Planning Commission

Russellville Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2017 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, March 27, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Nathan Barber Secretary Wendell Miller John Whiteside Mike Wilkins Karen Yarbrough Frank Russenberger Council Liaison Eric Westcott Members Absent Vice-Chair Peggy Stratton Shirley Hatley Also present: Mayor Randy Horton, Alderman Sims, 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, Kevin Smoke, and Bob Wiebler. Welcome The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the February 27, 2017 minutes. Commissioner Miller made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilkins and passed unanimously. The Second order of Business (Tabled from the February 27, 2017 meeting) 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) City Planner Walden said this location is at the Phoenix overpass. There is an existing concrete slab and two large metal structures. The intent is to rehabilitate the two existing metal structures to provide heated and cooled indoor storage and then construct additional structures on the existing concrete slabs. This is approximately a 3.62 acre site. Its access is going to be directly from Phoenix. The property will have to be platted at the building permit stage. The landscaping and dealing with things like the dumpster being provided on site will have to be dealt with also. We had a few outstanding comments from last month’s meeting. One comment pertained to the stability of the existing concrete pad that was located on the site. This concrete pad will be used for parking and for a pad for the two new storage buildings. Last month the Planning Commission requested a test on the durability of the concrete. The question was if it was durable enough to withstand the traffic of a 75,000 pound fire truck. Additionally, with the dumpster being located onsite there will be recurring heavy trash truck traffic which might have some impact on the durability of the site. We also asked for more information pertaining to the visibility of the site from Phoenix Avenue. When travelling across the overpass drivers really can’t see much. There is some visibility before you get to the overpass approaching from the north; however, I could consider that somewhat incidental because once future building happens on the north side the new structures will be less visible. There is some visibility from Phoenix just below the overpass approaching from the south where you can see some of the metal structures. One of the recommendations was to provide some type of landscaping on the left side of the entrance just before the overpass to help shield some of that. Also, pertaining to the metal structures, the applicant’s plan is to paint those metal structures with an American flag. We had some concerns regarding fading and peeling of the paint. The broader question is that the Zoning Code contains Commercial Building Design Standards. There are two tracks on which an applicant may proceed: Track 1: An applicant proposes something that fits totally within the design standards. The Planning Commission does not have discretion with this option. Track 2: An applicant can go with a non-standard commercial building that does not meet the design standards and requires approval of the Planning Commission. The criteria for determining that is: 1) The proposed design represents an innovative use of non-standard building materials to the extent that is in harmony with the visible aspects of the location, area, and community as a whole; 2) No discernible public benefit would be gained by requiring an alternative design; 3) The size and bulk of the proposed building is comparable to other buildings within the immediate area. This application does not fit in this situation because they are existing structures. So, the question would be how might one make them fit more; 4) The proposed construction meets the spirit and intent of this section of the Zoning Code. City Engineer Jones said the applicant did provide information on the existing concrete pad. The thickness varies anywhere from about 5 inches to 4 inches. They did some compression tests on it and determined that it was fairly high strength concrete. I do have some concerns about the thickness of the concrete particularly if trash trucks will routinely be moving across it. I think that it would probably be more than adequate for parking. Mr. Jones said he didn’t think the pad was adequate for fire apparatus. I certainly wouldn’t recommend a 4-inch slab of concrete for trash trucks. Commissioner Wilkins asked about anchoring the two new steel storage units to the pad. Engineer Jones said I don’t know what kinds of loads those storage units are going to put on the concrete slab itself. I would expect there would be some kind of footing for those metal buildings other than a 4-inch slab of concrete. I have seen this done before utilizing an existing slab by drilling or cutting out a section of the concrete and excavating it to actually get the required footing depth. Mr. Garza said that is what we are going to do. Fire Marshal Setian said he had received a document today signed by an engineer that said that they felt like it could handle 75,000 pounds and that is all I really go by. The document says, “The 2 slab will support a fire apparatus truck at 75,000 pounds as long as the slab is maintained in its current condition.” Other fire code issues will be addressed at the Plan Review stage of the approval process which occurs before the building permit stage. Mr. Garza said a rendering was submitted which shows what the site will look like from the south going north. The applicant visited with all 10 neighbors and took pictures of the old buildings and the proposed building. All 10 neighbors said they were in favor of it- great and good. In regard to the question on the painting, Bob Hiegel provided the specifications from Sherwin-Williams and it is the same specifications that