Planning Commission

Russellville Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2017 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, February 27, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Nathan Barber Vice-Chair Peggy Stratton Shirley Hatley Secretary Wendell Miller John Whiteside Mike Wilkins Karen Yarbrough Shirley Hatley Frank Russenberger Members Absent Council Liaison Eric Westcott Also present: Mayor Randy Horton, City Planner James Walden, City Engineer Kurt Jones, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Zayne Bryson/City Corp, Dave Garza/Barrett & Associates, Danny Henderson, Helen Stephens, Alderman Robert Wiley, Ruby Frederking, C. Frederking, Robert Hope, Harry Simcox, Lloyd Magness, Sherry Magness, Bart Langley, Harold Cornett, Paula Cornett, Robert Weibler, Andrew Monfee, Tabatha Davis, and Phyllis Carruth. Welcome Chairman Boyd welcomed Mr. Frank Russenberger to the Planning Commission. The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the January 23, 2017 minutes. Commissioner Miller made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stratton and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a request to nominate an at-large member to the Board of Adjustment for a 2-year term to fill the vacancy of Blake Tarpley. This appointment will need confirmation by the City Council. Commissioner Miller made the motion to nominate Rob Caldwell to the Board of Adjustment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stratton. The Third Order of Business tabled from the December 27, 2016 and January 23, 2017 meetings. A public hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval to rezone property currently R-1 (Single-family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for property located on Marina Road at Jennifer Lane. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Ron Hughes. (ZO.16.12.203) Chairman Boyd noted that this was a continuation of the public hearing from last month's meeting. Planner Walden said this is a request to rezone property between Marina Road and Lake Dardanelle from R-1 to PUD. A PUD is a combined site plan and zoning. The actual site plan that is submitted becomes the zoning for the site. The applicant is restricted to building what is reflected on the site plan. Anything else cannot be built without coming back to the Planning Commission for approval, which would also require another public hearing. The development includes 20 garden-style homes on 4.13 acres. The Planning Comments are: 1) One of the things required is that justification be provided for how the PUD will provide public benefit as required in Section 2.16.6, #2, F of the code. That was provided by the applicant. 2) Would the individual homes be for sale or platted in lots. Only footprint of homes will be sold. The other property will remain under a Property Owners Agreement (POA). 3) The setback and lot sizes were shown on the site plan and they do meet fire safety code requirements. 4) We require the development density be calculated per the requirements in the PUD regulations. In the revision, the applicant shows that the density is six dwelling units per acre. This meets the density requirements for a PUD. 5) The site plan should depict area meant to be used as common open areas. Everything outside the houses is designated as common area. The shared improvements include a dock, small walking path and gazebo. 6) The landscape plan has been provided. 7) A POA has been submitted to the city. 8) The city will not be responsible for maintaining any roads or other infrastructure. 9) Included was an amenity for pedestrian circulation beyond sidewalks. 10) Requiring sidewalks on Marina Road. They have changed where sidewalks are going to be included on streets inside the development and will be providing fee in lieu for the sidewalk improvements on Marina Road. Marina Road is a state highway and the state requested no sidewalk on Marina Road. 11) New comment: The fencing that is along Marina Road it was shown to be wrought iron and brick posts in certain areas and wood elsewhere. Consider adding sold brick fence for the delineated section, which means all those areas outside of the gates. So a solid brick fence along the front and a little bit of the ways back along the portion on the side property somewhere between 10 – 20 feet. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed zoning is somewhat consistent with the comprehensive plan, as the site is indicated for single-family residential use. However, the plan calls for a density of 1- 3 units per acre, which this development exceeds. There are additional developments in the area which exceed this density. The design of the development is supported by the plan’s Goals and Policies that promote flexibility in development and smaller lot sizes. The recommendation for this application is approval with conditions. One thing I want to make very clear is that in order to approve a PUD, the Planning Commission must find the following: 2  A. There must be public benefit created by the development that is not otherwise attainable through current zoning. The applicant has provided the following justification: 1) Allows a development that does not require yard maintenance. 2) Design allows for community closeness. 3) Should be considered cluster housing, which provides benefit to the community in reducing municipal maintenance. 4) Compact nature of the design will help reduce drainage runoff due to less impervious surfaces. 