Planning Commission

Russellville Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 23, 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 Steve Hubbard Frank Russenberger Council Liaison Eric Westcott Members Absent Secretary Wendell Miller Karen Yarbrough John Whiteside Also present: Mayor Randy Horton, City Attorney Trey Smith, Fire Marshall Setian, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Zayne Bryson/City Corp, Planner James Walden, Lequitta Jones Planning Assistant, Dave Garza/Barrett & Associates Inc, Bucky Croom, Tiffany Henry, Amber Robinson, Brad Longberger, and Jeremy D. Keaster. Welcome First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the September 25, 2017 minutes. Commissioner Stratton made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hatley. The Second Order of Business was a public hearing requesting review and a recommendation of approval to rezone property presently R-1 (Single-family Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) for property located at 507 East 11th Street. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Jeremy Keaster. (ZO.17.10.209) Planner Walden said the current use of the property is single-family residential. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for single-family residential (4-8) units per acre. The request is to rezone the property located at 507 East 11th Street from its current R-1 to R-2. The rezoning specifically requested to allow potential splitting of the lot (Parcels A and B). The potential lot split will be dependent upon approval of a special exception to the lot size requirements for both of those- neither one would meet the lot requirements if it is, indeed, divided into two lots. However, they would meet the requirement for a Special Exception, which would require the Board of Adjustment’s approval. That basically says the exception wouldn’t harm the public welfare. The intention is for single-family use on both of those lots. Lot B is an existing single-family residence and they would place another single-family residence on Lot A. Staff comments: The majority of the zoning to the south is R-2. If the two lots are created by the potential lot split each lot would be restricted to single-family use. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family use of the site. The suggested density is between 4 and 8 units per acre, which this rezoning would be in keeping with that. Additionally, it would all small-lot infill development, which is directly supported by the plan’s goals and policies. The staff’s recommendation for action is approval as R-2S instead of R-2 based on the fact that R- 2S is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would also ensure that a single-family dwelling, not a duplex, could be constructed on the property. R-2S zoning would continue use consistent with the existing fabric of the neighborhood. The process would be that the property would get rezoned, then the applicant would file for a lot split. That lot split would require a Special Exception which would go to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) for approval. Chairman Boyd opened the public hearing. No comments were provided. Commissioner Stratton asked if it could be left R-1 and then taken to the BOA. Planner Walden said no, because of the lot size requirement. R-1 zoning has a much larger lot size requirement. So, rezoning to R-2S reduces the lot size requirement and then the 10% flexibility that the BOA has for a Special Exceptions would allow the creation of two lots. Dave Garza, of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Jeremy Keaster, said the applicant is okay with the R-2S zoning. He is only going to build a single-family dwelling. That is the only thing that would fit in there anyway even with the BOA allowing a 10% reduction in the lot size. The existing house would only need a 4% reduction as we will meet the current R-2 setback on the side. The remaining lot would need a 10% reduction. The chairman asked the city staff if any letters or phone calls had been received regarding this rezoning request. None were received. Commissioner Barber made the motion to approve the R-2S zoning as recommended. Commissioner Hubbard seconded the motion and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business was a request to approve the Final Plat for Shiloh Manor Phase VI-A north of Shiloh Road. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Bucky Croom. (SD.17.10.326) Planner Walden said the staff recommendation would be approval with contingencies: that the city engineer signs off on any bonding requirements, any improvements and final inspection by the city engineer for any improvements. 2 Bucky Croom said this is a continuation of the Shiloh Manor Subdivision that has been going on for about 10 years. We have completed curb and gutter; everything is complete on this phase except for the hard surface that we will be pouring in January or February 2018. We will be presenting a bond to the city engineer to cover the asphalt paving. Commission Stratton questioned that no sidewalks were shown. Mr. Croom said this subdivision was approved prior to the sidewalks being required. Commissioner Russenberger asked if Lots 206 and 207 were considered buildable lots. Mr. Garza said, “yes.” Lot 206 is a detention pond, so that won’t be built on at all. Lot 207 extends across the easement and there are several sites up there. The water and sewer are stubbed out for those lots. Commissioner Russenberger made the motion to approve the Final Plat with the contingencies that the city engineer signs off on any bonding requirements, any improvements, and final inspection by the city engineer for any improvements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hubbard and passed unanimously. The Fourth Order of Business was a public hearing requesting approval to amend the Russellville Zoning Code in regard to El Paso/University Zoning District. City Planner Walden explained the El Paso/University Zoning Map: College Hill Zone, Prairie Creek Zone, Downtown Crossing Zone, Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Recommended Street Extensions and the code language that goes along with it. Chairman Boyd thanked Mr. Brad Lonberger from Gateway Planning for his efforts incorporating comments from the working group meeting held several weeks earlier where members of the Planning Commission, city engineer and city planner reviewed the document. The chairman then asked Mr. Lonberger how the Salter Properties mixed-use development, that the commission approved as a Planned Unit Development a few months ago, would fare under these new regulations. Mr. Lonberger said that type of development was exactly in line with the proposed new zoning district. The chairman opened the public hearing. No comments were provided. Commissioner Russenberger referred to Page 14, Item 5. He asked for an explanation of the last sentence. Mr. Brad Lonberger from Gateway Planning said that was focusing on making sure the retail establishments have clear windows. It is more of an intent statement more than anything. There is nothing measurable we can really propose except that we want to be able to see what is going on inside the retail establishment. We do not want blacked out windows. Commissioner Russenberger noted that on Page 21, Item 14, the text says 12 inches, but 12 feet within the parentheses. Mr. Lonberger said he would correct the parenthetical distance to 12 inches. The chairman recognized Dr. Bowen, president of Arkansas Tech University, was in attendance and asked if she had any comments. She said she was really excited with the proposed zoning changes and the future potential for improvements along the El Paso Corridor. She appreciated the collaboration between the city and the university. 