master plan that includes as one of its elements a recommendation that the City have a policy of creating what are referred to as 'complete streets.' Such streets make provision not just for motorists, but also for bicyclists and pedestrians. Complete streets also include a certain amount of landscaping to provide a more pleasant atmosphere. So the idea of some form of City-wide landscaping requirements for developments would certainly go hand and glove with the direction that we are going to be going forward with downtown. City Attorney Smith stated that if a tabled document is brought back with changes, it would have to be considered a new document. All required notifications of the adjoining property owners and the public would have to be performed just as with a new application. City Planner Harris said the draft before the commission is exactly what was tabled two years ago, but that at least a few changes are anticipated. The intent was to advertise for the public hearing for November. Commissioner Perkins said he would like City Planner Harris to provide examples of requirements in other cities so that commissioners, citizens and developers can make a comparison. Chairman Boyd stated that, generally, he believed it was not the newer businesses that have problems with landscaping, but rather the existing businesses. The Chair raised the idea of putting some limits on the grandfathering of existing businesses that are non-compliant. He recommended that commissioners consider discussing the merits of phasing in some of the landscaping requirements for existing businesses. Such businesses could be allowed five or ten years - or whatever was deemed appropriate - to come into compliance with the landscape requirements. Commissioner Standridge said that for some businesses, it may not be conducive to putting landscaping in at all. Chairman Boyd said that he was not in favor of singling out one segment of the population. It is an additional regulatory burden that we are putting on a new business coming in that an existing business doesn’t have. In order to be fair, everybody needs to have some skin in the game. Commissioner Perkins asked if there is not some requirement that if a business changes hands or sold then they must comply with the regulations, but that an existing business would be exempt. City Planner Harris said many cities require legally non-conforming businesses to comply with subsequent zoning code amendments only if they desire to substantially enlarge the use, or if they want to change the use to a Special Permit or Conditional Use. Change to another permitted use that required only administrative review would not trigger required compliance with new regulations, nor would a change of ownership. 4 While such an arrangement does give an advantage to existing businesses over new businesses, the practice is fairly widely accepted, and has been for many years, as the best compromise in such situations. Chairman Boyd said Commissioner Standridge made a good point. There are existing businesses where it might be impossible to comply with the landscaping ordinance. In those instances the owner could pay an annual assessment of a modest amount into a 'city beautification fund', so that everybody shared the burden of beatifying the city. Commissioner Perkins said the commission should get something in place. If we start putting all these things in here we are going to increase resistance and get nothing. If we get a start, that is good. Last time we couldn’t even get a start. Commissioner Patel said instead of grandfathering all the older businesses we could require them to go ahead and make some kind of changes to their property. If there is no possible way for them to do any conventional landscaping, then they could provide potted plants, which are movable -- anything that shows green outside the building. Attorney Trey Smith said we could include requirements to trigger some level of compliance for change of ownership or change of use. Chairman Boyd asked about those that have been here for many years with no change in ownership. Commissioner Patel suggested giving them a two-year waiver. Attorney Trey Smith said applying standards to new businesses after the effective date of the ordinance would be easiest. Attempting to apply the standards retroactively to existing businesses is more problematic and will create legal questions and legal differences, and possible court litigation because of it. The commission can recommend that there be certain triggers based on changes to existing uses that would require at least partial compliance with the new standards. Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris what objections to the ordinance were voiced three years ago. City Planner Harris said there was concern, particularly among realtors, contractors and folks involved in real estate development that the standards would harm local development. Some were misinformed, as their comments indicated a belief that the standards were among the most stringent in Arkansas, which they were not. It is a common reaction to resist change to familiar circumstances, especially if you have done well under those circumstances. More often than not, cities experience positive results from incorporating landscape regulations into their development codes. On the other hand, if you set the bar too low and accept whatever development comes your way, pretty soon that becomes the standard. Commissioner Perkins said he remembered that three years ago Commissioner Patel, who is a developer, made a comment that every place he is involved with development, they are required either by the city or the franchiser to put in trees and landscaping. Commissioner Perkins said he agreed with Commissioner Hargus that the standards should just apply to new development. Commissioner Standridge agreed, and added that recent development in Russellville had, for the most part, been done well. She further stated her support for some minimums, but that she had concerns about the 5 specific standards included in the draft being too stringent, especially concerning parking lot landscaping and irrigation. City Planner Harris agreed that the imposition of any landscape standards was likely to increase development costs, but he again stated that the standards in the draft were below those of almost any other Arkansas city. The crux of the matter is whether or not one feels that the benefits of landscaping are worth the added trouble and expense. Mr. Harris stated his own belief that requirements are necessary to guarantee that some minimum level of landscaping is provided on development sites, and that there are no more instances of sites paved from property line to property line, or perhaps with a few small plots of grass where the land was of no use for the building or the parking areas. The regulations in the draft would do that, but to reduce the requirements much more would be approaching a point not worth the trouble of enforcing. Commissioner Standridge said we already have a requirement for so many parking spaces per square foot of building area. If you add these requirements, then a larger site would be necessary to provide the parking and the landscaping. It also would be expensive and more trouble to run hoses to water the plants. City Planner Harris said many cities require a built-in irrigation system. He had written the draft without that requirement, allowing owners to use hoses if they wished, as long as there was a water source within 150' of any required plant. The City Planner said he would be glad to remove any mention of irrigation or water source, and let owners do whatever they pleased in regard to watering and maintenance. The regulations require that the plants be maintained in a healthy state, and we could leave it to the property owners to do that however they saw fit. Chairman Boyd asked if there would be a process for variances. City Planner Harris said the landscaping requirements would have the same relief available as other parts of the Zoning Code, the Board of Adjustment. If any requirements create a hardship for a property developer, they can appeal to the Board of Adjustment and plead their case. Chairman Boyd stated that public notice would run in the newspaper in order to have a public hearing in November. Commissioner Perkins made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hargus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Adjourned. _________________________________ Chairman 6