Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 21, 2013, 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Baer, Josh Kippenberger, Gunter Hansen, Kathy Wills, Jack Hezlep, Shawn Riley, Herman Hicks, Dennis Poteete MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Chambers, Mitch Adams CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner, Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Approve Minutes of Thursday, November 7, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Gunter Hansen VOTE: 8-0 PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Request (Public Hearing) I-1 Institutional to Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (NRPUD) GENERAL LOCATION: North of Walnut Grove Road between Pin Oak Court and Rock Road APPLICANT: Ronjays Associates, LLC (Owner) CONTRACT PURCHASER: Timothy & Karen Dugger AGENT: Poe & Associates, Inc., Tim Austin REASON FOR REQUEST: Allow a mixed-use development site with a business use and an attached single-family residence BACKGROUND INFORMATION: DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 30   The application area is an approximately ½ acre site comprised of two platted lots and part of another platted lot.  The site is located along Rock Road, with access to Walnut Grove Road and Pin Oak Court.  The legal description of the application area is: Lots 9, 10 and the south 54.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 2, Replat of Part of Tanglewood Addition, City of Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas.  The area is presently zoned I-1 “Institutional.”  The site was formerly used as a childcare facility. City records indicate that the building and site have remained vacant since November 2009.  The contract purchaser desires to utilize the existing building for a business use. The proposal also includes a single-family residence that would be attached to the north side of the existing building.  The owner of the subject site desires to change the zoning classification to NRPUD “Non-Residential Planned Unit Development.”  A Non-Residential PUD is not a standard zoning district; it is a conditional use development. Development within the NRPUD district is based on a site development plan which depicts the proposed layout of land use and is accompanied by written text that explains and details the layout and any specific requirements that are applicable to the district. The Planning Commission or City Council may require additional restrictions in order to minimize negative impacts, to surrounding properties.  This zone change request requires a Public Hearing. The “Notice of Public Hearing” was published in the Derby Informer on October 30, 2013. Notices were also sent to neighboring property owners as prescribed by state law. The official ownership list of the notification area is on file at City Hall.  City staff has not received or heard any public comments concerning the requested rezoning of the subject property. Findings of Fact Section 1100(I) of the Zoning Regulations provides the guidelines for the development of Findings of Fact which act to support the Planning Commission’s recommendation of a rezoning case. The Planning Commission may find that not all factors will be relevant to this zone change request. Factors determined to be relevant by the Commission should be given consideration relative to both positive and negative findings. In order to properly make a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make specific and substantiated Findings of Fact supporting its recommendation. Should the Commission recommend approval, such approval should require the site to be platted within one year of subsequent approval by the City Council. The following are the rezoning factors that the Planning Commission must consider, a brief explanation of each factor, and staff’s opinion of findings (in italics) of each factor: 1. THE ZONING, USES AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: (Factual description of the application area and surrounding property as to existing zoning, land uses, general condition, age of structures, etc.) DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 30  The subject property is approximately 0.6 acres in size (24,200 square feet) and is located on the north side of Walnut Grove Road between Rock Road and Pin Oak Court.The property is platted as Lots 9, 10 and the south 54.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 2, as a Replat of Part of Tanglewood Addition in 1981. All of the subject property is zoned I-1 Institutional. The property is developed and has been used as a child daycare facility in the past. The existing building has been vacant since November 2009 following the close of the childcare facility. The former childcare facility included an outdoor playground area on the north side which has since been mostly removed. A parking lot providing 17 parking spaces, including 1 accessible parking space, is located on the south side of the lot, with direct access to Walnut Grove Road and Pin Oak Court. Existing land uses and zoning adjacent to the proposed rezoning area are as follows: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses Direction Zoning Land Use North R-2 "Two-Family Residential" Duplex Residences Derby High School and Athletic Fields and East R-1 "Single-Family Residential" Facilities Commercial Development Including: Retail, Restaurants, Banking, and a Southeast B-3 "General Business" Driver's License Office Automotive Service Station and South B-3 "General Business" Restaurant Facility Southwest R-3 "Multiple-Family Residential" Senior Living Facility West I-1 "Institutional" Child Daycare Facility 2. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED: (How is the property currently zoned and what uses are allowed on the property? Are these uses suitable given surrounding zoning and site criteria? Are the current allowed uses the only ones that might be appropriate for thisproperty?) The subject site is presently zoned I-1 Institutional District which is intended for limited office uses and various public, quasi-public and private institutional uses. Uses that are allowed within the I-1 District include: Boarding homes and care facilities for children and adults; business and professional offices less than 3,500 square feet, places of worship; hospitals and medical services; museums and libraries; nursing or assisted care homes and group homes; and bed and breakfast inns. accessory uses such as ATMs, barber or beauty shops, newsstands or restaurants may be permitted when such uses are accessory to a permitted use; provided that no drive through facilities are allowed. The I-1 District also permits DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 30  single-family and multiple-family dwellings to be constructed in conjunction with permitted uses in the district. The uses permitted in the I-1 District are suitable for the subject site and are compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses. The surrounding existing land uses would be compatible with some additional business uses that are not currently permitted in the I-1 District. Additional business uses should be considered for this site, but should be limited to those business types that will not be detrimental to the R-2 Two-Family residences to the north. Uses should not generate a high volume of traffic, and drive through uses should not be permitted. Uses should also be limited to those which do not produce offensive noises or odors. 3. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY: (Can the uses allowed in the requested district be good neighbors to existing development? This is a subjective question. The focus should be on facts, not fears, and should be based on issues that zoning can address (e.g. allowed uses, minimum lot size, height, setbacks, traffic generation, landscaping and screening, use limitations, etc.) The requested zoning district is Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (NRPUD). A NRPUD differs from a baseline zoning district in that the applicant is required to provide a site development plan which depicts the general layout of proposed land uses as well as written text that explains details of the proposed development. The NRPUD also recognizes that it may be necessary to deviate from the bulk regulations and lot area requirements typical of baseline zoning districts, requirements for landscaping and screening, and design and improvement standards of the Subdivision Regulations. In this sense, the NRPUD zoning is a conditional use zoning district intended to provide for well planned developments which can be flexible enough to achieve the stated development plans and still ensure that the development is compatible with surrounding land uses through site specific controls and regulations. This NRPUD request proposes to use the subject site for moderately intense business purposes. In addition to the business use, the NRPUD proposes that residential uses be permitted. Derby’s current zoning regulations allow for a Residential PUD and a Non-Residential PUD: the Non-Residential PUD is not intended for residential developments, however, in certain limited cases, a residential use that is in conjunction with, or accessory to the permitted business use, should be considered as permissible, as is the case with the subject site. The proposed business portion of the development is the principal use, and the attached residential use is accessory to the business use. Measures should be put in place to ensure that the residential use remains accessory to the business use. The proposal to locate moderate intensity business uses adjacent to existing medium density residential developments is an appropriate use of the subject site. The future land use recommendations included in the adopted Comprehensive Plan identify mixed-use commercial developments as being desirable for providing a wider range of housing options in areas where services are within walking distance. While the mixed-use developments described in the future land use section refers to multiple-tenant apartments or condominiums, the general intent of DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 30  the proposed NRPUD to integrate neighborhood-oriented business uses with residential uses is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The text included on the submitted NRPUD document lists proposed uses that are allowed in R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts: While the R-2 and R-3 zoning uses may be considered compatible with the surrounding existing uses, the size of the site and the number of parking spaces which would be required to accommodate both business and multiple-family dwelling units makes multiple-family residential uses infeasible. The maximum structure height proposed for the NRPUD is 45 feet. This building height is not appropriate for the residential scale of the adjacent duplex units to the north. The 35 feet height limitation of the R-1 and R-2 Districts should be utilized. Some of the building setbacks proposed are less than the minimums that would otherwise be required for either a residential use or a business use. A NRPUD can allow reduced building setback requirements if reasonable justification for the reduction is provided. Otherwise, setbacks should meet the minimum requirements in order to provide sufficient buffer space between uses. The table below provides the proposed setbacks of the NRPUD and the setbacks that would normally be required. Proposed and Normally Required Building Setbacks Direction NRPUD Proposed Normally Required 15 feet (side yard buffer between residential and non-residential uses) North 10 feet 8 feet (same as side yard setback of adjacent R-2 zoning) 25 feet (any yard abutting a street; most residential uses) East 20 feet 20 feet (moderate intensity business uses; B-1 & B-2 zoning) 25 feet (any yard abutting a street; most residential uses) South 25 feet 20 