Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2013 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Kippenberger, Gunter Hansen, Sue Wright, Doug Chambers, Kelly Farber, Keith Volz, Pat Baer, Jack Hezlep, Tasha Brackeen, Choose an item., Choose an item. MEMBERS ABSENT: Shawn Riley CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner, Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes of Thursday, January 03, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting MOTION: Gunter Hansen SECOND: Doug Chambers VOTE: 8-0-1; Josh Kippenberger abstained PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED MEETING DATE: February 7, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 CASE DESCRIPTION: Zone Change – The Oaks and The Oaks Second (R-1 to R-3) WITHDRAWN. A new request will be submitted by the applicant. DISCUSSION: Cody Bird – clarified for the record that the original zone change for The Oaks Addition had been withdrawn. The developer is looking at additional detail to include in the formal request to be resubmitted. Letters have been sent to the notification area regarding the withdrawal. AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 CASE DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Article 6, Section 602 of the Derby Zoning Ordinance APPLICANT: City of Derby REASON FOR REQUEST: Update the Ordinance to Address a Conflict with State Law pertaining to Sale of Firearms and Ammunition DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  It has recently come to Staff’s attention that paragraph 11 of Section 602(D) of Derby’s Zoning Regulations is preempted by State Law. o K.S.A. 12-16,124 previously allowed cities broad discretion in the regulation of firearms sales. o 2007 House Bill 2528 was passed by the Kansas Legislature and subsequently incorporated into law. The law amended K.S.A. 12-16,124 to repeal the language which previously exempted city zoning measures regulating firearms sales. o The amended K.S.A. 12-16,124(a) now provides a broad preemption which clearly demonstrates legislative intent to remove the authority of cities to regulate firearms licensees through zoning regulations.  K.S.A. 12-16,124(a) now states that no city or county shall adopt regulations or take any administrative action governing the purchase, transfer, ownership, storage or transporting of firearms or ammunition. Furthermore, the statute states that any such regulation adopted prior to the effective date of the statute shall be null and void. STAFF COMMENTS:  State Attorney General, Derek Schmidt wrote a legal opinion in January 2012, which addressed a nearly identical Rose Hill, KS zoning regulation prohibiting sale of firearms and ammunition as a home occupation. The opinion concluded that the 2007 amendment preempted Rose Hill’s regulation.  The Derby City Attorney has advised that the Derby zoning regulation prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition as a home occupation be repealed. RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve the amendment to Section 602 of Article 6 of the Derby Zoning Ordinance and forward the recommendation to City Council for consideration. Attachments: Proposed amendment to Section 602 K.S.A. 12-16,124 Cody Bird – began with an explanation of State Law K.S.A 12-16,124(a), which affects Derby’s Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the sale of firearms and ammunition. Kelly Farber – asked what the State and Federal Law was in regard to firearm sales. Cody Bird – replied that anyone who desires to deal firearms and ammunition is required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Jack Hezlep – asked when the prohibition of firearms sales was originally included in the Zoning Ordinance. Cody Bird – replied that he had not reviewed our records to identify when the prohibition was added. He clarified that at the time it was added, State Law did not preempt local governments’ authority to enact regulations pertaining to firearms. Gunter Hansen – asked what is the interaction between Local, State and Federal DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 regulations pertaining to firearms. Cody Bird – explained that the State Law preempts our local ordinance prohibiting firearms sales as a home occupation, and that all premises where firearms will be sold are required to be inspected and licensed according to Federal regulations. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Pat Baer and Tasha Brackeen VOTE: 8-1-0; Josh Kippenberger opposed AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 CASE DESCRIPTION: Annual Review of Zoning Ordinance REASON FOR REQUEST: General editing, language changes, word inclusions and clarifications, establishing & defining standards. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: General – Clean up any and all typos, grammar mistakes and formatting concerns General – Change all references of “Community Development” to “Planning & Engineering” department General – Change all references of “Community Development Director” to appropriate position titles General – Check and update all references to other sections to ensure accuracy Article 3 – Section 305(F) “Site Plan Requirements” – Add paragraph 11 to include “Other site information as required at the time of application.” Article 4 – Sections 415 & 416 – Combine residential PUD and non-residential PUD into one PUD which includes mixed uses and streamline the process Article 5 – Section 500(A) – Consider modifying dimensions of parking spaces/access aisles Article 5 – Section 500(A)(6) – Paving of off-street parking “concrete” to “poured in place concrete” Article 6 – Section 601; Add language for food/snowcone vendors (Provide which zoning districts to allow; include limitations for temporary signs; and establish length of permit) Article 7 – Section 705(C)(2) – Add paragraph (h) to establish timeframe for pick- up/removal of political signs (example: 7 days after election) Article 7 – Consider establishing standards and height regulations for inflatable/animated signs Article 7 – Establish clear guidelines for illumination levels for LED and illuminated signs Article 7 – Establish new guidelines to address converting existing