5) Design will be controlled by a POA that will control the aesthetics of the development. Mr. Walden said I would not consider this development to meet the traditional definition of a cluster development. However, without putting in one hour-firewalls for adjoining structures together some of these are in terms of that is as close as you can get. In terms of it actually being a cluster development under state fire code requirements it’s about as close as it can be to being a cluster development. However, when looking at the overall density of the development it is very close to that of R-2 single-family zoning with the average lot size being around 7,000 square feet. From the Staff’s Perspective: A. There are the public benefits provided by the development that are not achievable through normal zoning. 1) Required landscaping - Development will feature required landscaping. This is not required in normal zoning. 2) Different Housing Products - Development will feature a unique housing product that would be difficult to offer without the PUD process. 3) Neighborhood Amenity - The development provides amenities that are required as part of approval. This cannot be required through normal zoning. So if the Planning Commission requires the solid brick wall changes across the Marina Road frontage, decorative lighting, requirement for brick and stone cladding on all the structures. Those would be things that would be considered amenities as part of the development that would help enhance the area. B. Adequate public utilities are already in place. This has been demonstrated. C. Land use compatibility with surrounding developments. This is a single-family development adjacent to other single-family developments. D. Be compatible with the comprehensive plan. The development is largely consistent with the plan. E. Not endanger the public health, welfare, or safety. This development will meet all applicable life and safety codes. This approval is recommended with conditions. The applicant could further demonstrate the public benefit of the development by increasing the amenity of the development. A gazebo would 3 be one item that has already been included in the revisions to the plan. To achieve additional public benefit, the following potential conditions are provided: 1) Provide the solid brick fence revisions along the frontage of Marina Road. 2) Decorative lighting to be required as shown in the staff report. 3) That all homes built in the development be brick and stone cladding as provided in the detail sheets provided by the applicant. Dave Garza, of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Ron Hughes, said Mr. Walden had stated some of the stipulations that he had suggested that we had made. On the brick fencing, I delineated the area for brick columns every 8 feet with wrought iron throughout the front and down the side, not a solid brick fence. This is the only difference in what we proposed and what Mr. Walden had stated. The chairman then recognized Mr. Danny Henderson who was serving as the spokesman for the neighborhood group in the area of the proposed rezoning. The chairman told Mr. Henderson that he had the floor for as long as he wanted to speak. Mr. Henderson said he wanted to refer to PUD Form 2002 Ordinance 1740 City of Russellville. Review Process - The following criteria will governor the approval or disapproval of the PUD application by the planning commission: A. The PUD shall provide public benefits that would not be achievable through the normal zoning regulations. No such public benefit has been shown. Ample residential housing is already available, but that housing that is already available has appropriate green space for lawns, landscaping, and gardening, which the PUD does not. B. The PUD shall not create undue or unmitigated negative traffic impacts. This PUD would instantly cause the worst, most congested traffic intersection on Marina Road. That is a five way intersection of Marina Road east with High Acres Drive with PUD Drive with Jennifer Drive with Marina Road west. I believe there are two drives to the PUD so it complicates it even more. We have a lot of traffic on Marina Road consisting of normal residential traffic, plus motorcyclists, joggers, bicyclists, bass boats, ski boats, campers, and motor homes. C. The PUD shall be compatible with surrounding developments. The surrounding developments are all R-1; therefore, it would have to be R-1 to be compatible. It seems obvious from last month’s meeting that the overwhelming majority of the surrounding developments or surrounding residents do not feel it would be compatible. D. The PUD shall be compatible with the city’s comprehensive plan. Simply stated it is not. The comprehensive plan call for density of 1 -3 units per acre. The proposed PUD calls for over six units per acre. 4  F. 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. Who decides this? It is unknown at this time. The neighbors are unwilling to gamble their property values for the financial gain of a non-resident building contractor. This looks exactly like spot rezoning. All this has been R-1 and it should remain an R-1 neighborhood. G. The PUD must be of a character and contain such uses that are needed in the area of the proposed project. The 20 crowded houses on 3.27 acres and they said 4-plus acres. It is 3.27 acres. The 20 crowded houses on 3 acres are not needed in the middle of this R-1 neighborhood. Referencing 68.4% of property is vacant or undeveloped within the planning area of Russellville. I think they could find a place to build 20 houses on that 68% of land. The city even recommends several other areas for PUDs. There are about six areas that the city recommends for a PUD but no, we don’t want any of those PUDs. We