Planning Commission

Russellville Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Nathan Barber Vice-Chair Peggy Stratton Karen Yarbrough Secretary Wendell Miller John Whiteside Council Liaison Eric Westcott Members Absent Shirley Hatley Frank Russenberger Vacant position Also present: Mayor Randy Horton, City Planner James Walden, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, Dave Garza/Barrett & Associate, Brent Salter, Bob Weibler, Larry Colburn, Larry Colburn, Bill Peters and Alderman Phil Sims. Welcome Note: Chairman Boyd announced that Mike Wilkins resigned from the Planning Commission. The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the April 24, 2017, minutes. Commissioner Miller made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Barber and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was Tabled from the April 24, 2017 meeting. A public hearing to discuss a city-initiated rezoning in the Bradley Cove Road area, currently R-1 (Single-family Residential) to C-2 (Highway Commercial). (ZO.17.04.205) Planner Walden said when the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning application for the tank wash in the area of the Flying-J Truck Stop a few months ago we realized the surrounding area was all zoned R-1 which we identified as a potential problem for those individual property owners. We decided to correct the problem by rezoning those properties consistent with the surrounding area which is predominantly commercial use under C-2 zoning. Also, an additional parcel of property located just to the south of the location of Hob Nob Road that is currently zoned R-1 was requested to be included in this rezoning request (rezoned to C-2 as well). In exchange for the City purchasing some of the property for a lift station, the applicant asked that the City include this additional property in the rezoning request initiated by the City. Because this information emerged late in the process, it was tabled and the Public Hearing was continued to the May meeting in an effort to maintain as much transparency as possible. The chairman opened the floor for public comment. No comments were provided. Commissioner Stratton made the motion to approve the C-2 zoning. Commissioner Yarbrough seconded the motion and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business was a request to vacate a 50-foot right-of-way of East “M” Street running approximately 246’ between Parker Road and Jackson Avenue. Submitted by Larry Colburn on behalf of Vanya Colburn, Rhonda Kendall, and Patricia Collins. (ST.17.05.83) Planner Walden said this request is to vacate a public right-of-way (ROW) to the property owners along an undeveloped portion of East “M” Street between Parker Road and Jackson Avenue in the north central portion of the city. The applicants have requested the action for the following reasons: 1. To erect a proper fence so that we can have full use of our driveway and access to park behind said fence. 2. To restrict access to the drainage ditches for those who would litter the ditch with excessive trash and tires, etc. 3. To keep unsupervised children from playing in said drainage ditch. 4. The applicant states they have witnessed drug activity in this ROW by young people. The Staff Comments: 1. The ROW contains an existing drainage ditch and has limited utility for use as a roadway in the future. There is no reason to maintain that for transportation sake. 2. If abandoned, a drainage easement for the benefit of the City would likely be needed. 3. There are no known utilities in the ROW. The Recommendation for Action is approval subject to a drainage utility easement for maintenance of the existing stream/ditch. Larry Colburn, 1302 Parker Road, on behalf of his neighbors said there is a Memorandum of Agreement already in place to allow me to have my fence over on the ROW portion. The easement runs right through the middle of my driveway. The agreement is in place and I want to go ahead and move forward with this action so my neighbors would also benefit from vacating this ROW. There is a drainage ditch that runs there and it would be very costly for the City to put a street there for very little benefit. Some of the neighbors are encroaching on that easement as it is, so they could use the additional footage. City Engineer Jones said he had no issue vacating it as long as it’s vacated to a utility-drainage easement that we would have access to for maintaining the ditch and placing utilities in the future that we may need to put through there. Jim Lynch of City Corp said he had no problem with the vacation with the stated stipulation by the City Engineer. 