Planning Commission

December 17, 2012 The Russellville Planning Commission will hold its Regular Meeting on Monday, December 17, 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 November 26, 2012 Regular Meeting. 2. A request to review and approve a Large-Scale Development Plan/Valley Park Centre for a proposed redevelopment located at 3093 East Main Street, submitted by Thomas C. Garvey on behalf of DDR Corp. (DV.12.01.2012. 3. A Public Hearing requesting recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow auto sales in a C-2 zone, for property located at 3002 South Arkansas Avenue, submitted by Attorney William D. Skelton, on behalf of Larry D. Breeden. (SP.12.12.115) 4. A Public Hearing requesting a recommendation of approval to the City Council to rezone property presently R-1 (Single Family Residential) and C- 4 (Neighborhood and Quiet Business) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), located on the east side of Vancouver Avenue between West Main Street and West Second Place, submitted by Attorney Stephen R. Giles on behalf of Ann Carpenter Marks/Trustee of the Robert Carpenter Revocable Trust. (ZO.12.11.164) 5. A Public Hearing to consider the City of Russellville amending the Zoning Code in regard to landscaping of multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. (MS.12.10.72)  Russellville Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2012 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission met in its regular meeting on Monday, November 26, at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Jimmy Davenport Vice-Chair Eric Westcott Jimmy Sims Secretary Aldona Standridge Nick Patel Gaylon Smith Richard Perkins Members Absent Burke Larkin, Council Liaison Herschell Hargus Also present: City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Planning Assistant Lequitta A. Jones, B/O Brian Holstein, Mikel R. Brown,DC, Marion Barlett, Dona Manly, Barbara Adams, Wayne VanBuren, Jerry P. Peirce, Tom Harvey, Lawren Pratt, Mary Jess Tibbels, Ron Rogers, Michael L/N/U, Daniel L/N/U, Roseann Kennedy, Ron Rispoli, Kristina Rispoli, Connie Gulick, Larry Gulick, John & Helen Strickland, Bill & Roxanne Barker, Ed Donahou, Gerald Hook, Steve Hooten, Roger Barber, Janice Martin, Janet Kariya, Peggy Holmos, Michael Terry, Les Howard, John Bynum, Leo Bowman, John Newton, Diane Roach, Margie Enderlin, Steven Giles, Linda Lyler, James Tyler, Kurt Lanning, Blaine Rogers, Dow Dollar, Price McMillan, Linda Carnahan and Howard West. WELCOME The First Order of Business was to review and approve the minutes of the November 26, 2012 Regular Meeting. Commissioner Davenport made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sims and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a request to review and approve a Large-Scale Development Plan for proposed redevelopment of Valley Park Centre, located at 3093 East Main Street, submitted by Thomas C. Garvey on behalf of DDR Corp. (DV.12.01.2012. City Planner said there were two areas to be altered at Valley Park Centre: (1) between TJ Max and Hibbitts Sporting Goods, where an expansion to the rear will approximately double the area to 22,000sf; and (2) the area just south of JC Penney where three suites will be combined into one. An expansion to the front of the building will bring the east facade in line with the front of JC Penney, roughly doubling the square footage. The new construction will result in the loss of less than ten parking spaces, including two HC spaces, which will have to be provided elsewhere on the site. Mr. Thomas Garvey was present on behalf of DDR Corp. of Beachwood, Ohio. He stated the intent was to improve and enhance the shopping center and bring some new retailers to the improved spaces. Mr. Garvey asked for approval. Commissioner Perkins made the motion to approve as submitted. Commissioner Patel seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow auto sales in a C-2 zone, for property located at 3002 South Arkansas Avenue, submitted by Attorney William D. Skelton, on behalf of Larry D. Breeden. (SP.12.12.115) City Planner Harris said this is a straightforward request. It is a request for a Special Use Permit to allow auto sales in a Highway Commercial zone. Mr. Harris said the use would fit well with the surrounding established uses and would result in improvement to the property. No outstanding issues were noted. Mr. Skelton stated there would be no repair service at the site beyond prepping cars for the sales lot. Commissioner Perkins made the motion to approve. Commissioner Patel seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Fourth Order of Business (Agenda Item #4) was a Public Hearing to consider the City of Russellville amending the Zoning Code in regard to landscaping of multi- family, commercial and industrial developments. (MS.12.10.72) Mr. Harris said this is a rerun of a draft ordinance tabled three years ago, which failed when reconsidered two years ago. The draft was discussed briefly at the November 2012 Commission meeting, and again was tabled. Chairman Boyd said this item was tabled last month because only two local real estate developers were present. It was felt that more stakeholders should be in on the discussion before making a decision. 