feet (moderate intensity business uses; B-1 & B-2 zoning) West 10 feet 20 feet (existing 20 foot utility easement) Building setbacks will need to be shown on the revised NRPUD document. In addition to the building setbacks, existing easement location should be shown on the document. There is an existing 20 foot utility easement along the east line of the subject site. There is also a 10 foot utility easement centered on the property line between Lots 8 and 9. The applicant should be prepared to discuss how utilities within these easements will be affected. Landscaping, screening and lighting requirements are addressed in the “General Provisions” section of text on the NRPUD document. Notes 9 and 10 state that a landscape plan in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided for City DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 30  staff review. This may be completed at the time of site plan review, if required. If site plan review is not required, the landscaping plan will be required when a building permit application is submitted. Note 11 is mostly consistent with the intent of Section 304.I.4. of the Zoning Ordinance. The note should be modified to state that a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning & Engineering Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED: (Factual information, but its importance may be somewhat subjective. A property may be vacant because the current zoning is unsuitable, but there may be other reasons not related to zoning. Some examples might be a glut of available property of the same zoning district, financing problems, land speculation, fragmented ownership, lack of available public services or other development problems). The application area has remained vacant since the former childcare facility closed in November 2009. The relatively small size of the site may be a restrictive factor for certain uses permitted within the current I-1 zoning. For example, hospitals and many medical uses would require a larger site, as would nursing and assisted care homes and most places of worship. The adjacent site to the west is currently a childcare facility, making the use of the subject site for child daycare less viable due to competition. Although the site may receive some benefit from the high traffic volumes on Rock Road visibility from Rock Road is limited and the site does not have direct access to Rock Road. 5. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AS COMPARED TO THE LOSS IN VALUE OR THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE APPLICANT: (The protection of public health, safety and welfare is the primary basis for zoning. The relationship between the property owner’s right to use and obtain value from their property and the City’s responsibility to its citizens should be weighed). Land use restrictions fall under the jurisdiction of the police power, conferred to the City from the State. The police power includes the responsibility for a City to provide for the protection of the safety, health and welfare of the community. Zoning of land into categories or districts has long been recognized as an appropriate means of ensuring that proposed uses of land are compatible with neighboring land uses. Other zoning restrictions include, but are not limited to: requiring separation or mitigation of incompatible uses through the implementation of setbacks and bulk regulations; ensuring adequate separation and open space between uses; controlling density of development; and the use of solid or vegetative screening and landscaping to protect views and promote aesthetically pleasing transitions between land use types. The land uses proposed for this NRPUD are listed as any residential use allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts as well as commercial or business uses subject to 10 enumerated use limitations. The use limitations listed are drawn from various sections of the Zoning Ordinance and are intended to restrict business uses to those which would be compatible with the adjacent surrounding properties, particularly the adjacent two-family dwelling units to the north. The list of use limitations or prohibitions can be an effective method of ensuring the welfare of surrounding uses. As an alternative approach, the Planning Commission may also want to consider providing a list of permitted uses and use DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 30  limitations. The tables below provide a list of uses which would be compatible with the surrounding properties and use limitations which would serve to further protect the health, safety and welfare of surrounding properties: Compatible Uses Arts and Crafts Shops Art Studio and/or Gallery Barber/Beauty Shops or Salons Book Stores Business and Professional Offices Candy, Ice Cream, Coffee and Donut Shops, and Bakeries Clothing Alteration Shops Florist Shops Picture Framing Shops or Photographic Studios Restaurants & Delicatessens Suggested Use Limitations All business must be conducted within a completely enclosed structure No outdoor storage No outdoor display or sales No automobile sales, service or repair No liquor sales No drive-thrus or pick up windows No business which would require a grease trap or grease interceptor Screening and landscaping as required by Section 304 of the Zoning Ordinance Parking as required by Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance Outdoor signs as permitted by Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance Business hours of operation limited to 6am to 10pm While the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zonings may be compatible with the existing surrounding uses, the site is not large enough to accommodate typical multiple- family residential dwelling units. This is particularly true if business uses are also proposed on the same site. If a residential dwelling unit is allowed as part of the development, the residential portion should be limited to a single-family attached dwelling unit, constructed in conjunction with a permitted principal business use. Additionally, occupancy of the single family residential portion of the development should be restricted to the owner or operator of the attached business. The maximum building height proposed is 45 feet. The proposed height would allow construction of buildings that are not compatible with the height and massing of buildings of surrounding properties. As mentioned previously, the maximum height should be limited to 35 feet in order to assure consistency with the adjacent Two-Family zoning. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 30  Landscaping and screening are not shown, but notes on the NRPUD document require a landscaping plan to be provided for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Appropriate landscaping and screening can be required to ensure screening to protect the public welfare. The health, safety and welfare matters associated with the proposed NRPUD zoning should not be detrimentally affected once the use limitations noted in this report and at the public hearing are applied. 6. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE ADOPTED OR RECOGNIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: (Does the request agree with the adopted plan recommendations? If not, is the plan out-of-date or are there mitigating circumstances which speak to the nonconformity?) The Future Land Use Map in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies the subject area as Public/Semi-Public which is consistent with the zoning and use of the property at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. Mixed-Use Development and blending integration of compatible uses is encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. The following excerpt from Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan provides considerations for Mixed-Use Developments: Guidelines for Mixed-Use Development Mixed-use development areas are those that are intended to provide for design flexibility to create high-quality neighborhoods and retail areas within close proximity to each other. Mixed-use areas are intended to be pedestrian oriented, as opposed to automobile oriented, and designed to encourage pedestrian movement between residential and nonresidential areas. Nonresidential uses are intended to blend into the residential character of the area both in terms of site design and building design. Nonresidential uses in residential mixed use areas are small in nature and intended to provide services generally to only nearby neighborhoods. Such nonresidential uses should achieve the following: o Nonresidential uses and associated parking generally not more than two (2) percent of the land area within the mixed residential area. Business sizes are typically less than 3,600 square feet for any individual establishment. o Nonresidential buildings generally limited to corner locations. Such locations may be near arterial streets, typically not oriented toward such streets. o Nonresidential buildings with a “street-oriented” design to create a desirable pedestrian environment between the building and street. Street orientation should include a consistent building setback line a short distance from the street right-of-way; entrances, storefronts, and display windows facing the street; and DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 30  on-site parking areas located on the side or rear of the building. Conventional “pad site” development with individual freestanding buildings with little relationship to other businesses and with parking located between the building and the street are not considered appropriate for mixed-use residential areas. o Building designs to be architecturally integrated with the residential character of the area through the use of similar building materials, roof pitches, and architectural detailing. o Site design in which parking areas and access drives are shared between nonresidential and residential uses. o Site design that incorporates useable public open space such as a park or plaza, which may be shared between residential and nonresidential uses.  Elements of the Comprehensive Plan principles and design guidelines should continue to be incorporated into the proposed NRPUD throughout the review procedures and the public meeting process. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITYFACILITIES: (Are water and sewer available for extension? How are roads impacted? Can other community facilities (e.g. police, fire, parks, libraries, and schools) handle the increased development? Should be based on factual information referencing standards used to make the determination. Streets  The subject site has direct access to Pin Oak Court, a primarily residential cul- de-sac street, and Walnut Grove Road, a local street. Walnut Grove Road connects to Rock Road, a 4-lane urban arterial roadway which provides excellent access near the site. The existing street network is sufficient to accommodate the proposed zone change with no additional improvements.  The NRPUD document proposes that an additional access drive to Pin Oak Court be provided for the subject site, presumably to serve as a driveway for the proposed residential portion of the development. The additional drive entry should not have any significant impact on the street system or detrimentally affect the adjacent land uses. Sanitary Sewers  Sanitary Sewer Service is provided to the site utilizing an existing 8” sanitary Sewer line located in the Pin Oak Street right-of-way. The existing building is already connected to the sanitary sewer. The uses proposed for this site will not result in any significant increase to the flow of the sanitary sewer. The existing sanitary sewer system is sufficient to accommodate the proposed NRPUD.  