Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 20, 2013 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Baer, Josh Kippenberger, Gunter Hansen, Jack Hezlep, Dennis Poteete, Shawn Riley, Herman Hicks MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Chambers, Mitch Adams, Kathy Wills CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner, Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes of Thursday, June 6, 2013 – to be considered at July 18, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED MEETING DATE: June 20, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Site Plan Review – Lot 1, Block A, USD 260 Middle School Addition GENERAL LOCATION: East side of Rock Road, ¼ mile north of Patriot Avenue APPLICANT: USD 260 AGENT: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture – Rick Brown REASON FOR REQUEST: Construction of new Middle School BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  The subject lot is located on the east side of Rock Road, approximately ¼ mile north of the intersection of Rock Road and Patriot Avenue, within the USD 260 Middle School Addition.  The plat which includes the subject lot was approved by City Council on May 28, 2013.  Existing land uses adjacent to the subject site are as follows: o Properties to the north and south are unplatted properties zoned “RR – Rural Residential” under the Wichita/Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code. Land uses include agriculture with associated farm buildings and some large-lot suburban residential uses. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 16  o The platted lot and reserve east of Liberty Lane is also owned by the Applicant. o The area west of Rock Road consists of vacant B-3 General Business properties and the City’s Northeast Water Tower.  The subject lot contains 959,362 square feet, or approximately 22 acres, which exceeds the minimum requirements of the R-1 District.  Public schools are a permitted use in the R-1 District. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Legal Description. A legal description of all of the area contained within the plat of USD 260 Middle School Addition is shown on the cover sheet. Other pages of the site show a legal description for only Lot 1, Block A, USD 260 Middle School Addition, City of Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas. The latter should be used throughout the site plan as the subject site is only for Lot 1, Block A of the addition. The overall development of this site will include grading of the entire platted area to construct drainage improvements, public streets and public utilities to serve the lots, however, these will be completed as separate projects, and thus should not be included in the legal description. The revised site plans shall provide the legal description as Lot 1, Block A, USD 260 Middle School Addition, City of Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas. 2. Building Setbacks. A 25 ft. building setback and utility easement is platted along all public streets adjacent to the subject site. The “Overall Site Plan” sheet shows the 25 ft. easement. The nearest portion of the building (northeast corner) is shown to be 34 ft. from the property line, which exceeds the minimum requirement. The applicant shall include the label for the “Building Setback” line on the revised site plans. 3. Easements. The USD 260 Middle School Addition plat includes a 25 ft. utility easement which coincides with the platted building setback line. There is also a 20 ft. utility easement shown extending north for a public water line and fire hydrant. A platted 20 ft. utility easement is located near the south edge of the property that is separate from the 25 ft. utility easement. It is intended to contain the sanitary sewer line. These encumbrances are shown on the site plan. There is a private street proposed which will be contained within a 32 ft. platted public access easement. The private street and easement lines are identified on the site plan, but the easement is not labeled as such. The width of the private street is labeled as 30 ft., however the easement should be labeled as 32 ft. Similarly, there is a platted 10 ft. pedestrian access easement along the west side of the private street pull-out from Liberty Lane which is shown on the site plan. The intended purpose of this easement is to cover an 8’ sidewalk alongside the bus loading/unloading area. The appropriate label to identify the easement is needed. There are a number of easements parallel to Rock Road that are shown, but widths and benefitting parties are not identified on many of the plan sheets. Appropriate labels for all easements shall be shown on all revised site plan sheets. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 16 4. Access. Lot 1, Block A is accessible from all adjoining public streets including Freedom Street, Independence Avenue and Liberty Lane. Lot 1, Block A also has one 80 ft. opening onto Rock Road to allow a private street connection for a right- in/right-out entry/exit. Due to the expected “tight“ configuration of the right-in/right-out entrance/exit, City Staff is requiring signage be posted which states “No Bus Traffic.” This request is consistent with the bus routing plan provided during platting. 