2 Commissioner Standridge said due to the Christmas season it might be advisable to postpone this for one more month so that those people that are interested can be contacted and be here to offer their input concerning this proposed zoning code change. Commissioner Standridge made the motion to bring this item back in January 2013. Commissioner Perkins seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business was (Agenda Item # 4) a Public Hearing requesting a recommendation of approval to the City Council to rezone property presently R-1 (Single Family Residential) and C-4 (Neighborhood and Quiet Business) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), located on the east side of Vancouver Avenue between West Main Street and West Second Place, submitted by Attorney Stephen R. Giles on behalf of Ann Carpenter Marks/Trustee of the Robert Carpenter Revocable Trust. (ZO.12.11.164) Chairman Boyd said Commissioners had received a briefing packet containing the application, one letter against the request (Couser), and one letter in support of the request (Bell). Commissioners also should have received from the Planning Department, via email, a large information packet hand-delivered earlier in the day to City Hall by Attorney John Peel's office. The chairman noted that some commissioners may have had little or no time to review those materials. He stated that this PUD request will be reviewed by the City Council this Thursday night. Chairman Boyd encouraged anyone commenting on the proposed PUD to limit their comments to those matters pertinent to zoning. He noted that during the August meeting, a couple of residents cited concerns in regard to competition from Walmart and the alleged negative impact this development would have on existing businesses. He pointed out that that factor was beyond the scope of the Planning Commission’s purview. The issue before the commission is whether or not this particular parcel of property is suitable for a Walmart Neighborhood Market. City Planner Harris said the original request several months ago was for a slightly smaller piece of property with limited frontage on West Main right at the Vancouver intersection. The request was to rezone the R-1 section of the property to C-4. In the C-4 zone, a grocery store would be a permitted use. If the rezoning had been approved, the next step would have been to request large-scale development review, which is similar to site plan review, but requires Commission approval rather than approval by staff. That original rezoning request received a motion to recommend approval to the City Council. However, the motion failed on a 6 – 0 vote. The applicants decide not to proceed to City Council at that time. After several months, the applicants have returned with a larger parcel that fully fronts on West Main. They are requesting a recommendation to City Council to approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which essentially combines rezoning and site plan review into a single step. If the PUD is approved, the development must proceed according to a very specific site plan. If any change is desired later, the applicants would have to come back and go thru the whole process, including a public hearing with prior public notice. 3 The Zoning Code includes five criteria, at least one of which must be met for an application to qualify for consideration as a PUD. This application complies with that requirement on the basis of having at least 30% open space, and also as an innovative use of a large parcel, in that they are including as part of their site plan extensive landscaping. Planner Harris reiterated that considering the proposed use as a PUD, rather than as a conventional rezoning followed by site plan review, allows much greater control by the City regarding what is actually developed. Attorney Steven Giles then spoke on behalf of the petitioner and Walmart. He stated that they had originally filed for rezoning the R-1 portion of the property to C-4; however there were a lot of objections, which included doubts that Walmart would develop the site as shown on their preliminary site renderings. By following the PUD process, Walmart could guarantee that the project would be built as proposed. If this plan is approved, then that is what we are required by the City to do, and nothing else. This is a very unique proposal because it is just one store; just a single use, on almost 9 acres. In response to concerns voiced about the proximity of the store to the residential areas to the south, the additional property along West Main was acquired so that the whole site plan could be shifted northward to increase