want to put it in this neighborhood and rezone it. The PUD description by Russellville states that the PUD may not be used simply as a method of avoiding rezoning regulations. Mr. Henderson continued by stating that the description of the proposed construction is misleading and inaccurate. A PUD is described as, “The development of a large tract of land as a complete neighborhood unit having a range of dwelling types, the necessary local shopping facilities and off-street parking areas, parks, playgrounds, pools, school sites, and other community facilities.” Open space in a PUD is a hallmark of what a PUD is. We have a cluster of houses here. What they have on Marina Road is a crowded bunch of houses on 3 acres. These houses are on one-half acres, but they are clustered. You have open space and that is what you want in a PUD. There is no open space in this so-called PUD. All this is is a bunch of houses jammed together, because that is the maximum that they would actually get in there. They said they had a walking path, but I bet that walking path is from the back of that property about 15 feet to the boat dock, which is not on their property. It is one cluster and no open spaces, no characteristics, qualities, or advantages of a PUD. It is not a plan to improve the property with PUD advantages, but a plan to circumvent Russellville’s zoning ordinances to over-build on a small site. There is a reason for the comprehensive plan recommendations of one, two, or three houses per acre. Mr. Henderson said all you are going to have is runoff. You might as well put a tarp over those 3 acres. You have covered it with impervious surfaces per the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The City of Russellville should demonstrate consistency, integrity on the liability enforcing the zoning laws for the protection of it residents. This project is unanimously opposed by surrounding residents. This project is in conflict with the 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan. The current site will easily and ideally accommodate R-1, construction not a PUD. Chairman Boyd pointed out that the city ordinance for PUDs has been revised in regard to the review criteria that you (Mr. Henderson) mentioned. That's not to say that the review criteria that you cited are unimportant. The points that you made are certainly important and the commission will certainly consider them. The City Council did revise the PUD portion of the zoning code in October of last year which included some changes to the review criteria. The Planning Commission will be considering the revised criteria, which are slightly different than the ones that you cited. Mr. Boyd also noted that the issue of spot zoning had arisen several times during each public hearing. He noted that this is not considered spot zoning. He said it was his understanding that spot zoning involved rezoning property for the benefit of an individual, not for the community. 5 He said courts have ruled that if a rezoning request is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan for a community it is not considered spot zoning. The chairman then opened the floor to the commissioners for comments and discussion. Commissioner Wilkins stated some contrasting points. He said it was very inappropriate to think that property should never be rezoned. I’m sure many of you have lived here as long as I have. If you look at our medical community out here where many of the people in this community work, much of that property was R-1 zoned; now much of it is zoned C-3, C-2, and C-1. Much of commercial corridors up and down East Main and West Main, South Arkansas Avenue and North Arkansas Avenue, were all at one time zoned residential. As a community grows and develops, property zoning changes. When I built the Marina Shores PUD on Marina Road, everything was alleged. It was going to be low-income housing to cheap rental property. It was going to damage all the home values. The facts are that those condominiums have been the most expensive residential real estate to sell on that lakeshore. That’s a fact. Mr. Wilkins said many of you live on very valuable real estate. In many cases the real estate has more value without the homes on it than it does with the homes on it. Over the next few years more property on the lakeshore will be purchased and re-developed because many of the homes out there were built when I was a young boy. The Walmart Neighborhood Market on West Main Street, and the proposed development of the Arbors, a PUD that is subject to approval in a May 9th special election, as other examples of opposition to new development in the community. Mr. Wilkins further stated there is not one single thing that can be changed without the developer coming back to the Planning Commission and asking permission. That gives a great deal of protection to the adjacent homeowners. He said that emotions sometimes cloud discussion of development in the city and that he would not vote for the development if he thought that it would decrease neighboring property values. This application I’m going to support because it does meet the definition of a PUD. Factually, I don’t believe there is any way it’s going to degrade any home value out there. I believe that it will elevate home values out there on the lake like Marina Shores did. Commissioner Stratton said she went out and looked at some different garden homes around the state. I looked at one in Conway by Hendrix College. I looked at one in Fort Smith out at Chaffee Crossing. I have a personal friend who has moved into a garden home out there. On one street I counted 14 on each side