2 Commissioner Yarbrough made the motion to approve with the utility-drainage easement stipulation stated by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and passed unanimously. The Fourth Order of Business was a public hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval to rezone property currently R-3 (Medium/High Density Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for property located on North El Paso Avenue. Submitted by Salter Properties, LLC (ZO.17.05.206) City Planner Walden said this application falls under the Long-Form PUD review and approval process. This PUD application is tied to Item #5 with a Preliminary Plat. So what the applicants are requesting is review and approval of the Zoning Plan portion of the process. The Zoning Plan will basically layout the zoning concept in terms of how many units, how the development will look aesthetically, access, and those types of things. Then it will be followed by submittal of the Final Development Plan, basically bearing out the zoning concept that they had developed with all the utility plans, grading plan, drainage plans, and associated engineering plans. The final plan will also include a final plat application. The location of this property is between North El Paso Avenue and Glenwood Avenue and south of Prairie Creek. The applicant is requesting rezoning from R-3 to PUD. The development is proposed to include a private mixed-use retail/restaurant/office and multi-family student housing development with 263 units and five commercial rental spaces with 18 buildings and 456 covered and open parking spaces. It is going to be a combination of covered spaces, part of which will be underneath the podium building, full garages and open parking. The development site is contained on 14.12 acres. The overall density of the development is calculated to be 22.4 dwelling units per acre. That is not the raw density. That is calculated as we calculate a PUD. The maximum for a multi-family development that has three stories or more inside, based upon the PUD Standard, is 24. So, it is near the maximum threshold. Each of the 20 items listed in the Comments section of the Staff Report has been addressed. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan: The proposed Zoning Plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for open space in this location. The Downtown Master Plan has been adopted since the Comprehensive Plan and controls in this area. The proposed use of the site is inconsistent with the Downtown Master Plan which calls for recreational use at the site. However, the site has not been considered for purchase by the City for recreational uses. As such, other compatible use should be considered. The applicant’s proposal is consistent with the planning principles for the Downtown Plan. Based on this information the Zoning Plan is considered consistent with the goals and policies of the Downtown Master Plan. Additionally, considering the work that Arkansas Tech has done in studying that corridor recently, this development is very very much in line with the study that they put forward. However, I can’t say that it’s consistent with any municipally adopted plan because that is a plan that is reflected by Arkansas Tech. It is consistent with the goals of the Downtown Master Plan, but it has not been adopted by the City so I don’t consider that in terms of consistency of the development. The 3 Zoning Plan would be considered consistent with the goals and policies of the Downtown Master Plan. The Recommendation for Action is approval with conditions. To approve a PUD, the Planning Commission must find the following: A) There must be public benefit created by the development that is not otherwise attainable through the current zoning. NOTE - The applicant’s assessment of compliance with each criterion is provided in italics. Considering the investment that the City has made in N. El Paso and the goal of making this corridor walkable, we feel there will be public benefit created as we redevelop this old lumber yard. Our intent is to facilitate that end by placing retail space on the City sidewalk to create a more “downtown” feel. This is not achievable through normal zoning regulations. The mix of commercial and residential uses we propose are not currently justified by any existing zoning classification. The staff concurs with this justification. The development will provide public benefit by mixing uses to create a walkable environment that would not be achievable through the current R-3 zoning. B) Adequate public utilities are already in place. Being that this property is located in the heart of the City; public utilities are already in place to service the property. The staff concurs. The developer has coordinated with Russellville City Corp on preliminary utility plans. C) Land use compatibility with surrounding developments. Again we would reference the new infrastructure that the City put in place and the long term goal of connecting downtown to the university. Surrounding this property is underutilized land, but there is a small coffee shop across the street. The atmosphere that was created by “pop-up El Paso” is what we are trying to achieve but as a permanent environment. The staff finds that the proposed uses on the site will be compatible to adjacent uses and present no significant harm. The development should encourage additional investment and redevelopment along the corridor to meet the City’s aims in connecting ATU to downtown. D) Be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan or other Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan shows this particular property as park land, but the proposed uses are compatible with that of the El Paso corridor. As a component of the 4  development, however, we would like to work with the City to utilize some of the portions of this property for parks and bike trails. The staff finds the development is compatible with the planning principles contained in the Downtown Master Plan. E) Not endanger the public health, welfare, or safety. There will be no endangerment to public health, welfare or safety. Conversely, we believe this site being rezoned will allow the property to actually benefit the health, welfare, and sense of place for the City. The staff concurs. The development will benefit the public health, safety, and welfare. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL To Be Provided With Final Plan/Final Development Plan: 1) Provide a trail easement in or near Prairie Creek on the Final Plat, subject to a determination of feasibility through clearance by the City Engineer with the Corps of Engineers. 2) The Cross Access Agreement be finalized and executed prior to approval of the Final Development Plan. This development is going to be on two lots. Since it is on two lots normally with a PUD of this type we would require a Bill of Assurance. What the applicant has provided is a Cross Access Agreement. Basically, what that agreement says is that the allotted parking for both Lots 1 and 2 will be shared between both parcels of property; however, the requirement of maintenance for the parking located on Lot 2 will be required maintenance for the owners of Lot 2. Conversely, the requirement for maintenance for the parking area located on Lot 1 will be required of the owner of whatever is built on Lot 1. The reason we do this is so that it is crystal clear who is required to maintain it over time. 3) Fees-in-lieu for half-street improvements to be provided with approval of the Final Development Plan. The city is actively in negotiation with that. 4) Provide final architectural elevations with the Final Development Plan, which are consistent with those provided in the application with the exception that all first floor commercial/retail spaces contain a minimum of 50% glazing which shall not be reflective or tinted more than 30%. The existing structure with retail space facing El Paso Avenue shall have its façade updated in a manner compatible with the remaining development. To Be Provided Prior To Council Approval Of The Zoning Plan: 1) Provide pedestrian access to the street from all building facing El Paso Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. 2) Sidewalks adjacent to all areas with first floor commercial/retail spaces shall be at least 8’ wide. 5 3) Remove the three parking spaces immediately south of the Podium Building’s N El Paso street frontage and replace with landscaping. I spoke to the applicant since this condition was listed on the staff report. What they would be willing to do in lieu of that is actually screen those three parking spaces. Brent Salter with Salter Properties said we started looking at this site long before we actually engaged the city here. The asset is the university and the good things that are happening here in downtown Russellville, the street improvements, making the street walkable and bikeable. It is a wonderful opportunity not only for the university, but downtown Russellville as a whole. This is a mixed-use development that we really wanted to try and make feel like a natural extension of what is already here. It is not a typical gated community. There will be portions of the property that will be accessible by the public and inviting the public to come and use the spaces that are created in this development. The buildings themselves will all be different. We are creating spaces and developments that are walkable. There will be storefronts that will be on N El Paso that you will be able to lease out for retail uses as we are extending the concept along “E” Street. There will be some retail there and green space throughout. We think that the portion of property along Prairie Creek sets up nicely for a bike path or walking path. We are trying to incorporate some of those older themes into this property. There are three structures that are on the property today that will stay: 1) the old armory building which will be converted into retail, 2) the pavilion (big domed tin- roof building). We will be taking the skin off of that and repurposing it as a community area to function as a covered area for the pool, and 3) an old kiln that is on the site. We have incorporated that into the plan to try and turn it into residential units. We think this fits in with the overall master plan for the corridor and Pop-up El Paso is always referenced. I think this is a wonderful site and can really help tie downtown and the good things that are going on here with the university. The chairman opened the floor for public comment. Bill Peters, owner of Peter’s Family Living downtown and a metal warehouse building on N El Paso, stated that this project goes all the way around our warehouse. I was concerned about how that might affect the use of our warehouse. Mr. Salter came and visited with me and he assured me that this warehouse will not interfere with what they are doing. Mr. Peters said he thinks it is a great development. He further stated he thought the commission should accept this. I just wanted to mention that I wanted to keep that warehouse and that the City has allowed us to park 18- wheelers in the street for short periods of time to unload them. Mr. Salter said he didn’t think it would cause a problem with his development. Fire Marshall Setian said we have reviewed the pre-design just on infrastructure, just on water. I feel very confident and we can talk about access. Right now everything is working out. City Engineer Jones said the city council passed a resolution last week addressing the half-street improvements issue. That is moving toward being resolved. Commissioner Stratton made the motion to approve the PUD rezoning with the findings of fact that the staff has supported and the conditions of approval that are indicated in the staff report with 6 the modification of condition #3 (screening to also include the north parking lot adjacent to N El Paso). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business was a request to approve the Salter Addition Preliminary Plat located on North El Paso. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Salter Properties, LLC. (SD.17.05.318) Planner Walden said he did not prepare a staff report for this one because it was attached to the previous application. The primary purpose of the Preliminary Plat is that the developer wants this to be in two lots. That is the reason that we had the Cross Access Easement. Also, that is one reason why there is a plat. Additionally, the plat addresses the issue of dedicating the proper right- of-way for all of the adjacent streets along this. Everything is in order with that. Engineer Jones said he was satisfied with the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Miller made the motion to approve the Preliminary Plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yarbrough and passed unanimously. The Sixth Order of Business was public hearing requesting amending the Russellville Zoning Code Article XIII Table of Permitted Uses in regard to Drugstore or Pharmacy/Medical Marijuana Dispensary. Planner Walden said this item arose out of some concern that was raised about medical marijuana dispensaries that may result from the last statewide election. The question is whether the city wants to consider requiring a Special Use Permit for locating a medical marijuana dispensary. The way the State Constitutional Amendment was set up basically says that reasonable restrictions can be placed on medical marijuana dispensaries as long as the restrictions are similar to those placed on pharmacies. So, that is why it’s paired with pharmacies. A pharmacy and medical marijuana dispensary would both be a special permit use. So, this action is not intended to prevent the placement of medical marijuana dispensaries; the intent is to make sure there is a level of review that happens before one is placed. I think there was a concern raised that this action would prevent any medical marijuana dispensary from being sited based upon the application timeline at the State level. In response to a question from the chairman, City Attorney Smith said he didn’t see a problem with what was being proposed. Chairman Boyd asked if there were any known conflicts with the statewide ballot issue (that legalized medical marijuana) if we take this action. Planner Walden said he didn’t think so unless there is something pertaining to the permit policy. City Attorney Smith said the Constitutional Amendment that was passed said you have to treat zoning for medical marijuana dispensaries the same as zoning for pharmacies. So as long as you treat them the same in regard to zoning there is not a conflict. 7 Commissioner Miller wanted to know why the commission was even voting on this. He asked if something had been brought up. Planner Walden said we have not received any applications, but if an application were filed today it would just be treated as a drug store. Dave Garza said he did have a visit with an individual, not in Pope County but in Yell County in Dardanelle. Since we have the maps they wanted to pinpoint locations in Dardanelle. Apparently the stipulation for siting a medical marijuana dispensary is that you have to be 1,500 feet away from any church, school, or daycare and the easy way to do that is to do a radius on a map from the location they wanted. So, just to let you know, it has already happened in Dardanelle. We looked at three locations and they couldn’t get it in any of the three due to the 1,500 foot restriction. Planner Walden said if you do forward this as a recommendation to utilize the special permit process for a dispensary, I recommend being very judicious in imposing conditions on a proposed medical marijuana dispensary. One example of a condition that could be considered would be if an applicant requested a medical marijuana dispensary to be sited nearby a rehab center or something like that. In a situation like that there could be some level of conflict. There needs to be considerations for such a scenario while exercising caution not to be overly punitive in terms of the conditions that are imposed. We need to be very judicious in how these applications are reviewed. Commissioner Stratton made the motion to recommend the necessary changes to the zoning code. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Barber and passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned. ___________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 8