5. Streets. The site is located adjacent to Rock Road, a highly traveled arterial corridor, and just north of Patriot Avenue, a major cross town arterial. Petitions were included and resolutions recorded as part of the platting of the addition which included left and right turning lane improvements on Rock Road as well as construction of Freedom Street, Independence Avenue and Liberty Lane. In addition to the improvements needed to serve the subject site, the City will also be reconstructing this section of Rock Road concurrent with construction of the middle school. A traffic impact study of the site and for Rock Road warranted traffic signals on Rock Road where it intersects both Freedom Street and Independence Avenue. The signals will be installed with the reconstruction of Rock Road. The two new signalswill be coordinated with each other and with the signal at Rock Road and Patriot Avenue. In addition to the improvements on Rock Road and the construction of the new public streets the applicant is also proposing two private streets in order to facilitate vehicular circulation around the site. A private street to the west of the proposed school building will be contained within the platted public access easement. This private street will provide access to the front of the building and to the parking lots serving the building. It will also provide direct access to Rock Road via a right-in/right-out intersection. A pick-up/drop-off lane is proposed to be adjacent to the private street outside the platted easement. The private street will also serve as a fire lane, therefore only loading/unloading will be allowed on the east side and no parking will be allowed in the drop-off lane. The second private street is located on the east side of the school building to provide a lane for busses to pick-up/drop-off students. Keyed note #12 indicates that this street will be marked with one-way signs at both connections to Liberty Lane: The south end of the private street should also be marked “Do Not Enter.” Freedom Street and Independence Avenue will be constructed to Liberty Lane for this phase of development; petitions were required at the time of platting to provide for the future extension of these streets to serve the remaining property to the east. 6. Parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires that parking spaces for schools be provided at a rate of 1 parking space per employee, plus 1 parking space per 4 students. The proposed parking lots would provide a total of 350 parking spaces. Preliminary discussions with the applicant indicated that 125 employees are anticipated. Thus, 350 minus 125 employee spaces leaves 225 parking spaces remaining for the student calculation. At the required rate of 1 space per 4 students, the proposed parking allows for a maximum of 900 students, in addition to the 125 employees. If these numbers do not accurately reflect the number of employees or projected student DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 16  population, the applicant shall coordinate with City staff to ensure adequate parking is provided. It has also been considered that the maximum demand for parking may be anticipated during an event in which both the main gym (bleacher seating for 1,000) and the auxiliary gym (bleacher seating for 500) are at full capacity. Applying a calculation for public assembly uses, the rate of 1 parking space per 4 seats would result in a need for 375 parking spaces (1,000 seats ÷ 4 = 250 parking spaces, and 500 seats ÷ 4 = 125 parking spaces). It is unlikely that both gyms will be used at full capacity simultaneously, and therefore, City staff feels that the 350 parking spaces being provided is sufficient to meet the needs of the school. Keyed note, #18, references a typical parking stall, but no reference or detail is included. The applicant shall provide the detail on the revised site plans. All parking spaces, not including spaces designed to meet ADA requirements, appear to be 20ft. x 9ft. which exceeds the minimum parking space size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Keyed note #16 indicates that a 6-inch tall perimeter curb is provided around all parking areas and parking lot islands, meeting the minimum design requirements. Note #17 identifies locations of curb openings to allow surface drainage to flow into the landscaped areas, but no detail is provided. Curb openings shall be constructed in a manner which minimizes erosion and shall be done to the satisfaction of the City. Details for how this will be accomplished shall be provided on the revised site plans. 7. Off-street Loading and Unloading. The Zoning Ordinance requires that schools provide 1 off-street loading/unloading area per each 200,000 square feet of building area, or fraction thereof. The proposed school building would be 191,565 square ft., thus, a minimum of 1 loading/unloading area is required, with dimensions of 12ft. x 25ft. It appears that there is a receiving area on the east side of the building accessed from the private pull-off street.6” concrete approaches should be included for the bus loading/unloading lane as is provided for the other private drive approaches. The applicant shall be prepared to discuss the area proposed for loading/unloading and shall verify the location and dimensions on the revised site plan. 8. Circulation Aisles. All vehicular circulation aisles internal to Lot 1, Block A are 26 ft. or greater, which exceeds the minimum requirement. 9. ADA. The current edition of ADA Standards for Accessible Design requires accessible parking spaces based on the total number of spaces provided for the facility. With the 350 parking spaces proposed for the new middle school, 8 accessible spaces are required. 10 are proposed, which exceeds the requirement. For every 6, or fraction of 6, accessible spaces provided, at least one space must be van accessible. There are 10 accessible spaces proposed, and therefore a minimum of 2 are required to be van accessible. Spaces designed to be van accessible must be 11 ft. wide and provide an accessible aisle width of at least 5 ft. All 10 of the accessible spaces appear to meet the width and aisle requirements for van accessible DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 16  parking. Keyed site plan notes #8, 9, 10 and 19 all address references to components of accessible parking spaces, however, none of the details for these components are provided with the site plans. The applicant shall provide details with the revised site plans. The applicant or their designated agent is responsible for ensuring that all accessible parking spaces meet the requirements of the ADA standards, including locations, widths, aisles, slopes, signage and pavement markings. Final inspection of accessible parking spaces and accessible routes shall be coordinated with the Derby Building Trades Official. 