for a total of 28 homes. They were 10 feet apart. Some of these homes were four bedrooms with 2 ½ baths. We are talking high-dollar, really nice garden homes. They are exactly what they are proposing here except we don’t have the population and the industry to support that price of a home. All of the construction was new out there. The one neighborhood that I looked at, I drove in and to the right were garden homes and to the left were, I’m guessing, $450,000 to $750,000 homes. They were building them side-by-side. I saw only two signs in the garden home portion. There just weren’t many for sale. They appeared to be building them as fast as they could. I don’t think Russellville can support that big of a development. I drove up to 40- Acre Rock just north of Russellville. I looked at the garden homes there that are on 2 ½ acres. There are 14 large garden homes there. Some of them are two-story homes. Commissioner Stratton said I understand your concerns, but I have to support this proposed development myself. Commissioner Wilkins asked Mr. Ron Hughes how much these homes are going to sell for per square foot. 6 Mr. Hughes said it depends on our decision on the electronics throughout the house but I would say $140 to $160 a square foot. I’m not saying that it will be 100% smart where everything is run off of an iPhone, but all the major heating and air, stove, and lights can be controlled pretty easily from an iPhone in this day and age. The homes are going to be 1,300 to 1,700 square feet heated and cooled with a two-car garage and attached storage unit. Commissioner Miller said before the Planning Commission can approve a PUD under the new ordinance approved by the City Council, the Planning Commission must consider the following: 1) Allows the development that does not require yard maintenance. 2) Design allows for community closeness. 3) Design should be considered cluster housing, which provides benefit to the community in reducing municipal maintenance. 4) Compact nature of the design will help reduce drainage runoff due to less impervious surfaces. 5) Design will be controlled by a POA. Chairman Boyd said the diminished property value criterion had been removed as one of the review criteria due to its subjectivity. I agree that the potential effect on property values is a legitimate concern. So I called a couple of realtors and a general appraiser (who does both commercial and residential appraisals) with no connection to the development and asked each of them the same question, “In your opinion, what effect has the Walmart Neighborhood Market had on the property values of those homes in the neighborhoods located behind it?” This same issue of declining property values was raised back then during that PUD discussion and was a well- founded concern. I also asked each of them a second question, “What has happened to the property values around Marina Shores?” All three of them gave me a consistent answer. They said if the property values had been affected at all, the value had gone up not down. That helped to reassure me that whatever is approved or not approved here is not going to detract from your property value. The chairman also wanted to clarify that he believed the proposed development does, in fact, meet the density requirement of the revised ordinance. He asked Planner Walden if there was any doubt in his mind whether the proposal met the density requirement of the ordinance. Mr. Walden confirmed that it met the density requirement. Mr. Henderson said it sounds awfully crowded. People don’t know the water situation on Marina Road until we get a thunderstorm in the spring. You could not believe it driving down the road. There is going to be some water issues, and that is one reason to leave it an R-1. Chairman Boyd asked if there were any members of the public who had any additional questions or comments that had not already been addressed. Dr. Andrew Monfee said we feel threatened if the land adjacent to our home is undeveloped. We purchased the land with protection because of its R-1 zoning. When we live in an area that is not fully saturated with R-1 we are worried about what is going to happen. What’s going to happen to that land if the current owner sells it and then I lose the R-1 protection that I bought under? That’s 7 why we’re just so scared and so concerned, and we ask your support in helping us protect our neighborhood. Paula Cornett said her mother owns property in another PUD in Russellville that has 16 houses in a similar-sized plot. I don’t see how they can put four more in an area that size. It’s crowded already, there’s barely a turnaround there. Many of the people rented houses in the other local PUD. When it first started out, most of the people owned their own individual homes in that PUD, and that’s how it’s supposed to be. And since then, to make it develop, there are a lot of rentals there. Mrs. Cornet questioned Planner Walden asking what he meant, “it wasn’t quite cluster but was almost.” This sounded like to me that it doesn’t quite meet the code. Chairman Boyd said he did want to point out that this proposed development does meet the density requirement. He went on to say that the City Council has revised the ordinance that covers PUDs, and I believe that they intend for the Planning Commission to comply with the ordinance. The Russellville Zoning Code has the force of law and the City Council expects the Planning Commission to enforce the law. The comprehensive plan is a guidance document. We are supposed to use that document to help us get to where we need to be, but when it comes to the zoning code, unless there is an