Planning Commission

Russellville Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2015, @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, January 26, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Jimmy Sims Vice-Chair Eric Westcott Jimmy Davenport Secretary Aldona Standridge Herschell Hargus Mike Wilkins Doug Skelton Council Liaison Bill Eaton Todd Meimerstorf Also present:, Mayor Randy Horton, City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, City Engineer Kurt Jones, Fire Marshal Richard Setian, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, Russell & Becky Richter, David Keener. Welcome The First Order of Business: A special presentation recognizing Jimmy Davenport and Aldona Standridge who are leaving the Planning Commission after 18 years of service. Mayor Horton presented each with a plaque on behalf of the City. Mayor Horton also introduced new commissioner Wendell Miller and announced that Ms. Peggy Stratton would be the other new commissioner. Ms. Stratton was unable to attend because of a prior commitment. Chairman Boyd welcomed former Mayor and current Alderman Bill Eaton who will serve as City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission. The Second Order of Business (Agenda Item #1) was a request to review and approve the minutes of the November 24, 2014, Regular Meeting. Commissioner Sims made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Skelton and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business (Agenda Item #2) was a Public Hearing requesting review and recommendation of approval to the City Council to rezone property at 302 West 10th Street from C-4 (Neighborhood/Quiet Business) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential). Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates, on behalf of Leslie Teaff Properties, LLC. (ZO.14.12.180) City Planner Harris stated the request to rezone to R-2 was reasonable. The property had for many years been zoned R-2, but about five years ago had been rezoned to C-4 at the previous owner's request. Mr. Harris reminded the commissioners that they were to consider only the rezoning request, and not review of the site plan submitted with the rezoning application. Commissioner Hargus made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the request be approved as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meimerstorf. The chairman then invited public comments. Mrs. Rebecca Ritcher, who resides at 215 East 8th, said construction a few years ago of apartments and the Mason Hall on South Boulder had resulted in drainage problems in the area; problems that continue to negatively affect neighborhood properties. She said they were concerned about more multi-family units being constructed in the area. She said the drainage issues were not present until after construction of the Mason Hall and apartments. City Engineer Kurt Jones pointed out that right now all that’s being reviewed is the zoning. If any development plans are brought forward they will have to submit a site plan and address drainage issues in the area at that time. Mr. Jones said technically until the property is rezoned he can’t bring the site plan forward. Mr. Jones said he would take a look at the current drainage to see what could be done. The motion to recommend approval passed unanimously. The Fourth Order of Business (Agenda Item #3) was a request to vacate a 10-foot alley lying between Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14, Block 11, Harris Agricultural School Addition to the City of Russellville (Running between North Boston Place and North Cleveland Avenue south of East “K” Street). Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of David Keener. (ST.14.12.76) City Planner Harris said only a short segment of this right-of-way (ROW) was in use as an alley serving 3-4 properties just south of O Street. The remainder of the alley ROW south to J Street is unimproved and appears to have likely never been in use as an active alley. South of J Street lies a block with a very odd layout of parcels and no alley ROW. It would be extremely difficult to establish an alley along any of this ROW and there apparently has been no need to for many years. Commissioner Hargus and Commissioner Wilkins stated that they believed it should be closed. Commissioner Skelton made the motion to approve as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Westcott and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business (Agenda Item #4) was a request to review and comment on the Sketch Plat (Skt-1) for Hudson Harbor PUD (Planned Unit Development), located on Lot 1 Sweeden Addition on Marina Road. Submitted by Dave Garza of 2 Barrett & Associates. (ZO.15.01.181) Chairman Boyd clarified that no action would be taken on this plan at this meeting. This is just strictly an opportunity for the commissioners to review and discuss the sketch plat and offer comments to the applicant's representative. City Planner Harris said that the commissioners need to determine if the proposed plat meets one of the threshold requirements for it to be considered as a PUD. Mr. Harris said his primary issue with the plan is that it shows no open space. Mr. Harris said a PUD clearly is supposed to be something other than just a conventional layout along streets, just with smaller lots than R-1 zoning allows. This plan looks like a conventional subdivision with much smaller lots. The Zoning Code clearly states that the PUD classification cannot be utilized just to achieve higher density or avoid zoning regulations. Mr. Garza explained that the proposal was a garden home concept. The concept is lot of privacy, but less yard work. Garden homes are also known as courtyard or patio homes. They