3 Commissioner Stratton made the motion to approve. Commissioner Hatley seconded the motion and passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business was a public hearing requesting approval for the Downtown Master Plan Updates. City Planner Walden said we have come to the commission and discussed this a couple of times. Essentially you have two documents here that are part of that Master Plan Update. This is the general master plan that was drafted about five years ago -- in 2012 -- by a team of which I was a part. We have reviewed the plan and performed a 5-year update looking at what recommendations make sense, what things have happened already that have been successful, and what are some new goals that we need to set or revisit. Brad Lonberger (Gateway Planning), Daniel Hintz (Velocity Group), and representatives from Arkansas Tech University have been working on sort of a cultural refinement of the El Paso Corridor in working out some of those items that we discussed five years ago to address the connection between ATU and downtown. So, this implementation strategy is part of the plan of closer refining those ideas that you have seen in the actual code that was just adopted. Chairman Boyd opened the public hearing. No comments were provided. Chairman Boyd asked why the Planning Commission was being asked to approve the Downtown Master Plan since the commission had not been involved with its development, review or approval prior to now. Planner Walden says this plan goes hand-in-hand with the zoning code. This plan lays the ground work for, in essence, what is an update to the existing plans. It just specifies that these are the new plans that we are going to be working from. It’s not a radical change; there is nothing in there that is dramatically different. There is nothing in there that says the City has to commit to this. You are looking at everything that has been done. The vision that has been cast and then taking a closer look at that and refining those things based on five years of experience. Commissioner Stratton made the motion to approve the Downtown Master Plan. Commissioner Hubbard seconded the motion and passed unanimously. The Sixth Order of Business was a request to discuss amending the Zoning Code in regard to the following: 1) parking surfaces and parking requirements, 2) amending the Special Use Permit process to eliminate the requirement for City Council review and approval, 3) alter the non- conforming provision, 4) permanent installation of a food truck court(s). Added 5): AIRBNB/Short-term Rentals Planner Walden recommended that the commission consider the following changes to the Zoning Code: 1) Off-street Parking A. More specifically allowable uses of gravel when not publically accessible or needed for large equipment (self-storage, dealers, storage yards) B. Allow use of porous paving materials, LID 4  C. Reduce number of parking spaces required for certain uses (commercial, retail) D. Create parking space requirements for more types of uses based on meaningful differences in use E. Allow for PC reduction of parking space requirements (up to 50% without a variance) F. Allow for greater use of shared parking agreements G. Address issues of maintenance of the parking lot H. Incorporate ADA requirements I. Enhance screening requirements City Engineer Jones said he agreed with all of these. Commissioner Russenberger noted that even gravel parking areas need some standard for maintenance on them. Alderman Westcott asked for examples of some businesses that have too much parking available. Planner Walden said big box stores in particular. He said with a revision to the zoning code, three or four businesses could be built in the area that is currently just an empty parking lot. He also noted that there should be some differentiation between a structure that is less than 10,000 square feet vs. a structure that is over 10,000 square feet. The parking requirement per square foot of the building footprint should decline as the size of the structure increases. 2) Special Permit Use A. Remove the requirement for City Council approval of Special Use Permits B. Broaden allowances for appeal of Special Use Permit approvals Commissioner Westcott asked about the downside of leaving the Special Use Permit approval process as it is now. Planner Walden said it is a time factor; having to go through an additional approval step. The additional uncertainty and approval time required presents some issues for a business. It’s an effort to be a little more business friendly. Commissioner Westcott asked if he had noticed it causing a hardship up to now. Planner Walden said he hadn’t noticed a problem in Russellville, but other places where that tends to happen it ends up causing a lot of delay. This item will be referred to the City Council by Alderman Westcott for their opinion and then brought back to the Planning Commission. 3) Non-conforming Use Provisions A. Allow remodel of non-conforming structures without BOA approval as long as the remodel does not increase non-conformity. B. Allow additions to non-conforming structures without BOA approval as long as the addition does not increase non-conformity. 5 4) Food Truck Courts A. Create allowance for food trucks through a temporary business process  Adequate parking/maneuvering area  Access to power without the need to install a temporary pole  Adequate protections to ensure sewage/grey water is adequately dumped  Approval of Owner B. Create standards and allowance of Food Truck Courts as a Special Use  Bathroom facilities  Utility access for each truck  Landscaping  Dining Court  Considered permanent use Chairman Boyd pointed out that a few years ago the City Council expended a great deal of effort researching the issue of mobile food trucks, not food truck courts. He said there were meetings with stake holders and regulations were actually drafted for mobile food trucks. He said, as he recalled, that effort failed during the City Council meeting due to lack of a motion. A lot of information already exists on the issue of mobile food trucks. Before you tackle this one, it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with some of that history. 5) AIRBNB (Short-term Rentals) A. Consider creating requirements on short-term rentals within neighborhoods B. Business license C. Owner occupancy D. Occupancy limitation E. Event use limitation F. Rental time limitation Planner Walden said if a rental is occupied on more than a one to two-week period it should be considered a long-term rental. A short-term rental means that it is a short-term occupation, one to two weeks or 1 to 7 days. Everything else single-family would fit under the definition of what a family is, which means so many related people or so many unrelated people that are occupying a single premise as a housekeeping unit. We want to have flexibility but prevent an individual from buying ten houses and converting them into hotels. The commissioners were in agreement that these were items that would improve the Zoning Code. Mr. Walden said he would research best practices and prepare a draft for the commission to review in November. 6 Meeting adjourned. ___________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 7