10. Pedestrian Access. Sidewalks within the site need to be extended west along Independence Ave. and Freedom St. to connect to the proposed east Rock Road sidewalk. Pedestrian crossing of Rock Road will be facilitated by crosswalks at the signalized intersections. Crosswalks will be provided on the north side of the south entrance (Independence Ave.) and on the south side of the north entrance (Freedom St.). No sidewalk will be provided along the east side of Rock Road between Freedom Dr. and Independence Ave. to discourage pedestrians from crossing Rock Rd. at unmarked locations and encourage them to instead cross at the identified and protected locations provided. 11. Signage. A monument sign is identified by keyed note #15 on Sheet C21.2. The sign is located between the 25 ft. building setback/utility easement and the 20 ft. utility easement or sanitary sewer. Sign dimensions and material details are identified on Sheet A32.4 and a color rendering is provided on the “Perspectives” sheet. Monument signs in the R-1 Zoning District allow a maximum height of 6 ft. and a maximum length of 10 ft. for signs of authorized non-residential uses. The sign is proposed to be 6 ft. tall and 15 ft. long, which exceeds the maximum length permitted. The Planning Commission may require the sign to comply with the maximum length of 10 ft., however, due to the size of the development and because the location of the proposed sign will not affect adjacent properties, staff recommends that the proposed 15 ft. length be permitted. The width of the sign also appears to exceed the maximum width permitted. The Zoning Ordinance allows a width up to 2 ft. in the R-1 District and the proposed sign measures 5 ft. on the drawings. Staff recommends that the sign width be reduced to 2 ft. if possible. The applicant should be prepared to discuss the width of the sign. The applicant should also be prepared to describe the marquee portion of the sign and if internal or external lighting is proposed. Notes of any discussed changes need to be updated on the revised site plans. Wall signage is proposed and shown on the building elevations (Sheet A32.2 and on the color elevations). Wall signs are not identified as a permitted use in the R-1 District, however, wall signs on schools are allowed at other locations in Derby, and in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, are appropriate for schools. All other aspects of the shown wall signs are otherwise in compliance with the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the wall signs may be granted at the discretion of the Commission. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 16  Both the proposed wall signs and the monument sign are shown to be of materials that are compatible with the building and are reflective of the architecture and design style of the building. The proposed signs are consistent with the design criteria. The applicant is advised that all signs will require a separate permit be obtained prior to installation, however the types and sizes if approved by the Planning Commission, will be applicable in lieu of the typical requirements. 12. Site Lighting. The lighting plan included shows that a combination of pole mounted lighting and wall or ground mounted lighting will be used to illuminate the site. Notes state that poles will be either 25 ft. or 15 ft., presumably for the streets/parking lots and for the sidewalks, respectively. All lighting is proposed to be LED, which is more efficient and is expected to last longer than typical metal-halide lighting. The photometric plan shows minimal light spillage onto adjacent properties and street rights-of-way. The revised site plans shall include a note stating that lighting is required to be screened or shielded to prevent intrusion of light or glare onto adjoining properties and streets. The Site Lighting Plan page shows the proposed monument sign in a location that is different from the Overall Site Plan sheets. The revised site plans shall show the monument sign in the position where it is proposed to be located. 13. Landscape/Screening and Buffering. Min. Total 1 Tree Street Exact # of Trees Street Name Yard Square per 500 Frontage Calculation (Rounded) Width Feet Sq. Ft. Independence Ave. 754.75 x 20 = 15,095 ÷ 500 = 30.19 31 Liberty Lane 985.64 x 20 = 19,713 ÷ 500 = 39.4 40 Freedom Street 530 x 20 = 10,600 ÷ 500 = 21.2 22 Rock Road 80 x 20 = 1,600 ÷ 500 = 3.2 4 Total Trees Required 97 Landscaped Street Yard. All developments or redevelopments subject to site plan review are required to provide a landscaped street yard in accordance with Section 304.G. of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject property has four property lines abutting public streets. Therefore, each side of the lot is subject to the requirement of a landscaped street yard. The Ordinance specifies that on lots with a depth of greater than 400 ft., a minimum of a 20 ft. wide landscaped street yard shall be provided. All sides of the lot exceed the minimum street yard width requirement. Within the landscaped street yard, one shade tree is required for every 500 square feet of the minimum landscaped street yard. The minimum number of trees required for the landscaped street yard is based on the following calculations: DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 16  When determining the number of shade trees provided, 2 ornamental trees can be substituted for 1 shade tree; or, 10 shrubs can be substituted for 1 shade tree. Any combination of these equivalents can be used to fulfill the requirements; provided, that shrubbery can only account for up to 1/3 of the required shade trees and must be no less than 2 gallon container size at the time of planting. The landscaping plan shows the following proposed equivalents, not including the trees used to fulfill the minimum requirement for the parking lot island