reduce the yard area without sacrificing the privacy the homeowners desire. This design was set up for homeowners to own their lot and feel free to express their landscaping creativity, while leaving property maintenance to the Property Owners Association (POA). The homeowners would maintain the area in their courtyard/garden areas, and the rest of the open space area would be maintained by the POA. Mr. Garza said some of the City staff have recommended removing lot lines and just doing the building footprint like the condominiums. The parcel is irregular and not easy to work with. Chairman Boyd asked Mr. Garza which criterion the proposal satisfies to qualify this as a PUD (in reference to section 2.16.1 of the Zoning Code). Mr. Garza said both #2 and #3. The PUD would further the city’s goal of providing housing for all economic segments of the city and its Planning Area Boundary. Mr. Garza said he felt the garden home concept met that criterion. Commissioner Hargus said he didn’t see how the proposal fit that category. The only one that I see as possible is #5, which requires permanent open space. To do that, however, you would have to rearrange lots, or reduce the number of houses in your design. Commissioner Wilkins said in many communities garden homes are a big thing. If they are not addressed in our Zoning Code, they should be. Development costs are rising so quickly and large lot developments are increasingly tough to put together in a way that makes economic sense. If we are going to allow this land to be divided into individual lots with true garden homes where people do part of their own yard maintenance, then it needs to be addressed as such. With the PUD, the neighbors know exactly what they are going to get and that nothing can be changed without the approval of this commission. Mr. Garza said it might be better to go without lot lines. He further stated they were looking at #3: The PUD involves a large parcel in which flexibility would allow high 3 quality or innovative urban design. This lot is over 4 acres, but is shaped oddly. Mr. Garza said it would be a gated community. We have talked about indenting that gate so if you had a truck and trailer come in, the trailer would be clear of the road. Chairman Boyd said he looked at the Comprehensive Plan and pointed out that this proposal appears to be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the Russellville Zoning Code, Section 1.2, Purpose, states that the zoning regulations are intended to "... protect various elements of the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City of Russellville..." In the Year 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan, Goal #2 ‘Housing and Neighborhoods’ states, The City of Russellville will encourage a wide variety of housing types and price ranges thereby affording all citizens safe and sanitary places to live. To achieve that goal, Objective #2, ‘Encourage more innovation in neighborhood development’ includes as one of its recommended strategies to Promote the use of PUDs to build innovative projects that are responsive to the community’s diverse housing needs. Chairman Boyd said it sounds like there is a niche for this type of development and it sounds like a good approach. He said he believes this is a good use for this property. Mr. Garza said the lake is a good asset to this property. I think it is a good drawing point especially if we open the green space at the lake area. Commissioner Wilkins said he believes the proposal is an ideal use for that property and would like to see it approved as a PUD. Commissioner Wilkins asked City Planner Harris if our Zoning Code addresses Garden Homes and Zero Lot Line Homes. Mr. Harris said yes. The Fourth Order of Business (Agenda Item #6) was a Public Hearing requesting approval of a Non-Standard Commercial Building (Zoning Code, Article III 3.20.5), for an addition to an existing building at 2505 West Parkway. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associate, on behalf of James Lee. (MS.15.01.79) City Planner Harris said the applicants desire to build an addition at the rear of an existing building and are requesting relief from the Commercial Building Design (CBD) standards. Reasons given for asking for relief are: 1) The addition will be 80 feet further from the public ROW than the existing building, which comes close to complying with the CBD standards. The façade of the addition will be approximately 130 feet from the ROW. The applicants maintain that it will have less visual impact being that far back. 2) The existing side wall that will connect the existing and new façade is metal, and will remain metal. If the façade of the addition is brick, then you will have brick, metal, and then brick. They maintain that will look stranger than just to allow them to have the side wall and the front of the new addition both sided with metal. 4 Mr. Harris said what counts against them is their site is on a stretch of road that is pretty much undeveloped. Whatever the commission decides today sets something of a precedent for that area. The building right next door to the east is in complete compliance with CBD standards. To the west, there is an undeveloped gap until you get to the Bass Mafia building, which is also in full compliance. There is only one building in the general vicinity with siding that does not comply. That building is several hundred feet away to the east of the subject property. Every other nearby building, including Russellville Junior High, complies with the CBD standards. Mr. Garza said the reason they are doing the expansion is they need storage space. They want secure storage space. They are currently using portable containers, which are allowed. The owner wants to go ahead