the separation between the store and residences. The site will be heavily landscaped on all sides, with a little over two acres that will remain natural. There will be seven-foot earthen berms, heavily planted to provide a visual and sound buffer. The storm-water detention pond behind the store has been increased in volume to ensure that runoff can be adequately held and released slowly. There will be a six-foot privacy fence behind the truck turnaround in the back. Existing trees will remain and there will be additional new trees planted (see plan). There will be 163 new trees added. All the property shown in green (see plan) will be maintained by Walmart as open space. Any future changes to anything on the site would be required to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. Lighting will be accomplished with LED mini- bulbs that will be downward directed instead of the old style mercury vapor lighting. Trucks coming in will have their headlights buffered by the berms and planted materials. There will be an entrance on Utah and two more on Vancouver. Walmart has committed to install a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Vancouver and west Main. Commissioner Perkins said the materials submitted by Mr. Peel included comments reflecting a difference of opinion in regard to traffic increases on Vancouver. They are saying the traffic will increase more than the Walmart engineer's study predicts. Attorney Giles said he could not address their traffic study. Chairman Boyd opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Jerry Peirce said he had rental property near the development. Mr. Peirce stated his concerns about taxes and the City receiving less revenue in the last few years on which to operate and carry out needed projects, including those addressing flooding problems in the City. The proposed project will create 80 jobs, and result in increases to the sales taxes, property taxes, and the business personal property taxes. A new store would also encourage competition, which is good for consumers. He closed by stating that cities 4 cannot remain stagnant, that they must either grow or fail. Mr. Peirce requested that any votes be done by roll call. Kristina Rispoli stated she was opposed to the development because of the increased traffic that will result. Neighborhood children walk to Sequoyah Elementary and the middle school, and a bike lane has been added to Vancouver. Allowing the market at the proposed location will result in increased cut-through traffic as well as delivery truck traffic. This will result in less safety for the kids, lowered property values, and crime. Chairman Boyd noted that Walmart's traffic study and the comments offered by Mr. Morgan Barrett both indicated that traffic would increase, but there was disagreement as to how much of an increase would occur. Mr. Ron Rogers stated that job growth and sales tax increases would be minimal because the new store would simply scavenge customers from existing stores. He also stated that truck traffic during construction would result in the destruction of Vancouver and leave taxpayers on the hook for repairs. Mrs. Mary Tibbels stated that when she moved into her home just south of the subject property 14 years ago, it was on a cul-de-sac. Now Vancouver is a through street, and the stop sign at the intersection near her house was removed by the City. Her concerns are about increased traffic and speeders. Also, she has severe flooding problems on the rear of her property which will get worse if the store is built Attorney Tim Murdock said the changes made to the site plan since August 2012, do not change anything. C-4 is supposed to be for quiet commercial and neighborhood stores. What is proposed is not a neighborhood grocery store. On page 33 of the Zoning Code it states that you cannot use the PUD process unless your problem cannot be solved by a normal zoning regulation. That is what rezoning is for. Applicants tried rezoning and it got to Planning Commission and went no further. Now they are back as a PUD, but nothing has changed. Why is there a Council? Why is there a Planning Commission? Why is there a Comprehensive Plan Committee that looks at long term growth? Why have those things if we are not going to follow the plans. This area was designated for PUD facilities such as a hospital. This proposal is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. There is no reason to vote differently from how you did in August. Mr. John Bynum said he is not against change, but that rezoning this property will be detrimental to the neighborhood that it encroaches on. The traffic will be much greater than 10% and will include truck traffic. He was concerned that Walmart would abandon this location, as it has with two other Russellville stores. That would devalue homes in the area and result in blight. Mr. Bynum requested denial of the requested PUD. Mr. Steve Gelos representing the Kroger employees and Tyson employees said he was not against competition. He stated his concern was about the jobs that will be lost, and the existing stores that will close. The Walmart taxes will be offset by the loss of taxes from the existing businesses that are harmed. 