trees and not including the shrubs used to fulfill the parking lot screening requirements:  30 Large shade trees = 30 Large shade trees  35 Small ornamental trees ÷ 2 = 17.5 Large shade trees  366 shrubs (2 gal.) ÷ 10 = 45 Large shade trees [1/3 of 97 required = 32]  Total Equivalent Large Shade Trees = 79.5 The combination of large shade trees, ornamental trees and the maximum limit of 1/3 shrubbery, the proposed equivalent shade trees is less than the minimum required for the site. 17.5 additional shade trees or 35 ornamental trees or a combination thereof shall be provided in order to reach the minimum 97 shade trees required. However, the Planning Commission may, at its discretion, decrease the street yard tree requirement if the Commission determines that the installation of required landscaping is impractical, or may increase the street yard tree requirement if the Commission determines that the landscaping required is insufficient to accomplish the intent of the regulations. The applicant should also be aware that existing vegetation on site may be counted toward accomplishing the landscaping requirements, provided the existing vegetation is adequately protected during construction to ensure long-term survival and the vegetation is healthy and insect free. If the applicant would like to pursue this option, the existing trees to be retained need to be identified on revised site plans and appropriate measures taken to protect the vegetation during construction. Screening/Buffering. Screening is required along all side and rear lot lines of non- residential uses when adjacent to any residential zoning district. Because all of the property lines of the subject lot abut street right-of-ways, all yards are front yards and thus screening from adjacent properties is not required. A landscaped buffer is also not required since the surround properties are compatible with the R-1 zoning district. Parking Lot Screening/Landscaping. A row of shrubs is shown along the west side of the west parking lot and along the south side of the east parking lot. A juniper shrub is proposed to fulfill the parking lot screening requirement. The Juniper shrub is not on the preferred planting list. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve plant species that are not included on the preferred planting list. Staff has some concern that only one species of shrub is proposed to fulfill all of the screening requirement. Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission consider requesting a variety of shrubs for screening to add visual interest. Staff also suggests that the parking lot screening be wrapped around the corners for the length of one parking stall to provide screening from the other street rights-of-way. The applicant is advised that shrubs for screening purposes must be a minimum of 18 DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 16  inches in height at the time of installation, and must reach a mature height of at least 36 inches. Trees are required in parking lot islands when parking areas have 50 or more parking spaces. Calculations for each of the two parking lots are shown on the landscape plan sheets. The calculations provided show that both lots require 4 shade trees (165 parking spaces ÷ 50 = 3.3 = 4 shade trees; and 185 parking spaces ÷ 50 = 3.7 = 4 shade trees). There are 4 trees provided in the islands of the east parking lot and 8 trees provided in the islands of the west lot, thus satisfying or exceeding the requirement. The number of parking lot island trees provided should be updated on the calculations on the revised site plans (only count the trees interior to the parking lot). Shrubs and grasses are also shown to be provided within the parking lot islands. The trees provided in the parking lot islands are labeled “UPA” which does not appear in the landscape legend. The applicant shall verify what type of tree is intended to be planted in the parking lot islands, and the corrected labels or legend shall be included on the revised site plans. Equipment and Trash Receptacle Screening. Screening is required to reasonably hide from ground level view all ground-mounted mechanical equipment, loading docks, trash receptacles or similar uses. There is a mechanical court located on the east side of the building which also encloses 4 trash dumpsters and what appears to be a loading dock or receiving area. Various plan sheets show that a screening wall is proposed to enclose this area, however, no details are provided. The screeningwall may be constructed of brick, stone, masonry, concrete or wood provided that it is designed to match, or at a minimum, complement the materials of the principal building. The applicant shall provide details of how the mechanical court is proposed to be screened and information describing the screening wall shall be included on the revised site plans. Miscellaneous Landscaping Notes Notes on the landscape plan state that an irrigation system will be designed and built by a contractor at some point in the future. The text should be amended by removing the City of Derby from the approval of the irrigation system design and from being a recipient of the as-built plans. The City does not approve, nor assume any responsibility for the installation or maintenance of private irrigation systems. It should also be noted that automatic irrigation systems are required to be equipped with an automatic rain sensing device. A statement of this requirement shall be included on the revised site plans. The applicant should verify that the installation of landscaping near entrances, vehicle circulation aisles and public traffic ways does not create vision concerns. The applicant is advised that final acceptance of the landscaping is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Acceptance will be based on the landscape plan as submitted for approval at site plan review, not on the minimum requirements of the code. Substantial changes to the plan require approval of the Planning DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 16  Commission. The applicant is reminded that all landscaping is to be maintained in good condition and that maintenance includes replacing dead or diseased plants and trees. 