and build more warehouse space. If we were going straight back from the building with our expansion we wouldn’t be here. I feel like since it’s the back that façades are not required in the back of the property. All the back is truck traffic and employee parking. It is quite a ways from the front, and since the parking is in front of it there is some shielding. Commissioner Skelton asked Mr. Garza if he was saying that they are going to put bay doors on the front of this addition which faces Parkway. Mr. Garza said there would be bay doors for delivery. Commissioner Standridge said that wouldn’t leave much wall to brick. Mr. Garza said then you run the risk of somebody running into the brick. Commissioner Wilkins said it seems a natural extension of the building as it sits, and it backs up to a railroad. None of the adjacent property owners that already have buildings there have any objections to it. I pulled in the parking lot and looked at it from Parkway. It seems to me to be a natural extension of the building. The front of the building is nice as anything out there. Mr. Wilkins said he didn’t have any particular issue with what they are proposing to do. Commissioner Hargus said he didn’t want to set a precedent. If the rule says façades facing the front are supposed to meet CBD standards, then it should meet them. Mr. Garza said the developer said it will be metal with wood on top of the metal. The wood is going to be painted the same color. Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris to read the exact wording of this requirement: 3.20.5 Design Standards: The finished façade of front or visible side of the building shall be composed of building materials selected from the list at the end of this section. This includes any side of the building that fully faces a public street or the front of a building. Mr. Keener said if you don’t give us a variance on this we are just going to screw the wood right on the metal and paint it the same color of the building. You are going to see the wood siding up there that looks like T-11 Siding. Commission Westcott made the motion to approve as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Standridge. The motion passed five (Westcott, Standridge, Sims, Davenport, Meimerstorf) to three (Hargus, Wilkins, and Skelton). 5 Added Item by Chairman Boyd: The Fifth Order of Business was discussion of possible regulations for Food Trucks. Chairman Boyd said he received a call from one of the City Council members, who said they were going to be working on an ordinance in that regard and wanted to know if the Planning Commission wanted to involve themselves in that discussion. I need some feedback if you all want to be involved in drafting the regulation. Planning Harris said for true temporary uses - such as at special events, or where a food service truck pulls up to a plant for a couple hours at lunch - there is minimal need to address the uses in the Zoning Code, other than to perhaps restrict them from residential districts. Most other regulations that would apply to temporary food service uses might not belong in the zoning code, as they - by their temporary nature - are different from permanently established land uses. One of the things we are going to be dealing with is the fact that there are already some established food service providers that use facilities that are mobile in nature (trucks, trailers), but have occupied a single location for months or years. They look mobile, but they aren’t. If they are established at a single location and stay at that location, then they have to be subject somehow to the Zoning Code. They can’t just say 'my facility could be mobile, so I’m not subject to zoning.' Commissioner Wilkins stated that food trucks are a good thing, but should not be allowed to stay in a single location for month and years. Commissioner Wilkins said we have food trucks that have camped on the same location for years, with water supplied by garden hoses and no sewer connection. They are getting a free ride. A food truck is meant to be portable vending. That doesn’t mean they park for months and years. Chairman Boyd asked if there was agreement that the Planning Commission should be involved in this undertaking. The general consensus was that the commission should have a role in crafting the regulations. A committee consisting of Commissioners Wilkins, Hargus and Skelton was created to take part in drafting an ordinance to regulate temporary food providers. The committee will work with Alderman Richard Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith and City Planner David Harris. Before adjourning, Commissioner Skelton asked the chairman if he could make a comment on the Commercial Building Design item just acted upon by the commission. Chairman Boyd said ‘absolutely.’ Commissioner Skelton said, “It just goes to show, in my mind, how deficient our planning code is that you can come in here and, on a major thoroughfare, tell us that you would put up brand-X, 4x8 sheets over your metal building and paint it because that meets code, and use that as a threat to us to authorize them to use metal siding." Commissioner Skelton also said, "This is outrageous. We should have some say on what façade goes on the front of these buildings. And if they don’t want to meet what our requirements are then they don’t get to build their building. I think we have to have some pretty drastic changes.” 6 The chairman replied that the Planning Commission certainly could initiate a revision to the Zoning Code to address any identified deficiencies. Chairman Boyd said he would follow up with City Planner Harris to discuss a path forward. Meeting Adjourned. ___________________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 7