billboards to be upgraded to LED Article 11 – Section 1103; Change ¾ majority of “governing body” to “City Council” for Council vote to override Planning Commission recommendation following a valid petition Appendix 3 – Update ADA parking schedule Appendix 4 – Consider incorporating elements of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 7  Environmental Design) to Design Standards DISCUSSION: Cody Bird – explained that the Zoning Ordinance needed some general clean-up and asked for guidance from the Planning Commission. Cody Bird – began with Article 3, Section 305(F) Site Plan Requirements; explaining that Staff is creating a check list of all the important information needed for Site Plan Review, including some items that may be site specific and that are not listed in the Ordinance. A reference to the checklist would be added to the Ordinance. Cody Bird – continued with Article 4, Section 415 & 416, combining residential PUD and non-residential PUD in to one PUD. He indicated that there was a desire to reduce the number of public hearings from 2 to 1. Cody asked for suggestions from the Planning Commission, mentioning that as items are completed over the year, the Planning Commission will have another opportunity to review the drafted language. Kelly Farber – asked for clarification on those that are currently separated and have a mixed use. Cody Bird – responded by saying they are platted as two different p arcels. Cody Bird – moved to the next item, Article 5, Section 500(A), parking spaces. Currently regulations require the minimum for parking spaces to be 9 feet by 19 feet, though some exceptions have been made in the past to allow 9 feet by 18 feet. Eighteen feet is a generally excepted norm. Kelly Farber – indicated that the parking space issue has been addressed frequently ; he asked if there was a rule that determines how much width must be between 2 rows of stalls. Cody Bird – answered that for 2-way circulation, 24 feet is required between the ends of the stripes, providing 12 feet of travel for each direction. It is reduced for 1-way travel, depending on the angle of the spaces. Kelly Farber – asked if 24 foot was standard. Cody Bird – replied yes. However, for fire access aisle, the fire code requires 26 feet. Kelly Farber – noted that his concern was for how much room was available to back out of a parking space. Josh Kippenberger – asked what the standard in other communities in the area was for parking spaces. Pat Baer – answered that 18 foot is the typical, with a minimum of a 24 foot lane with perpendicular parking, and 26 foot for fire lanes is standard. An 18 foot stall is adequate for most people. He indicated his opinion/preference that 18 foot parking stalls with 24 foot lanes are adequate. Keith Volz – felt the Zoning Ordinance did not need to address the 26 foot fire lane since the fire code already addresses this. Pat Baer – agreed. Cody Bird – addressed the next item, Article 6, Section 601, food/snow cone vendors. He explained that staff would create more specific guidelines for signs and permits. Jack Hezlep – asked if there were regulations for vendors who are employees of the merchants. Cody Bird – replied that we don’t have specific guidelines for that type of use. Kelly Farber – asked if the suggested regulations for vendor signs would address placement, mobile unit signs, or both. Cody Bird – answered that it could be both. He said currently vendors have used 3-4 signs, when the temporary use permit allows only 2. There is not an opposition to DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 advertising; however there needs to be a uniform standard to enforce fairly. Kelly Farber – asked if the current sign code applies to vendors. Cody Bird – answered that in some instances, we have applied the temporary use guidelines; however, food vendors are not specifically addressed in the Ordinance, and therefore there has been some confusion which could be cleared up. Josh Kippenberger – asked what prompted this action. Cody Bird – replied that Code Enforcement has asked for clearer guidelines. Cody Bird – addressed Article 5, Section 500(A)(6). Due to previous controversy of concrete material, staff recommends changing the wording to clarify crushed versus poured concrete, and try to eliminate the need for interpretation on something that should be very routine. Cody Bird – addressed Article 7, Section 705(C)(2), timeframe for political signs. Currently there is no time line for removal of political signs; they are exempt from permit guidelines. Staff suggested 7 days. Cody Bird – continued discussing sign guidelines, such as height regulations for inflatable/animated signs. One example was a 30 foot tall inflatable wolf placed at the corner of James Street and Rock Road. Commission members - posed some questions about this particular sign and whether it was a safety hazard or whether there were complaints by residents. Cody Bird – answered that there was not a safety concern, nor resident complaints. Kelly Farber – asked about regulations on other types of inflatables, flags, or signs that attract attention and what the definition is of “wavy” signs. Cody Bird – answered that code indicates that if this type of sign does not display commercial content, businesses can have as many as they want (streamers, banners, flags). If it says the content of the business, then it becomes a commercial sign and they are allowed 2 signs (i.e. - “fireworks stands”). Kelly Farber – felt that regulating the number was more important than the size. Cody Bird - mentioned that code does not regulate emblems, flags, streamers and decorations because the courts have upheld that non-commercial decorations are protected by the First Amendment under the freedom of speech clause. The intent of the city is not to overregulate the type of signs, rather promote traffic safety and aesthetic values in the city. Cody offered that the city should steer clear of regulation; however, more research could be done to look at options. Sue Wright - suggested making general statements for Code Enforcement to ensure safety, regarding the animated signs. Cody Bird – replied that if signs were placed in a vision triangle and thus limiting the