Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the uh May uh planning commission meeting to order. Um we're going to start with our normal housekeeping items. Mr. Jackammore, if you would can you take the role for user here. We have a quorum. Thank you, sir. All right. We also have the minutes from uh last the last month's meeting. Um I'll entertain a motion to accept those. Okay, we have a motion. Second. All those in favor acknowledge by saying I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carried. All right, we have no uh old business, but uh let's move on to item number one here is the special use permit to install an off- premise sign on 108 Marina Road submitted by EMTT Barnes. Sarah, take it away. Yes, absolutely. So this is like you said a special use permit u to replace a billboard over there Marina and West

Main. The existing conditions that this is located at that intersection. It is adjacent to a small duplex development. The area includes a mixture of single family homes along Marina Drive and then undeveloped commercial parcels on the east side of Main Street. It is zoned R2 medium density residential and it's situated in an area characterized as mixed zoning classifications. You've got R1 to the west, you've got C4 to the east and the northeast and then you have uh or northwest and then C2 to the northeast. And again, this is an R2 property. So, you've definitely got a mixture of zoning in that area. It does uh lie just south of Union Pacific Railroad along the commercial corridor on Main Street. And then as you turn onto Marina Road, this serves as a primary gateway into really a predominantly single family residential uh area of town. So, as we were going through the review comments, the applicant is proposing to replace um the existing billboard with an off- premise sign which is in conformance with the regulations in approximately the same location as the current billboard. Um upon approval, the applicant will need to obtain approval from ARDOT and obtain the signed permit prior to commencing with construction. uh because they are in compliance with city regulations, they should be able to obtain that AROT permit. Uh an off- premise non-digital sign, which this is proposed to be non-digital, those are permitted by a special use permit. And we are classifying this as a double post pole sign even though there's at the bottom of that image you'll see that

there's kind of a monument where it's going to say iHeart Russellville which we've we're all familiar with that um design but then they have those two poles separating the base from where their sign is. And that's why that led us to classify this as a double post pole sign. and it's erected and maintained on a freestanding frame and it's not attached to any building structure or the ground. Uh it does meet the sign dimensions which is 150 square feet which is the maximum allowed within um for an off-remise sign. Uh the proposed height is only 17.3 feet which is within that allowable 35 foot limit. Technically, they could have two signs on the property because it is a dual frontage road. They are only proposing one sign. Um, if they wanted to propose a second sign, it would have to be at least 250 ft from this sign. Um, and then just com any illumination. And so we were pointing out that if any illumination is proposed, it shall comply with night sky requirements not exceed 150 watts or 2700 lumens. Uh no exposed lamps or tubes uh shall be permitted and any externally e external illumination should only illuminate the sign and not have any spill over um so it doesn't impact the neighborhoods in the area. Uh it is the recommendation for you all to approve this application with the following conditions. To apply for and obtain that A tag permit from ARDOT and obtain a signed permit from the city upon approval by ARDOT. Um as a result of the findings that the requirement is for an off-remise

non-digital sign, the requirements have been met. Uh the applicant has committed to complying with ARDOT requirements and the location is appropriate given the historic use of the site. Are there any questions? Thank you, Sarah. Mitch, you got anything you want to add to any of that? All right. Okay, commissioners, what's your pleasure? Okay, we have a motion to approve. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor acknowledged by saying I. Any opposed hearing? Hearing none. The motion carried. Okay. All right. Second item. Yep. Getting that in it. Replat of parts of lots five and six. Block 111 of the JL Shen edition located at 301 East H Street. Submitted by Juan Garcia on behalf of BlockbyBlock Acquisitions LLC. Victoria, you got a staff report on that for us? I do. Um, so as stated, this is a replat at 301 East H Street. Existing conditions, this is located in the Parker neighborhood. The current property contains a single family home. This property is being subdivided and replatted to create one lot for the existing single family home and a second vacant lot. The property is surrounded by single family homes and Valley Christian School to the southwest. This property is zoned R3 medium high density residential and surrounding properties are zoned R3 and R2. in our review. Um, typically these kind of applications are um for replatlots of