14. Drainage. The required detention storage is accomplished by a series of dry detention storage basins. In order to facilitate changes to the project advantageous to the owner, the drainage plan provided during platting has been modified. A revised drainage plan has been submitted to the City for approval. The Applicant shall be responsible for assuring that all design changes resulting from the modifications to the drainage/grading plan are coordinated between the various entities designing and installing improvements to serve the site. 15. Utilities. Fire Protection. The Fire Department has reviewed the submitted plans and is requiring the following modifications:  The hydrant furthest west on Independence Avenue shall be moved to the northeast corner of the intersection of Rock Road and Independence Avenue;  The hydrant furthest east on Independence Avenue be moved to the northwest corner of the intersection of Independence Avenue and Liberty Lane;  The hydrant furthest south on Liberty Lane be moved north to where the parking lot drive approach accesses Liberty Lane;  The other hydrant on Liberty Lane between the aforesaid hydrant and the private bus lane be moved north to where the bus lane re-enters Liberty Lane;  A valve is required to be added to the west line of the “T” intersection on the south side of the lot where the private street intersects Independence Avenue. These changes shall be noted on the revised site plans. All other hydrants, valves and the Fire Department Connection (6” FDC) are sufficient to meet fire protection needs. Water. A 4” domestic service water line will extend to a 4” meter vault on the east side of the building. The 4” water line will extend into the mechanical room and a 1 ½” water line will branch off to serve the rest of the building. The Building Trades Official will review these sizes with the mechanical engineer. It appears that the electrical transformer is intended to be placed on top of the 4” water service in the mechanical court. The applicant should review this configuration to see if either the transformer or the waterline can be located differently to provide some degree of separation. Sanitary Sewer. Cleanouts must be provided along private sanitary sewer service lines. Cleanout locations shall be provided in accordance with applicable building codes or as required by the Building Trades Official. Electric. Electric enters the building underground on the east side of the building. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 16  Others. Gas, Phone and Cable all enter the building on the east side of the building. The applicant is encouraged to verify the accuracy of the listed emergency contact information. 16. Design Standards. Elevations of all sides of the building are shown, including proposed materials. Colored renderings and perspectives have been provided which show the proposed colors and design elements. The Planning Commission should review the Design Criteria for buildings and related structures contained in the appendix of the Zoning Ordinance and consider requesting that architectural embellishments or trim, accent or colors be used to promote visual interest on large, plain walls. In particular, the entire south elevation and the walls of the gym have more square feet than other façades, yet have less architectural features and visual interest, despite being one of the first things visitors will see as they enter the site from Independence Avenue. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment is required to be screened using materials that are compatible with the principal structure. There appears to be a parapet wall which may provide screening of any rooftop units. The applicant or their agent shall be prepared to discuss what mechanical equipment will be mounted on the roof and how it is proposed to be screened. All rooftop screening shall be included and noted on the revised site plan. Keyed notes #37-39 indicate that an electrical transformer, electrical generator and cooling tower are located within a mechanical court on the east side of the proposed building. Note #30 identifies a screening wall around the mechanical court, but no details are provided for the height or materials. The applicant or their agent shall be prepared to describe the enclosure at the Planning Commission meeting. If a gate is provided for screening or security purposes, it cannot include the use of woven wire, welded wire or metal panels. 17. No Smoking. City ordinance prohibits smoking in public places and places of employment and requires “No Smoking” signs to be posted to establish a 20 ft. smoke free zone at all entrances to the facility. USD 260 may have more stringent requirements than City ordinance requires, in which case, the more stringent requirements will govern. The applicant should be prepared to discuss their plans for limiting smoking or prohibiting smoking. 18. Miscellaneous. General Site Note letter “E” shall be changed to read “City of Derby” rather than “City of Galena.” In accordance with the City’s stormwater pollution prevention ordinance, the use of BMP’s is required to control soil erosion during the construction of this facility. The applicant needs to submit a proposed traffic control and pavement marking plan. All traffic control devices and pavement markings must comply with the latest approved edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). At a minimum, there needs to be STOP signs on the private road where they intersect the public roads and appropriate parking restrictions should be posted. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 16  The City of Derby Water Department will tap the 8” water line in Liberty Lane for both the 6” fire line and the 4” domestic service water line. A note reflecting this should be added to the plans and provide appropriate contact information for El Paso Water Company. 