Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 2013 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Kippenberger, Doug Chambers, Mitch Adams, Dennis Poteete, Jack Hezlep, Gunter Hansen, Kathy Wills, Herman Hicks MEMBERS ABSENT: Pat Baer, Shawn Riley CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner, Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Approve Minutes of Thursday, September 5, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Josh Kippenberger SECOND: Herman Hicks VOTE: 7-0-1; Gunter Hansen abstained PUBLIC FORUM OPENED Kevin Ashton, applicant for vacation – introduced himself and presented his request to vacate a portion of the platted utility easement along his north property line. Ashton indicated that he spoke with members of the Park Hill Homeowners’ Association and that no concerns were raised regarding the proposed vacation. PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Vacation Request – Vacate a portion of the platted utility easement located on Lot 1, Block 1, Park Hill Addition, Derby, Sedgwick Co., Kansas. (Public Hearing) GENERAL LOCATION: 1400 Box Elder Ct. – Northeast corner of Box Elder Ct. and Park Hill St. APPLICANT: Kevin Ashton, property owner REASON FOR REQUEST: Provide for installation of a small swimming pool BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  The subject site is located on the east side of Park Hill Street, north of Box Elder Court in the Park Hill Addition. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 4   The addition is zoned R-1 “Single-Family Residential District” and the subject lot is an owner-occupied single-family residence.  There is a platted 20 ft. utility easement along the north lot line of the subject property. The Subdivision Regulations require a 20 ft. utility easement along back property lines to allow for the installation and maintenance of public utilities.  The owner desires to install an accessory swimming pool in the backyard of the residence. Accessory structures are required to be a minimum distance of 10 ft. from the principal structure in accordance with the Zoning Regulations.  The required 10 ft. setback from the principal structure, in addition to the length of the desired pool, would cause the structure to extend into the platted 20 ft. utility easement along the north lot line of the property.  Permanent structures are not permitted to be constructed within easements, which includes the proposed in-ground swimming pool.  The subject easement contains a sanitary sewer line stub and riser which serves the residence at the above address. The riser is located near the east property line, and does not extend across the lot.  Other utilities that are located within the easement include communications cables and electrical service conductors. These lines have been marked by utility location services and do not appear to be affected by the proposed vacation. STAFF COMMENTS:  The applicant discussed this vacation request with City staff prior to submitting an application. Staff recommended a new utility easement be dedicated north of the property line, within Reserve B of Park Hill Addition. The additional dedication will ensure that a minimum 20 ft. easement is available for placement and maintenance of utilities as required by the Subdivision Regulations.  The Park Hill Homeowner’s Association is the owner of Reserve B and is responsible for maintenance of the reserve. The Park Hill HOA has verbally agreed to the dedication of an 8 ft. utility easement in Reserve B as a replacement for the 8 ft. portion of easement that is proposed to be vacated.  All vacation requests are subject to required notifications, public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.  Notice of Public Hearing was published in the official City newspaper on August 28, 2013 and was also mailed to affected property owners and public utility companies on the same date.  Westar Energy responded to the notice indicating that Westar has both a primary conductor and a street light conductor within the 20 ft. utility easement. Westar responded that they would be agreeable to the proposed vacation request, however, they advised that the property owner should perform a line locate at the time of pool installation to guarantee that the interior wall of the pool is a minimum of 5 ft. from the existing underground electric lines, as required by the National Electrical Code. o Should the applicant discover that the exact location of the underground electric line is less than the required 5 ft. from the pool wall, the applicant has the option of modifying the pool design to meet the required setback, or at the applicant’s expense, can request a relocation of the existing Westar electric lines. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 4   Rural Water District #3 has indicated they are not opposed to the vacation.  No additional comments were received from other utilities, owners or residents.  If this vacation request and concurrent new grant of easement is approved by the City Council, the applicant would be able to install the desired swimming pool. The vacation of the proposed portion of easement would not inhibit maintenance of existing utilities located therein or future placement of utilities. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the proposed vacation of a portion of the 20 ft. utility easement located along the north line of Lot 1, Block 1 as platted in the Park Hill Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas, conditioned upon the Park Hill Homeowner’s Association granting a replacement easement in Reserve B, and instruct staff to forward the Resolution to City Council for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: Surveyor’s Drawing Legal Descriptions Resolution DISCUSSION: Ashton – commented that Westar was the only utility who replied to the vacation notice. The letter advised of the National Electrical Code requirements for ensuring that the pool wall was a minimum distance of five feet from existing underground electric lines. Hezlep – asked if the homeowners’ association members had any concerns. Ashton – answered no. Hezlep – asked if there was written approval from the HOA. Ashton – said that his interpretation of the requirement was that receiving no response from members indicated approval. Bird – confirmed that his interpretation was correct for the vacation request, however, he clarified that the question being asked is if the new dedication recommended by staff was approved by the HOA, as the dedication is not a part of the notification process. Ashton – said it was discussed with HOA members John & Gunter and they did not have any concerns. Bird – showed an aerial image of the property and referred to the staff report regarding the location of the utility easement and the area requested to be vacated. He indicated that although it may be advisable for the applicant to obtain written approval, it would not be required at this point in order for the Planning Commission to make a decision; the request could be approved contingent upon receiving written approval from the HOA. Hicks – asked if we addressed the issue stated by Westar. Bird – explained that Westar’s concern was in regard to the National Electrical Code requirement which requires that a pool wall to be a minimum of five feet from any underground electric conductor. Westar did not object to the vacation, but wanted the applicant to be aware of the requirement. Bird indicated that staff has worked with Mr. Ashton to ensure this requirement will be met. Poteete – asked if concrete extended around the pool would be a concern with this electrical requirement. Ashton – answered it was not against code to place sidewalks over an easement. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 Bird – confirmed that the concrete around the pool is permitted; pavement over an easement is the property owner’s responsibility in the event of a utility needing repair. Hicks – asked if the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval, would the HOA’s approval need to be a part of the resolution. Bird – confirmed that it was addressed in the resolution as contingent upon the HOA’s dedication of a new utility easement. Hansen – confirmed, as a member of the Park Hill HOA, that a written approval would be mandated. Hicks – stated his concern for approving the vacation request without written approval. Kippenberger – clarified that the decision would be contingent upon the HOA’s written approval. Hicks – asked if the HOA has concerns, would the Planning Commission address them again. Bird – answered that if the Homeowners’ Association had substantial concerns and could not reach an agreement with the applicant, it could be brought back to the Planning Commission; however, he indicated that in this case, he recommended that the Planning Commission allow city staff to coordinate details for accomplishing the vacation and concurrent dedication. Hicks – pointed out that it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to know if staff needed to act on unresolved issues between the HOA and the applicant. Bird – reminded the Planning Commission that the decision tonight would not be the final. The City Council will also review the case along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Any concerns raised by the City Council could be reported back to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Herman Hicks moved to approve SECOND: Josh Kippenberger VOTE: 7-1; Gunter Hansen opposed COMMUNICATIONS: No applications were submitted for the October 3, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Herman Hicks SECOND: Mitch Adams VOTE: 8-0 Meeting adjourned at 6:56pm Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 4