existing lots um would be approved at the staff level. However, staff does not have the authority to accept dedications of ride ofway. Um, and that's kind of highlighted on that picture there with the yellow box. Uh, the current plat shows the property ownership uh extending about 8 feet uh into the East H place rideway. The applicant is proposing to dedicate this approximately eight feet give or take of rideway in order to dedicate their portion of the ride ofway. They are dedicating adequate rideway along the northern portion um or along the northern property line in an acceptable alignment for East H place. Um and the GIS department did review the legal description and the legal description closes and the plat is acceptable. Um, and then as required by the land subdivision and development code, they have complied with all the requirements for information to be included on the plat as outlined by section 5.3.11. So, pretty quick and easy. Staff does recommend forwarding this recommendation to the city council for approval of the final plat acceptance of the public rightway as a result of the findings that the final plat will conform with the final plat requirements outlined in section 5.4 four of the land subdivision and development code prior to being recorded. The plat complies with the requirements of section 5.3.11 of the land subdivision and development code. And then lastly, the dedication of uh adequate rideway is in an acceptable location from the center line of the road. Are there any questions for staff? Thank you, Victoria. Dave, you have anything you want to add there? Okay, commissioners, you have any

questions? What is your pleasure? Okay, we have a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor of approving this as presented say I. Any opposed? hearing. None. The motion carried. All right. Item number three, vacation of South Greenwich right away adjacent to lots six and seven, block nine of the open heights edition submitted by Barrett and Associates on behalf of Eddie RDE. Sarah, you have a staff report. Yes, sir. Uh, as stated, this is a vacation of Rideway. It is at 8:16 South Greenwitch. Uh the existing conditions uh are that a neglected single family home had previously existed on the property. City after numerous attempts to work with the owner for rehabilitation had this demolished. So now the new owner wants to construct a triplex on the property. Property is zoned R2 medium density residential with all surrounding properties also zoned R2 medium density residential. This is primarily a mixed residential community with single family and duplex dwellings. Directly behind this property is a duplex and quadplex development. The review comments are that there are three separate items that we consider when we are considering a vacation of rightway. First are what are the public benefits? What is the impact of the proposed vacation upon the public trust functions of the ride ofway? Does the vacation impair circulation, access, utilities, open space, and or views? No. This proposal just seeks to

vacate 10 ft of an existing 80 foot rideway. In this area, we have 80 foot rideways, which are excessive. The city doesn't have any plans for this portion of the ride ofway. Um, and this lot is only this lot in order for the applicant to build a triplex is 500 square ft short of the size required to permit that triplex, which is a permitted use in an R2 zone. Um, nothing's proposed in the area. And as you'll notice with this picture, I went out and took a picture of the foundation because staff did work with the applicant who did not necessarily recognize that there was this discrepancy thought it was just a a simple review and had foundations set to be poured and so we allowed them to move forward at their own res risk. a duplic duplex could be easily constructed on this with the existing size of the property. Um, however, with nothing proposed, they did line that structure up with adjacent structures. As you can see, it is in line with that adjacent structure. So, it won't look any different from that neighborhood perspective. Um and then during their review process, we did recommend that they go through this vacation of rightway um and confirm that there were no conflicts with city projects coming up. Um so land use impacts is the second thing that we do need to consider. Um the vacation gives the owner the ability to construct that triplex as I stated instead of a direct replacement with a single family or just a duplex at this location. Um, and it is currently under construction. I already stated that it's going to be in line with the previous

like with the other properties in the area. Uh, and then the request does not include utility company letters. uh we did not receive those and so we are recommending to vacate the rightway but to retain an easement just in case a utility company has a a line in that location based on the applicant's proposal. As you can see here they're still setting that triplex what would now be 35 ft from the property line instead of 25 ft. The only thing that would be constructed within this 10- foot of vacated area is one single parking space and uh concrete or asphalt is something that is typically found over utility lines if something were to occur and had to be replaced. The applicant has indicated where the like the fiber optic lines and the gas lines and the main sewer mains are. It does appear that they're not within this area. However, without anything from the utility companies to verify that, we are recommending retention of a of an easement to cover that 10 ft. Um and then finally the public benefits received by vacating the ride ofway is that um we would then return this property to the property owner and they would have maintenance authority over this portion of the ride ofway and it wouldn't be up to the city to go in and maintain that area. Uh, and it does allow the applicant to construct a triplex instead of just a duplex or a single family on this property. With those items, it is our recommendation that you forward this to city council to approve uh for approval to vacate 10 feet of that 80 foot ride ofway along South Greenwitch adjacent to