overriding or compelling reason to deviate from it, we are expected to comply with it. The chairman asked Planner Walden to clarify his comments regarding clustering for Mrs. Cornett. Mr. Walden said in regard to the calculation of the density, there is a unique way that this density is actually calculated. We do not include areas dedicated for drainage or streets. If you calculate the density based on the traditional method, the result is 4.8 units per acre. The way this is calculated, it’s required that you take the housing units divided by the amount of developable land plus common usable open space and that equals the residential density. As I stated before, if you traditionally calculate it, that would be 4.8 units per acre. So the reason the calculation is 6 units per acre is because we are using the calculation set aside in the PUD Code that makes the development look denser than it would if the density was calculated in the traditional manner. And the reason behind that is we don’t want developers counting detention ponds in their calculations. Planner Walden said there is no doubt that this PUD meets the zoning code. In terms of it being “almost,” that is a matter of clarification. The development was being built as a cluster development. There is nothing in the code that ties this to being required to be a cluster development. What I meant was based on the general concept of what cluster development is, this doesn’t fit that as a bright line definition. It meets the code requirements, but as a general practice of the way that cluster developments are defined it is not a cluster development. Harry Simcox, representing Marina Shores residents, said when you compare Marina Shores with this development you need to look at people buying units. They may decide that this one fits better. Well, it will at 1,300 square feet versus Marina Shores at 2,200 square feet. Our people are concerned about this because most of these folks have invested a substantial amount of what they consider retirement income. Our folks are concerned about what this might do to the marketability of our development when it is compared as an entity. There is a PUD and here is a PUD. So let’s compare prices and all of a sudden we fall out of the ball park. That is our concern. Bob Hope said he was concerned about property values. 8 Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to recommend approval of the PUD with the requirements under the recommended conditions other than the brick fence which he stated could be wrought iron with brick pillars; decorative lighting meeting City approval; all homes in the development to be clad in brick and stone; the homes to be built exactly as presented in the detail sheets and as depicted by the color renderings shown to the commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and passed on a roll call vote of 7 to 0 with Commissioner Russenberger abstaining. The Fourth Order of Business was a public hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval to rezone property currently R-1 (Single-family Residential) to C-2 (Highway Commercial), to construct a tank wash, location at 43 Interstate Avenue. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Sarai Gurjinder, Owner. (ZO.17.02.204) Planner Walden said this whole area has developed commercially (some likely prior to annexation into the city). The proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan; however, the existing zoning for this area is outdated. The adjacent uses are commercial and some residential towards the north. The adjacent zoning is C-2 to the north, and R-1 in the surrounding area. The comprehensive plan indicates this area for single-family residential, 1 to 3 units per acre. Tonight’s request is to recommend rezoning 4.3 acres from R-1 to C-2. The Planning Comments are: 1) The development is consistent with other development in the area. 2) The adjacent structure has been determined to be an office not a residence. 3) Any future improvements will require platting of the property. The recommended action is approval in order to bring land-use rights for the property more in line with the use of the property and surrounding context. The chairman asked for public comments. There were none. Commissioner Wilkins requested that the city examine this whole area and correct the zoning. Planner Walden and Engineer Jones agreed. Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to approve the rezoning. Commissioner Stratton seconded the motion and passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business was a request to review and approve a large-scale development Patriot Storage, to renovate the existing two buildings for individual storage space and plan construction for two RV/boat/trailer storage buildings, located at 306 North Phoenix. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Robert Weibler. (DV.17.02.150) Planner Walden said this request is for a large-scale development approval. The current use is an existing concrete slab and two large warehouse buildings. The adjacent uses are various, ranging from office to commercial to industrial, with C-4 to the south and east, R-2, C-4, and M-2 to the west, and C-2, R-3, and M-2 to the north. This would retrofit two existing buildings into a climate 9 controlled storage facility and add two additional buildings for boat/RV/trailer storage on a 3.62 acre site. The Planning Comments are: 1) We asked to consider including landscaping, which was not provided, but it’s not required. 2) The property should be platted and recorded as a one-lot subdivision. The plat should be provided with building permit. 