site distance of vehicles, the signs would be required to be relocated or removed. Josh Kippenberger – asked if sign regulation s could be tied to regulation of an event. Cody Bird – indicated two concerns, duration of event and the size. Kelly Farber – mentioned that some events could be unnecessarily prolonged, i.e. – going out of business event. Jack Hezlep – pointed out two different issues, one for special events, and one for permanent businesses. Keith Volz – asked if staff could consider other communities’ regulation. Planning Commission members - discussed back and forth the merits of removing sign wording once a business closed and options of keeping aesthetics pleasing and safe to the community. Cody Bird – indicated that Article 7 does not currently have guidelines establishing illumination levels for LED and illuminated signs. He indicated that it would be wise to include language to address animation, brightness and other LED alternatives. He DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 continued to discuss guidelines for current billboards that need replaced and whether illuminated signs could replace the legal non-conforming signs. Kelly Farber & Jack Hezlep asked for some examples from other communities. Cody Bird – responded that other communities would be considered in writing the regulations for illuminated signs. Cody Bird – asked the Planning Commission members if they had any thoughts to address the non-conforming billboard signs and the upgrade to LED signs. Doug Chambers – asked what is making them non-conforming. Cody Bird – re plied that billboards existing either prior to the adoption of the current regulations or prior to annexation into the City are allowed to remain, though because they do not comply with current regulations, they are considered non-conforming. Cody Bird – explained that upgrading a billboard to an LED display was not changing the use, but rather changing the face to an electronic message center. Such an upgrade would increase the intensity of that use. Gunter Hansen – asked for clarification of whether the billboards are in violation. Cody Bird – answered that they are non-conforming, but they are legal non-conforming because they were constructed legally under the applicable guidelines at that time. Planning Commission members - discussed back and forth the scope of the sign style if changed from billboard to LED and how the code would apply to new LED signs. Cody Bird – redirected to explain that if a new LED billboard for displaying multiple messages were erected, it would be a billboard sign and an off-premise advertising sign, both of which are prohibited. However, although billboards and off-premise advertising are prohibited, if such a sign existed prior to the current regulations, then they are allowed to continue to exist as non-conforming uses. Derby Zoning Ordinance states that any structural modifications to a non-conforming use must be brought into full compliance with the current regulations, and thus, any changes or upgrades to the billboard sign would not be allowed. Cody - continued by asking if the Commission was in favor of allowing existing billboards to be replaced by LED boards. Keith Volz – said that these billboards are already in violation and upgrades would need to comply. Kelly Farber – added further clarification to the purpose of the ordinance by saying that if the Commission was in favor of having billboards, then it would make sense to upgrade to LED. However, the Commission is not in favor of the billboards and would like the language to reflect that billboards cannot be upgraded, and any modification and all new signs would need to conform to current regulations. Cody Bird – moved to the next item, Article 11, Section 1103, to change the wording of “ Governing Body” to “City Council” where appropriate to eliminate confusion between the roles of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Cody Bird – addressed Appendix 3, ADA parking schedule, saying our current language needs to be updated to the current standard of one van accessible stall per every six accessible parking spaces, rather than one per every eight accessible parking spaces. Cody Bird – talked about Appendix 4, incorporating elements of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design into the design standards of the Ordinance. Examples could include consideration for not creating spaces that would conceal crimes and criminal activities. Efforts would be made to coordinate CPTED concepts with the Derby Police Department and looking at examples from other communities. A draft would be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 AGENDA ITEM NO: 4 CASE DESCRIPTION: Annual Review of Subdivision Regulations REASON FOR REQUEST: Proposed amendments to Subdivision Regulations BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Article 6 – Section 602(K) “Streets” – Add reference to new Appendix One Article 6 – Section 603 “Blocks” – Add new subsection (D) “Reserves” and include requirement to place high pressure gas lines in reserves instead of pipeline easements through platted lots Appendix One – Create list of retired street names and provide standards for addressing within the city DISCUSSION: Cody Bird – addressed Article 6, Section 603 and asked if Planning Commission members had any comments or concerns regarding placing high pressure gas lines in reserves instead of allowing them to be placed in easements. Planning Commission – no comments. Cody Bird – addressed the last item and explained that Derby does not have specific street naming standards, and that it would be beneficial to have established guidelines for both street designations and for street names. A list of over-used street names would be created as a reference to be reviewed during Site Plan Review. Street names which are over-used, such as “wood,” “brook,” and “tree” could be retired. Sedgwick County and Wichita currently use a similar method to retire repeated street names. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Kelly Farber moved to adjourn SECOND: Keith Volz VOTE: 9-0-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:04 PM DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 7