they used on the Public Works metal building. It gives you the specs on each particular type of metals. Mr. Hiegel said it would work for that mural if they painted it according to those specs. Regarding the existing pad, we did some core drilling and could not get through the slab. We did get a hammer drill and were able to get through and that is when I got the 5 inches starting from the west slab. The thickness then goes 5”, 4 ½”, 4” and 4.” Commissioner Russenberger asked whether the existing gravel surfaces would be removed. Mr. Garza replied that the existing gravel areas will be paved. Planner Walden said in the responses from the petitioner there is still some gravel area, but that is not intended to be used for parking. If that area is used for parking in the future that would be a violation of the Zoning Code. Chairman Boyd said speaking as a member of the Steering Committee who is reviewing the 2040 ReImagine Russellville Comprehensive Plan rewrite, one of the things that keeps coming up in many of our public meetings, stakeholder meetings and committee meetings is the fact that we need to improve the appearance of our main thoroughfares and corridors. And it is a little concerning to me that we have an opportunity to do that here, but we are considering deviating from our Commercial Building Design Standards. It wasn’t too long ago that the commission approved two mini-storage developments on West Main Street and we held that developer to the Commercial Building Design Standards. Additionally, the Zoning Code says there can’t be more than 10% of the façade covered by illustrative designs so that calls into question whether this proposal meets the spirit and intent of this section of the Zoning Code. Bob Weibler, owner of the property, said he agreed with what Chairman Boyd said. We would like to improve the appearance. If you drive by those buildings on West Main you are going to think they are metal buildings yet they meet the city code because they are not metal, they are vinyl. We could do the same thing here and put vinyl siding that looks exactly like the metal buildings that are there. And that is going to meet the code, so I think that is a big improvement over that option which may very well be our other option if we don’t get this approved. Commissioner Wilkins said those buildings have been there longer than all of us. I don’t think it is realistic to think we could tear them down or make them meet our existing building code. I can go either way on the American flag. The Steak-n-Shake building is basically illustrated all over the building. The chairman noted that although this agenda item wasn’t noticed as a Public Hearing, the Zoning Code requires that public comments be allowed whenever the Planning Commission reviews a proposed Non-Standard Commercial Building. He opened the floor for public comments. None were provided. 3 Planner Walden said when reviewing applications you review what is submitted. It would have been possible for the applicant to submit a design that conforms to the standards to a tee that is less attractive than what was submitted. There are also probably other non-standard designs that don’t have the possibility of fading over time. There are multiple options but you evaluate based on what is submitted. There are three main things to consider: 1) The structures pertaining to the non-standard buildings. I would recommend making it conditional on the addition of landscaping to the west of the entrance. 2) The parking lot where the existing concrete slab is. 3) Any engineering concerns. Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to approve contingent upon resolution with the city engineer of any need for additional paving of the existing concrete slab on-site, that additional columnar-type landscaping be placed to the immediate north of the driveway entrance to the development, and that a one-lot subdivision plat be provided prior to pulling a building permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Barber and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business (Tabled from the February 27, 2017 meeting) 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 last month we had a last minute realization that the design did not meet the minimum requirements for the Arkansas State Fire Code. So, the direction at that point was to instruct the applicant to find a way to meet those requirements. The solution that has been proposed was in your packet providing a secondary fire apparatus access lane. The fire access lane would go between two of the structures on the north row of apartments and tie into S. Baltimore Street. The applicant submitted structuring material. It would be gated on both the south and north sides. There are some concerns that part of the fire apparatus lane that is placed there will have a gate right at the end of two private home driveways that are located on opposite sides of S. Baltimore Street. The concern is whether people will be parking in the fire access lane along the S. Baltimore portion. Is that going to obstruct access when necessary? Additionally, part of that fire access lane would be constructed in the existing city right-of-way. In some way it would be a city street, but would it be constructed up to city street standards? The applicant will also need to provide a one-lot subdivision to convey easements prior to pulling building permits and resolve any issue with the Storm Water Management Plan to the satisfaction of the city engineer. The applicant has submitted an Obstruction Evaluation Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) review to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Last, they must resolve any outstanding issues pertaining to the fire comments regarding the fire access lane. Dave Garza said the primary issue that came up during last month’s meeting causing tabling the item was because of the fire access. If you go over 100 units the buildings have to been sprinkled before you can go to 200 units. The