3) The applicant will address how the rear climate controlled storage building would be accessed. The southern storage unit will actually be accessed through the northern storage building. The two large storage buildings will be jointly accessed through the structure that is to the north. 4) Will the existing gravel area be removed? The gravel areas cannot be used for parking or vehicle maneuvering. That needs to be addressed by the applicant. 5) Will the existing concrete pad be improved before being used for parking? Has a seal coating been considered? The applicant said there are no plans to improve the concrete pad. 6) Submit architectural elevations, which have now been submitted but the commission hasn’t yet received them for review. 7) The applicant has provided locations for lighting. 8) Will the existing water tank be removed? The applicant said it will not be removed. Fire Marshall Setian will address. 9) Will the space between the buildings meet fire codes and allow maneuvering of fire apparatus? Fire Marshall Setian will address. 10) Will the dumpster be provided on site? Yes, they will supply a dumpster pad. 11) The site will be used for self storage. This has been confirmed by the applicant. 12) Improved access through the fencing on north side of property to the railroad ROW will be included. Gates will be provided. 13) Lot cover calculations have been provided. 14) The applicant can address the issues with storm water management plan with runoff calculations. Planner Walden said the largest question as it pertains to your decision-making on this application, deals with the Commercial Building Design Standards. There are two routes for an applicant to pursue: 1) Track One is to comply with the Building Design Standards fully. 2) Track Two allows the applicant to come to the Planning Commission and request that a non-standard building design be approved which is what the applicant is doing in this particular situation. The code requires that any visible side of the structure that is visible from the roadway needs to be clad in some sort of architectural materials which are listed in the code. In order to vary from this requirement and approve a non-standard building design, the Planning Commission has to have some findings in order to allow it. The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission shall approve the submittal of the Non- Standard Commercial Building permit after reviewing the proposed submittal and determining: 10  a) The proposed design represents an innovative use of non-standard building materials to the extent that it is in harmony with the visual aspects of the location, area, and community as a whole. b) No discernible public benefit would be gained by requiring an alternative design. c) The size and bulk of the proposed building is comparable to other buildings within the immediate area. d) The proposed construction meets the spirit and intent of this section of the zoning code. Planner Walden said in this opinion, requiring an exact conformity to the design standards would not make sense with these buildings because of the existing character. Now, whether or not painting the structures is going far enough to bring it in harmony with the area; that is another question. I think that is what the Planning Commission should ask in looking at this request; whether painting the structures is adequate to make it compatible with the area. Commissioner Stratton asked if the applicant was planning to construct individual compartments inside the two existing structures for storage. Mr. Weibler said “yes.’ Planner Walden said what is triggering this is the large-scale development application. Chairman Boyd noted that given the prominent location and high visibility of this site, particularly regarding the large amount of traffic traveling over the N. Phoenix Overpass, does the commission want to hold the applicant to the required Commercial Building Design Standards? Mr. Walden said there is the question of the two existing structures in terms of whether this design meets the requirements for approving a non-standard building. The other question pertains to whether the two new structures would be considered as being visible from the road. The commission may want to ask for elevation drawings for the two additional structures. Planner Walden said in terms of consistency with the comprehensive plan, the proposed development is mostly consistent with the comprehensive plan which calls for transitional use. This commercial use transitions this property from an existing semi-industrial use into a use more consistent with the surrounding area. Planner Walden said that further clarification is need on the following items: 1) Will an existing gravel area be used for maneuvering of vehicles? There were some modifications to the plan, but we didn’t get an exact answer on that. 2) How will the south structure be accessed? That south structure would be accessed through the north structure of the existing two storage buildings. They would be linked. 3) All parking and maneuvering must provide adequate space for vehicles to turn around and access. 