lot six and seven um of the Oakland Heights edition with the following condition to retain the entire 10t along the frontage of lot six and seven as a public utility easement as a result of the findings that there is not an impact to the public trust. land use or effects of to the public benefit. No letters from the utility companies provided by the applicant releasing use of the area to be vacated. And this is a reduction to the right ofway, not a total vacation. Are there any questions? All right. Thank you, Sarah. Dave, you got anything you want to add? Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Turn your microphone. Uh to answer your question, if it's normal, typically they we would not release building permits um if there were any conflicts. We do in times allow people to move forward with the project at their own risk. And since we didn't see any conflicts with them moving forward because their building line for the structure is with is at the same place as if they didn't vacate that right of way and so they're not building further out into the right of way. So we did not see any conflicts with that and that's why we let them move forward at their own risk. Thank you. Yes ma'am. All

right, commissioners. Let's get to work. Okay. All right. We have a motion. Oh, we have a second. And all those in favor acknowledgement by saying I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carried. Okay. Item number four, zone text amendment to adopt proposed changes to the Russell zoning code submitted by city of Russellville. Sarah John Doll, take it away. Absolutely. So, you know, every quarter we um have a long range planning committee that meets. We discuss potential um proposals, updates to the zoning code or the land subdivision development code. Um and we review if there's anything that we need to adjust. On April 15th, the long range planning committee met um to discuss proposed changes and then these following items are being forwarded to you all for consideration. Um an update to article 2.3.1 which updates to an allow to allow an ADU as permitted by the ADU allowance in article 3.1. You all heard this last time with our proposed updates. However, the state law uh was making adjustments and so we pulled this portion of the existing of the previous recommendations so that we could make it align with the state law that was that has now been enacted and I'll go into that in just a minute on what those changes were. Article 3.18.2 2 classification and an article 12 definition was omitted with the 2022 zoning code updates and it's just being added back to the regulations. Um and then article 3.1 accessory dwelling units. So this is what I was just re referencing with the

article uh 2.3.1 changes. You all previously heard this. You know that art accessory dwelling units can support multi-generational housing, affordable housing opportunities, efficient land use, provide for lower construction costs, and that since we had pulled this because the state was making changes, we updated this proposal um to align with the state requirements that ADUs be outright permitted in every zone and be no more than 75% of the heated and cooled square foot of the primary structure or a th00and square feet, whichever is less. Um, and so those were the things that were adopted um as act 313 um by the state. And so we made sure our ADU regulations aligned with that which is now state law. And then finally, we have one update to the land subdivision and development code. This is article 12, water and wastewater extensions outside city limits. This update provides clear guidance on the conditions for connecting to city water and our sewer services outside the city limits and aligns with recent considerations in the state legislature. In the past, uh, staff have re recommended tying service connections to annexation, which benefits property owners through reduced home insurance rates due to the city's fire department's excellent rating despite limited assurance of adequate fire protection facilities. This policy helps address that gap by requiring those seeking city services to build according to city standards and to voluntarily annex once eligibility criteria are met. This is in line with what the was being discussed and considered at the state legislature this year. Um and so we went