19. Coordination with Petitioned Projects. Many of the improvements providing access and utility services plans for these utilities and streets have not yet been completed and are anticipated to be designed and constructed by the City at the request of the applicant. The applicant shall assure coordination between this site plan and the plans for Rock Road, Independence Avenue, Freedom Street, Liberty Lane, the public water lines, off-site drainage, and the sanitary sewers. CORRECTED PLANS: Following Planning Commission approval, the applicant will need to revise the Site Plan documents to incorporate all corrections or comments and submit 3 revised copies to the City. Changes on the site plan sheets shall be clouded, and a list of all changes shall be provided, noting which comment each is addressing. The applicant is advised that building plans will not be reviewed until revised site plans are approved by the City. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Site Plan for Lot 1, Block A, USD 260 Middle School Addition, subject to staff comments and discussion. Attachment: Site Plan DISCUSSION: Baer, Chairperson – asked to be excused from the bench and from voting on this item due to his involvement in preparation of the site plans for the project. Hezlep, Vice Chairperson, assumed responsibility for running the meeting for this agenda item. Hezlep – asked Bird to give a brief overview of the plat for the site and details that have already been decided. Bird – explained that through the platting process, street locations were determined and right-of-ways had been dedicated. Easements for public utilities and private drives were also dedicated. A traffic impact study was conducted for the site which considered proposed land uses and the impact the new middle school would have on Rock Road. The study indicated that traffic lights at the intersections of Rock Road and both Freedom Street and Independence Avenue were warranted and would be sufficient for traffic control at these locations. A right-in / right-out opening will also be provided between the two traffic signals to accommodate a private street that provides additional access to Rock Road. Petitions for construction of public improvements were submitted and the City Council approved resolutions for those projects. The streets and utilities projects will DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 16 be designed separately from the middle school’s lot, which is why these plans are not included in the site plans presented to you tonight. Hicks – asked if Independence Street and Liberty Lane were existing streets. Bird – answered no, they will be constructed as part of the overall site development. These two streets will be constructed in two phases: Phase 1 will include Independence and Freedom Street east to Liberty Lane. When needed in the future Phase 2 will extend these two streets from Liberty Lane, east to the east edge of the plat. Hicks – asked about the distance from the middle school to the liquor store. Bird – answered that the existing liquor store location is approximately a quarter mile south of the middle school site. Hicks – asked if the building setback from Rock Road was the same as Derby High School. Bird – answered the middle school will not be immediately adjacent to Rock Road; there will be a couple of dry detention basins in front (pointing to overhead). He indicated that the minimum setback is 35 feet and the middle school building meets the setback requirements. Hezlep - asked Bird to go through site plan review discussion. Bird – indicated that there were no conflicts with the easements; however, staff asked that they be properly identified and labeled on the revised site plan. The right-in/right-out entrance on the private street providing access to Rock Road will be designed and constructed along with the Rock Road reconstruction project. The configuration of the entrance will most likely be too tight for buses to maneuver, and therefore, staff recommends that this section of the private street include signage marked for “no buses.” Staff discussed the parking requirements with the architects and calculated several different scenarios to determine the number of parking spaces. The 350 spaces proposed should be sufficient to meet the needs of the middle school. Planning Commission Members – expressed several concerns regarding bus and parent drop off lanes, including school traffic entering and exiting from Freedom Street and Independence Avenue onto Liberty Lane and the west drop-off lane for parents. They questioned safety during drop-off and pick-up times on a private street that is designated two-way; and asked about the use of the designated bus lane. Rick Brown, Architect, and Dan Squires, City Engineer – explained that the lane lengths and widths, along with the proposed signage and the ability for traffic to choose multiple routes to circulate around the site would limit the number of traffic conflicts. Squires also noted that there had been discussions about 2-way traffic versus a one-way lane and noted that without knowing the school’s boundaries, it is not advisable to limit traffic to one-way when we won’t know how much traffic could be entering the site from the North. Squires pointed out that increased traffic along Liberty Lane where the designated bus drop-off lane is could increase congestion. He indicated that signs could be posted to warn parents the rules for dropping-off students. Tom Snodgrass, Derby Schools Operations – agreed that safety was a priority and indicated that the school would monitor traffic circulation to ensure measures would be implemented to promote safety. Planning Commission Members – agreed to leave the private lane open to two-way traffic. Bird – asked the Commission to address the proposed signage. He indicated that the monument sign proposed exceeded the maximum allowed in the R-1 district, which