4) Provide runoff calculations. Mr. Garza said what we are proposing is definitely an improvement of what was there before. The large warehouse along the railroad is now gone. The two large warehouses on the south end of the property still remain. In regard to access to the southernmost building, there is an existing 11 concrete pad that comes down into that building. You go thru the north building and in the middle there are opposite doors on each side with an open breezeway. You can come through there. Directly to the south is a dock that used to be accessed from “C” Street and has not been used in years. What the applicant would like to do since the business is named “Patriot Storage,” is to paint the two existing buildings with a large American flag. The rest you don’t see a whole lot. The pump house is going to be repainted. The water storage tank is going to be repainted. There is one existing fire hydrant and five valves. Fire Marshall Setian said all of the fire protection and access issues will need to be addressed prior to building permitting. At this point, I don’t know if we are going to be able to access the two original large buildings. The water tank in the old days was probably a reservoir to help that fire pump. In the old days there was a requirement to sprinkle that building as large as it was. If you physically join those two buildings together that is going to double the size and the requirement to sprinkle this building is going to be more stringent. Also, it sounds as if there are going to be numerous rooms inside. There will be no requirement to keep the water tank. Additional fire apparatus access may be required affecting any, or all, of the following: roadways, drives, fire lanes, and/or reduced parking. Commissioners Stratton and Wilkins stated their concern regarding the condition of the pad where the two new metal buildings will be constructed. They questioned if it would meet the code. Mr. Garza said they haven’t yet taken core samples. We are trying to get a core drill. That will have to be verified. Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to table until we see the exact drawings for this project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Barber and passed unanimously. The Sixth Order of Business was a request to review and approve a large-scale development to construct The Village of Russellville II apartment complex, location at 1940 South Elmira Avenue. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Trident Group, LLC. (DV.17.02.151) Planner Walden said the current use is zone R-3 with a lightly wooded area that is immediately adjacent to an existing apartment complex that this development will tie into. The adjacent uses are residential with R-2 to the west/east, R-1 to the north, A-1 /R-1 to the south, and C-2 to the east. On the comprehensive plan this is indicated for single-family residential, but that is not consistent with the existing zoning on the site. This would be an expansion of the existing apartment complex building seven additional apartment buildings in The Village of Russellville II. This would be 56 two-bed room units. The Planning Comments are: 1) Ownership will be the same for the new units. 2) Provide a corrected storm water management plan. 3) Dumpsters located on the site will be coordinated with existing structures. 4) The property will need to be platted as a one-lot subdivision and provided at the building permit phase. 12  5) A lighting plan needs to be provided for the development depicting specific lighting locations. The largest comment and questions revolved around whether any of this proposed development fell within the Runway Protection Zone for the Russellville Airport. The reason being is the FAA does not look favorably upon having any residential structures within its runway protection zone. The staff report shows that it is close, but it is not within the runway protection zone. Planner Walden said the recommendation for this application is approval with contingencies: 1) Provide a one-lot subdivision for the development that will convey easements for all utilities. 2) Resolve all issues with the storm water management plan to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Keith Frazier, Director of the Russellville Airport, said he met with Dave Garza to discuss the proposed expansion. The drawing he had actually showed a penetration of our non-primary approach surface. The first surface we are concerned with is the Runway Protection Zone. The next surface is the non-precision approach surface (a cone-shaped approach zone) that starts at 200 feet from the end of the runway at 1,000 feet wide and extends to 3,500 feet wide at a distance of little over 10,000 feet from the runway at a 34 to 1 slope. In looking at it, given the elevations, we were still within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) tolerances. My recommendation for future building in this area is to conduct an Obstruction Evaluation Airport Airspace Analysis (OEAAA). What Mr. Garza is getting is the elevation for those four corners plus the peak of the roof with the FAA. So we are waiting on that report from the FAA. Mr. Frazier said he would recommend approving this project. It will take about 45 days to get the OEAAA study done. Dave Garza said what we are going to do is to run the OEAAA on all three buildings furthest to the south. I went through the OEAAA process online and was never able to get the request to submit. Fire Marshall Setian asked that the development meet all provisions of the fire prevention code. Mr. Setian said if the development density reaches 100 units you are required to have a second egress unless the complex is sprinkled then you can double that. Mr. Garza said this development would exceed 100 units. The discussion then became where the second ingress/egress could be located. The applicant needed additional time to review the strategy for a second entrance. Commissioner Hatley made the motion to table until next month. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned ___________________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 13