5 Mr. Gerald Hook stated Russellville needs new stores and growth but this store is in the wrong location. The area is already served by two groceries and numerous drug stores. Those stores will be harmed by Walmart. Kroger has a real butcher, but Walmart will sell meat cut and packaged elsewhere. Mr. Hook questioned statements about modest traffic increases, asking why a new signal at West Main would be necessary if there was not going to be a significant increase in traffic on Vancouver. Mr. Hook wondered if the applicants had considered North Arkansas, which has no grocery stores and is close to large concentrations of ATU student residences. Mr. Hook closed by reminding those present that the initial rezoning request had been defeated by a 6-0 vote. Attorney John Peel stated that when a Walmart or a Kroger is established you don't get just that store. You end up with a nail salon next door, or a tobacco discount store, or a tire and lube center. You don’t end up with a residential subdivision of 2,400 square foot houses costing $200,000 or more. That is what you platted and approved when you put in Brookside and Brookview and nearby related subdivisions. You have signs in place where everybody can play in the streets. You didn’t require sidewalks so all we have is the streets. You didn’t build Vancouver to standards for a collector street, so it is not adequate for heavy traffic flow. Now you are contemplating a proposal that will increase that traffic considerably. The traffic study was done just for Walmart, but what will be built on the west side of Vancouver? What will go on the remaining vacant land on the east side? The traffic study provided by Walmart, done by an engineer from Little Rock, says that this store would not significantly impact traffic. The former Russellville City Engineer - who designed most streets in this town built over the last 20 years - said this is based on assumptions and that he doesn’t agree with most of the assumptions. Mr. Barrett said more than likely traffic could double from current volume based on this project alone. While these numbers are not excessive for a collector level street, Vancouver is not built to collector street standards as described in the Master Street Plan. Chairman Boyd asked for clarification regarding Vancouver's designation as a collector street. He stated that it was his understanding that it was designated as a collector street in the Master Street Plan and asked Mr. Harris for clarification. Mr. Harris checked the Master Street Plan and confirmed that this portion of Vancouver was characterized as a collector street. Commissioner Perkins agreed with Mr. Peel that it was not constructed to collector street standards. Mr. Peel continued and stated that Walmart also says the project is only going to enhance residential property. A local appraiser (Joel Vaughn) takes issue with that claim. Walmart's appraiser concluded that there was “no detrimental decrease in the value of a home because of its location adjacent to Wal-Mart or Kroger.” Mr. Vaughn strongly stated his opinion that the analysis presented regarding these value was not sufficient to allow for these conclusions and could allow for a misleading analysis. One example Mr. Vaughn cited to support his disagreement with the conclusions reached by the Walmart appraiser was provided by the local market. If you were to look at sales on Jimmy Lile Road over a 10 year period and find that their gross resale amounts indicated an increase, would you conclude that the increase in value should be 6 attributed to the proximity of those properties to the sewer plant? The same analysis can be done in Yell County near the dump. Any gross increase in value for homes located near the sewer plant or the dump would never be attributed to their proximity to these facilities. Mr. Vaughn says applying the methodology of the Walmart appraisal would result in a conclusion that it is better to have a sewer plant or dump in our residential area in Brookview than another home. Attorney Peel then stated that the Zoning Code included criteria that Planning Commissioners were directed to use in their evaluation of any PUD application. The section Attorney Peel referred to is the following Zoning Code excerpt: 2.16.5 Review Process The Planning Commission shall review the proposed PUD after proper submittal of all documents and review by the appropriate city staff. The following criteria will govern the approval or disapproval of the PUD application by the Planning Commission. 1) The PUD shall provide public benefits that would not be achievable through the normal zoning regulations. 2) The PUD shall not create undue or unmitigated negative traffic impacts. 