development was built pre-code and now we want to make the expansion and we are caught with the new code. We have made sure the turning radius meets the proper radius in the fire code for turning. The proposal on the north side is for the gate between the subdivision and the property to remain a wooden gate to keep anybody from crossing back and 4 forth. That was the initial plan because they didn’t want anyone from the apartments coming through their subdivision. At first I was talking about a pipe gate there and now a wooden privacy gate there with a Knox box (rapid entry system) where the wooden fence is now. That way it will continue to be private. There will be a gravel fire lane. There will be signage on that fence and signage on the south at the parking lot. It is a fire lane not a city street. I don’t think the developer should have to improve the rest of the S. Baltimore stub to the fence which could create a parking lot. Chairman Boyd asked City Attorney Smith if the Planning Commission had the authority to approve a non-standard city street in a city owned right-of-way that is dedicated for a public street. Attorney Smith said if you are asking about the stub, the gravel drive will remain a private drive. Mr. Garza said if it is not dedicated then the developer could go into an agreement with the city to maintain it. Commissioner Wilkins stated his concern of keeping the fire lane maintained and in compliance for the fire truck to access. Fire Marshal Setian said the code changed in early 2002. The code changed to reflect that if you have more than 100 multi-family units you have to provide a second fire access. The twenty foot radius is in there now and a second means of access. The fence is no concern to me. The south side is going to have a swing gate. Mr. Setian said he was concerned if the access will be maintained. He also stated that he would need to know who will maintain it. Mr. Garza said we could put up a 6-foot wrought-iron fence, but that is where the pool is and people are going to see the pool in back. So they are going to get all that noise where now they have some shielding with the privacy fence. I’m trying to protect the people in the neighborhood to the north more so than the developer. Commissioner Wilkins questioned that since this fire lane was being put in solely for the interest of that apartment complex should not the developer agree to maintain that fire lane in perpetuity so the city does not have to bear that expense. Alderman Westcott said his concerns are the privacy of the two homes that are right by the north gate and the likelihood of having pedestrians come from these apartments into that neighborhood where right now they enjoy some degree of privacy from the existing privacy fence. Also if you look where S. Baltimore comes south into the area in question, that little bitty jag of a street before the proposed gravel area begins, that is the driveway access to these two homes at 2404 and 2408 East 19th. That is the access to their garages. So, if you have a major calamity at these apartments and you have these two residents that have their vehicles parked in that little street stub and they are at work, what are you going to do? If we are going to rely on a major fire access to these apartments, in a perfect world we would access these apartments from somewhere else. Mr. Garza said there is no other place for that second access other than S. Baltimore. Chairman Boyd asked the city attorney again about the right-of way. We have a city owned right- of-way dedicated for a public street. We are being asked to allow a non-standard street that doesn’t meet city specifications. Can the commission approve something like that? City Attorney Smith said yes, because the way I understand it, this is a private road on private property. You have this stub they can connect to, but they are not dedicating this jog and they are not giving the right-of-way to the city. They are not giving the city any interest in it. So, I don’t see how you guys approving this is going to cause any other problems with this right-of-way that is there. They are just connecting to it from their private property. 5 City Engineer Jones said this is a perfect example of what happens when the road wasn’t constructed all the way to the property line back when the subdivision was built. And there should have been provisions made because S. Baltimore was stubbed out for a reason. And for whatever reason when the apartment complex was built, and probably the property owners in the neighborhood did not want that property connected, now we are left with this half street that is causing this problem. If the road had been built all the way to the property line we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. And I certainly understand why the developer doesn’t want to bear the expense to extend that street 70 feet to the property line. An option would be to build a good rock base underneath and then put a little topsoil and sod on top of it. If that portion is grass it should discourage people from parking on it. Commissioner Yarbrough asked Fire Marshall Setian if he was concerned with the parking. Fire Marshal Setian said if you have a substantial gate that is marked and says, “Fire Lane” etc., people most likely won’t park in front of it. I just want to stay away from the privacy gate that makes it look like an extension of a privacy fence. Engineer Jones said we were just talking about doing some kind of extension of the street using -- I don’t like to use the word ‘grass pavers’ because that is not what I was recommending. The grass pavers that I am familiar with are kind of a concrete structure that allows grass to grow up through them. I don’t think that would necessarily be required in this situation. I think if we built the section that the applicant is proposing but just covered it with enough topsoil to get grass on it that might be adequate. The reason I’m suggesting this is I think the adjoining property owners would