is 10 feet in length; the proposed sign would be 15 feet. Staff felt the increased size is appropriate for the scale of the project. The Commission may make the decision on DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 of 16 whether or not to allow the increased size of the sign. Hezlep – asked if the sign will be electronic (LED). Brown – answered that the sign is not currently LED, but is designed to have changeable letters and will have a backlight. In the future, the sign may be upgraded to LED. The proposed configuration will allow power to the sign for such an upgrade. Hicks – asked if the present LED sign at the high school was the same size. Brown – answered that the sign at the high school is smaller. Hicks – indicated that the high school sign is difficult to read because of its size. Hicks – asked if the middle school sign could be changed at a later date. Bird – answered yes, by submitting a sign permit. Brown – asked if the school could be approved for a sign upgrade in the future. Bird – answered that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to electronic message signs were recently approved. Staff is available to discuss options for upgrading the sign in accordance with the established regulations. Planning Commission Members – asked several questions regarding the dimensions and location of the monument sign. Brown & Bird – indicated that the size of the sign was proportional to the size of the project and that it will be located at the corner of Independence Avenue and the private street. The monument sign is not intended to be visible from Rock Road. Planning Commission – agreed and approved the increased size of the monument sign. Planning Commission Members – commented that the wall sign which is shown to read “DNMS” does not adequately identify the building for people who are not familiar with the community. The applicant agreed to look into other options for the wall sign that would more clearly identify the building. Bird – opened discussion on landscaping. He indicated that applying the calculations of the regulations pertaining to street trees called for 97 trees. The landscape architect had put a lot of thought into the location and types of trees and that the proposed layout worked well as shown on the site plan, however, the nature of the calculations resulted in a higher number of trees than what was proposed. The school district is willing to consider providing additional trees; however, the Planning Commission may make a decision on whether to require additional trees. Hezlep – indicated he did not have an issue with the number of trees, but rather where the trees are located. He mentioned that buildings, by their very nature, are dull. He said it would be beneficial to place trees among the barren wall areas and along the detention ponds. Hezlep also stated his concern regarding the Ginkgo trees located in the courtyards. He said that student traffic in those areas will cause the soil to be compacted and affect the survival of the trees. He also mentioned the expense of keeping fescue grass alive. He recommended planting Bermuda grass instead. Brown – agreed that these were all good points and that it was discussed with staff to refine the plan, however, the corrections were not reflected on the plan presented. The courtyards are provided for outdoor classroom space and a review of the plans called for raising the indicated area to protect the tree roots. Brown also addressed the number of trees and acknowledged they were 18 trees short of what the regulations call for. He recommended planting more seedlings and conservation trees in the detention basins for a native draw and natural look to satisfy the minimum tree requirement. Bird – mentioned that the detention basins are not part of Lot 1, which is site under review. Therefore, the Commission could consider allowing the applicant to provide trees normally required on the lot to be planted in the reserve, also owned by the applicant, to fulfill the tree requirement. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 of 16 Hezlep – asked about flame maple trees, which have a tendency to freeze and split the bark. Brown – indicated the maples were Amur Maples, which are tougher. He also pointed out to the Commission that they saved a group of trees around the reserve beyond the Lot 1 boundary, south of Independence Avenue. There was a good effort made to preserve current trees on such a large lot. Hezlep – reiterated that he was recommending more green in front of the school, which would be located close to the detention basins. Poteete – agreed that trees in this location would provide a more aesthetic view of the school from the street. Brown – mentioned that the trees along the building are ornamental and would not grow to a size that would camouflage the school building. Bird – summed up the discussion, stating that the Planning Commission wished to allow the minimum tree requirements to be met by providing additional trees on the adjacent reserve in the detention basins. Planning Commission – agreed. Bird – pointed out that there are design criteria requirements for breaking up the visual impact of large walls. Staff proposed to the architects to place trees on the south side, which would provide a visual breakup of the large expansive wall as well as increase the number of trees towards meeting the minimum requirement. The Planning Commission could discuss and make a determination. Brown – also suggested that color contours could be added along the south elevation to break up the wall. Hansen – suggested adding trees to provide the green aesthetics. Planning Commission – agreed to require brick color variations on the south façade, matching the design pattern of other facades, and provide additional trees to break up the bland wall. Hezlep & Riley – asked Brown about school entrances. Riley asked about controlled entrance and Hezlep asked for clarification on which doors would be open during the day. Brown – answered