3) The PUD shall be compatible with surrounding developments. 4) The PUD shall be compatible with the city's comprehensive plan. 5) The PUD shall not endanger the public health, welfare or safety, nor shall it substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood in which it is located. 6) The PUD must be of a character and contain such uses that are needed in the area of the proposed project. Mr. Larry Gulick stated the proposed store would be an eyesore and it will devalue the nearby properties. Any commercial use in this area would be an eyesore. Attorney Giles said we respectively disagree with what they think might happen. We have submitted so much data that have been confirmed and they are in the booklet. I disagree that Walmart decreases property values. This property is located on a US Highway, 20,000 cars a day going in front of this property. Some of the parcel in front was already zone C-4 and probably developed something other than single family resident on the Carpenter Property. We think the Walmart Neighborhood Market is suitable for this property. We feel this type of project fits the PUD. The minimal amount of 18-wheeler traffic is not going to damage the street. He also stated that during construction, heavy equipment would access the site via W. Main St., not Vancouver. Commissioner Perkins said he wasn’t against Walmart. If Walmart comes in that is fine. I’m just saying the area has been zoned and placed in a certain category and the law says it should stay in that category. 7 Ms. Rispoli asked Mr. Giles who conducted the studies that he referred to? He replied Traffic Engineer Mr. Ernie Peters, The University of Chicago, VA McIntosh at Frazier, and Pulaski County Appraisers. Roseline Kennedy commented on a poll that was in the newspaper. “Would you like to have a Walmart?” City Planner Harris said originally when the request was R-1 to C-4 which involved rezoning the properties away from West Main Street; there were two letters and a petition with 34 signatures against the proposal. For the request was one letter and petition with 35 signatures. Regarding the appeal that was withdrawn by the applicant before it went to the City Council; there was a petition against the appeal that contained 194 signatures. For the PUD we received 6 form letters for it and a petition with 59 signatures for it. We received one letter from an individual who was ok with the request for Walmart but had some issues with an entrance on Utah. Today we got several additional things from both for and against both and we didn’t have time to do anything with those. Mr. Mike Brown gave some history on Russellville and said he was for the Walmart Store. Russellville needs to grow and we need Walmart. He stated he had problems with children playing in the street. He said we need the supply line for the growing population. Mr. Ed Donahou stated his concern for the growth of Russellville and cited the benefits of increased property tax revenue, 1 cent industrial taxes, and more jobs. Linda Carahan addressed the Commission saying whatever the decision is tonight that it will forever change that end of town. She said she was not for or against. Commissioner Patel said about two weekends ago he decided to try to find out something about this project. He said he took a drive to where Walmart actually started, Bentonville and Rogers. He visited a Neighborhood Market Store next to a Sam’s in Bentonville and one across from Harps in Springdale. He asked people what they thought about the market. He noted that no one had gone out of business over there. As far as the safety was concerned the way it was lighted there has been no increase in crime. He said all he got was a positive review in response to his inquiries. He stated concerns about abandoning the building. He expects the traffic increase will be 10% to 15%. The neighborhood is used for walkers as well as cars. All three markets were close to residential areas. He stated that he counted more than 200 signatures for it and 94 signatures against it. The 200 for it included the addresses of the signers; the 94 against it included no addresses. Commissioner Perkins asked the audience whether there was anyone who lived in the adjoining neighborhood whose mind had changed as a result of the new proposal by Wal-Mart. One resident rose to her feet and commented that she lived in the area and that she was now in favor of it. A gentleman then rose to his feet and stated that he 8 was still opposed to it. Commissioner Perkins stated that he was only interested in hearing if any nearby residents had changed their mind. Commissioner Perkins made the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Westcott seconded the motion which passed on a roll call vote of 5 – 3. Westcott, Standridge, Patel, Davenport, and Boyd voted for and Sims, Smith, and Perkins voted against. Adjourned ________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 9