ahead and are moving this forward to help provide guidance to staff um and the city as we move forward with those. So, as a result, we do recommend that you forward this to city council with a recommendation of approval to update the Russellville zoning code articles 2.3.1, 3.1.4 through 3.1.7, 3.18.2, and article 12, and to update the land subdivision and development code, articles 12.1.3, and 12.1.4 four. As a result of the findings that the long range planning committee recommends these additions and updates, the proposed updates align with the state legislation for accessory dwelling units. The updates provide clear guidance to staff and changes are consistent with the objectives outlined in reimagine Russellville 2040 comprehensive plan, the Russellville zoning code, and the land subdivision and development code. Do you all have any questions for me? Could you repeat all that again, sir? You absolutely could. However, I'm kidding. No, that's uh All right. We need to take action on that or just that just in Okay. All right. Let's entertain a motion to accept these changes, guys, gals. While they're deliberating on that, I'm going to I am going to point out that and I'm going to say this for the record or whatever, but um Sarah, you've done a bangup job. I don't know how in the world you um can keep all this straight. I mean that's that's a lot that's a lot of moving parts, a lot of things that

have to interlock that have to work together and and change is not easy but you have you make it a lot simpler for us anyway and I appreciate that. Appreciate you. Thank you. Yes, sir. How do we address? How do we address that? I do think uh we potentially need to go through a variance, but we can always look at that if we get a lot of requests for variances with this um I don't know that we will get a lot of variance requests. However, you know, with everything with the zoning code, we definitely always look at it. We're having these quarterly meetings to make

sure that we're addressing if we have a lot of variance requests on that, we would be coming back with an update to that. As far as parking within the local streets, uh parking on the street is permitted within the city. And so if they're parking illegally or if it's causing an issue, we'll have to look at parking requirements in that area. Maybe if the street is too narrow, we say parking is restricted to one side of the street. If it becomes an issue, but that's kind of more on a case-byase basis. I know. Yes. Uh typically anyone who is trying to develop if they come to our office we try to walk through what the requirements are, kind of explain the process, try to help guide people as best we can. That's what we do a lot of the time, answering questions and guiding in our office anyway. Um, and we'll absolutely be working through this and if we need to make adjustments, we can always come back and make adjustments.

access. But if it's something that you're considering here and now, it um I don't know that staff would be opposed to just striking 4A and just not requiring them to share that same access and leaving it up to what the developer is. I mean, if they have space on their property and they don't have to share that, I don't know that we would be opposed to that. We were just trying to uh put it in line with to make it more palatable to other um to people within the community. But now that the state has said that they are outright permitted in every zone, it might be something that we would maybe should consider. somebody's home. So, I think you're going to get more resistance law, you're going to get more resistance and more people coming in with concern. I think the reason we didn't want to do that, we didn't want to have two separate driveways is because there is a traffic problem, that problem's going to uh be on the the driveway that the owner also owns. So, they're more apt to take

care of that problem as separate. If you would, Dave, if you could Sorry, Dave Garza. So, if we have separate driveways and then there becomes a problem, the owner is not really that concerned because it's not affecting them. But if they're together and there's there is a problem, that owner is going to take care of it because it affects him or her personally. And so that's why we wanted to keep it together. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. And I think that's where the board of adjustments would come in because then we'd be looking traffic patterns, traffic density, uh, site vision, and all of that together to make sure that it's compatible. All right, commissioners, what's your pleasure? Okay, we have a motion to approve. Do I hear a second? We have a second. All those in favor acknowledged by saying I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carried. Uh we have a couple of announcements here to be made by Miss Sarah. Yes. Um looking forward at the schedule. July 3rd is the July scheduled till July planning commission meeting. That is July 3rd prior to July 4th. It is also during the dead weeks for Russellville School District. So, we are preemptively cancelling the July planning commission meeting. If we get requests for applications and we have to

move forward, we may consider doing a special called meeting at a later time, but we felt we're always trying um to get quorum at that meeting anyway. And this would just be a preventative measure to avoid that um possibility. So July 3rd is cancelled. Uh schedule your vacations as ne as needed. Um and then I did just want to make an announcement that tomorrow is well today we kicked off national preservation month and we are kicking off national preservation month in a fun way with our historic district commission's ice cream social. That's tomorrow at from 12:30 to 2 down at the Russellville depot. We'd love to have you come down. stop by, get some ice cream. The judge is going to do a proclamation um officially kicking off preservation month and then look for different tours throughout the month for what we are doing to celebrate preservation. But did want to invite you all and let you know that that is happening at the depot tomorrow at 12:30. Thank you. We don't have any other business. We are adjourned.