continue to mow it and maintain it. If this thing were built in such a way and restored in such a way that it looked like part of their yard which they have been treating as their yard. It would serve as the fire department’s emergency access. We might need some additional signage, but both the fire marshal and I are comfortable that we can work out an arrangement that we can agree to with the applicant. You could consider making a motion that is contingent on the fire marshal and me having final approval of the site plan when the actual construction documents are submitted for our review. Planner Walden said that a motion should be contingent on: 1) resolving the issue regarding the fire apparatus lane to the satisfaction of the city engineer and fire marshal, 2) resolve all issues with the FAA review which is ongoing, 3) provide a note that the developer will maintain the fire apparatus access lane, and 4) provide a one-lot subdivision plat prior to pulling building permits. Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to approve contingent upon the following: 1) Resolve all design issues for the secondary fire apparatus access lane with the city engineer and fire marshal prior to pulling the building permit; 2) Resolve all issues with the FAA OE/AAA review; 3) Provide a note on the site plan to indicate that the developer shall be responsible for maintenance of the fire apparatus access lane; 4) Provide a one-lot subdivision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and passed unanimously. 6 The Fourth Order of Business was a request to vacate a portion of a 60-foot ROW of West 22nd Street, running between Lot 1 and Lots 6 and 7, Block H, of Eagle Crest Subdivision and part of Pine Crest Hill Addition, City of Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. Submitted by Kevin Smoke. (ST.17.03.82) Planner Walden said this request will vacate a portion of West 22nd Street to the property owners along an undeveloped portion of West 22nd Street approximately in the 400 Block of West Commerce Avenue. The action is being undertaken to facilitate a minor plat of Mr. Smoke’s property into two lots. This is being done to consolidate properties that are on the north side of the right-of-way with properties that are on the south side of the right-of-way. This portion of 22nd Street does not have utilities in it. The City would not have a purpose for constructing a street in this location. Construction of a street in this location would probably be extremely difficult due to the terrain and would make it too expensive. It does leave a small remainder of the portion of that 22nd Street right-of-way just to the west which can be absorbed into the park located just to the west. Based on the fact that it would not be used as a street in the future, the city does not need it, sufficient terrain issues, and this would enable the property owner that is on both sides of the right- of-way to consolidate the property, the recommendation is approval. City Engineer Jones said he had no issue with vacating this right-of-way. Kevin Smoke, the applicant, said he had no comments. Commissioner Miller made the motion to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yarbrough and passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business was a public hearing requesting amending the Russellville Zoning Code in regard to:  Article XII. Area Requirements  Article XIII. Table of Permitted Uses  Article II.8. Central Business District C-1 (MS.17.03.83) Planner Walden said this pertains to some changes within the C-1 (Central Business District) and also some changes dealing with storage/container sale or rental locations. One of the concerns about the C-1 District that has been raised over time is within the downtown C-1 District that there is no maximum setback. Under our current regulations an individual would not have to build a structure up to the street. The reason why you would want to do that is to create a more walkable environment built on the tremendous success that downtown Russellville has already experienced. The things that are happening in Russellville right now are very exciting so we need to do as much as possible to protect and insure that success as new development occurs in downtown. What this requirement adds is in the C-1 zone it makes a zero-foot maximum setback for downtown structures with the ability of the Planning Commission to deviate from that without a need for a variance up to ten feet with a development plan/site plan. The other change is with the Table of Permitted Uses adding the use Storage Building/Container Sale or Rental which would be a Special Permit use in C-2 and M-1, and a Permitted use in an M-2 7 zone. This is intended to deal with places that sell like Dirksen buildings or Morgan buildings that basically display all of their stock right out by the street. This change would give the City the ability to make a business owner go through the special permit process to either put some of their stock behind a fence or install some type of screening, or consider utilizing some other creative method of improving the overall appearance of the site. This revision would help with the aesthetics and provide a little bit more control over where those types of businesses are located. Also, next month you will have a city-initiated rezoning request that was addressed at last month’s meeting pertaining to the property in the area of the Flying-J Truck Stop. A lot of that property is currently zoned R-1. If you look at the zoning map, the Flying-J Truck Stop is zoned R-1. This request is intended to address some of those issues and update the zoning in that area. Chairman Boyd opened the floor for public comments. None were provided. Commissioner Whiteside made a motion to recommend amending the Zoning Code as recommended by Planner Walden. Commissioner Barber seconded the motion and passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned. ___________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 8