that during the school day, the building will be on lock down. He pointed to a west entry door that enters into a vestibule, which will not allow further access until both doors are locked, and may proceed into a reception area. There will be limited key card access for staff. During the school day, all outside doors will be locked and the only way in will be through the west entrance, through the reception area. Bird – presented screening information and indicated that Staff recommended planting a row of bushes around the corners of the parking lot to provide an end point to the row of shrubs and provide screening from the adjacent public street as seen from Independence Avenue. Hezlep – asked the height of the shrubs. Bird – answered that the requirement is a mature height of 36 inches. David Grossi, Landscape Architect – indicated that the bushes will be Sabina Junipers, which grow to 36 inches. Hezlep – said that he did not have a concern with using junipers, however asked if there should be a variety of shrubs used for the screening. Poteete, Hezlep and Hansen – suggested using a variety of shrubs. Grossi – asked if the Commission would accept ornamental grasses to fulfill the screening requirement. Hezlep – said he favored ornamental grass with the exception of Pampass grass. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 of 16 Bird – continued with screening and indicated that the roof top units will be set back far enough and screened by a parapet wall. There is one unit that will be visible from the west side and asked Brown to explain the proposal. Brown – pointed to the unit which will be a classroom area used for cooking and must have cooking hoods to exhaust air. He proposed painting it to match the metal panels behind it. Hezlep – asked how far back it sat from the front wall. Brown – answered 40 feet. Hezlep – asked what kind of panel it will be. Brown – answered that it is an air handling unit. He used the projector to provide other views of the rooftop units. Hansen – expressed concern about the potential for the wall-mounted exhaust units to drip grease down the side of the building. Brown – indicated that at the middle school level, the amount of cooking for these units will not reflect a full-use kitchen like commercial uses. He said the hoods are commercial, but they will be used as residential type ranges for classroom learning and will not produce the level of grease like that of commercial units. Planning Commission – accepted the location of the exhaust vents on the side of the building rather than the rooftop. Bird – continued with discussion of the mechanical court yard and how it will be screened. The plans show there will be a screening wall but there were no details provided to describe it. Staff discussions with Brown outside the meeting indicated that it will be the same material as the building, with a solid wall to contain the area. It will fulfill the requirements for screening. Brown – showed the Planning Commission an elevated view of the mechanical area. He indicated that there will be 14 foot and 20 foot screening walls. An ornamental gate will slide back behind the wall, allowing it to be as opaque as possible. He mentioned that Bird had directed him to other enclosure gates in Derby that were approved for screening, such as the Derby Market Place. Hezlep – asked how wide the gate is. Brown – answered 24 feet. Poteete – asked about an issue with the water line location. Bird – answered that it was a service line, located under the electrical transformer. It has been relocated. Brown – showed the Planning Commission the new location. Pat Baer (representing the applicant) – said that in the courtyard there is an electrical transformer. In order to get the 4-inch water line into the building, they have coordinated with mechanical engineers to reroute the line directly around the transformer. The plans as presented show the fire line going to the same location. After these plans had already been submitted, he coordinated with the Fire Department to route the fire line to the west side of the building on the front side. The Fire Department was agreeable to this and liked the revision. Therefore the fire line will no longer go into the mechanical courtyard. Herman – asked if there will be security gates on the school grounds. Brown – answered no. Bird – summarized the notes on what was discussed and agreed upon by the Commission, including the following: 1) allow an increased size for the monument sign; 2) allow the proposed wall signs subject to separate sign permit at time of installation; 3) plant Bermuda grass instead of fescue; 4) require brick color variations and additional trees for the south façade; 5) require shrubs to wrap the parking lot corners; 6) require a DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 of 16 variety of shrubs and ornamental grasses to screen the parking lot; 7) allow additional trees to be planted on the adjacent reserve in the detention areas; 8) allow painting an exposed rooftop unit in lieu of screening; 9) allow the location of the exhaust vents; 10) a pprove the proposed 350 parking spaces; 11) the private street on the east side of the lot should remain open to two-way circulation, provided that signage is installed to discourage southbound traffic from dropping off students where they would be required to cross northbound traffic. MOTION: Josh Kippenberger motioned to approve the site plan, subject to staff comments and tonight’s discussion. SECOND: Herman Hicks VOTE: 7-0-0 Baer – returned to the bench and resumed the duties of the Chairperson. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Hicks SECOND: Kippenberger VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:26pm Bird – reminded the Commission that there will not be a meeting held July 4, 2013 due to the holiday. He said that there will be a couple of items to consider at the July 18, 2013 meeting, a review of the City’s 2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 of 16