If an attached single-family dwelling unit is constructed, the sewer service line should be connected to the same service line as the existing building connection. Water & Fire Protection  Water service is provided to the site by an existing 6-inch water line within the street right-of-way of Pin Oak Court. The existing building is connected to the DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 30  public water line. Sufficient pressure is available to serve the proposed NRPUD.  There is a fire hydrant located at the corner of Walnut Grove Road and Pin Oak Court, and it is sufficient to serve the fire protection needs of the site.  Any fire sprinkler systems or fire department connections for the building will be as required by the Derby Fire Department at the time of site plan review, or in conjunction with a building permit. Drainage  A drainage plan was not required for the subject site because of the limited size of the site and due to most of the site already being built.  Drainage concerns will also be considered during site plan review or concurrent with submission of a building permit application. Emergency Services, Parks and Library  Emergency services, parks and library should not be significantly impacted by the proposed development. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: (This is just one of the factors to be considered and by itself is not sufficient reason to approve or deny a request). City Staff has not heard or received any public comments concerning the proposed rezoning of the subject property. 9. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF: (Should be based on the preceding eight factors, adopted plans and policies, other technical reports (e.g. Capital Improvement Program, facility master plans, etc.) which speak to the topic and staff’s best professional judgment. Based on the preceding factors, City Staff supports the requested zone change from I-1 Institutional to NRPUD Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, with the following recommendations:  Allow the business uses and residential use as a mixed-use development under the requested NRPUD zoning  Adopt specific permitted uses for the NRPUD and/or expand upon the use limitations to include those listed under #5 of this report  Do not allow uses permitted in the R-2 or R-3 zoning districts o Limit the residential portion of this NRPUD to a single-family attached dwelling unit, in conjunction with a permitted business use  Reduce the maximum building height to 35 feet  Adopt appropriate building setbacks with consideration of normally required setbacks as well as existing site conditions o Show building setbacks on the final NRPUD document  Show existing utility easements on the final NRPUD document and be prepared to discuss how existing utilities within easements will be addressed  Remove the “General Provisions” notes referring to signage and replace with “Signage shall be in accordance with Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Signs require a separate sign permit.”  Remove use limitation #2 regarding off-site parking: DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 30  o Off-site parking may be provided as a conditional use in accordance with Section 502 of the Zoning Ordinance. A statement to this effect is not needed on the NRPUD document.  Require the removal of the existing non-conforming pole sign.  The applicant should continue to work with city staff to coordinate additional site details including, but not limited to: uses, setbacks, screening and landscaping, parking requirements and utility information. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the preliminary Planned Unit Development request to change the zoning district classification from I-1 “Institutional” to NRPUD “Non-Residential Planned Unit Development” based on the facts stated in the staff report and as discussed at the public hearing, and direct the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final NRPUD document. Attachments: Existing Zoning Map Proposed NRPUD Site Plan DISCUSSION: Bird – presented the staff report. Tim Austin, Poe & Associates – indicated the applicant wants to be a good neighbor and minimize the impact on the surrounding area. He presented changes to the general provisions and proposed uses based on staff recommendations (a handout was provided to planning commission members at the meeting). Austin indicated their preference for a less prescriptive approach to considering proposed uses. Hezlep – asked if there was a particular type of focus on one type of business. Austin – answered that there was not. Hicks – asked Bird for clarification on NRPUD zoning. Bird – explained that Derby’s Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed use development; however, the current zoning districts for residential planning unit development and non- residential planning unit development do not allow for the mixing of uses. The code necessitates an amendment to combine the two planned unit developments into a single one that would allow more flexibility in residential uses. Knowing that the districts will change, Staff is supportive of allowing this type of use as a planned unit development. Hicks – asked if the planned uses would need to be approved by the planning commission. Bird – answered that the PUD process is set up to identify permitted uses up front and the businesses would be required to fit within those determined parameters. He indicated that those uses identified for the PUD would apply to future owners as well, and new businesses would not need to return to the planning commission for approval. Poteete – asked if the planning commission sets the standards for the residential portion of the zoning district. Bird – clarified Poteete’s question by indicating that he may be referring to bulk regulations such as building set-backs and height limitations, which are established as part of the planning unit development. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 30 Wills – asked if these uses and limitations applied to this property only. Bird – answered yes. Baer – asked if the client was satisfied with the maximum structure height of 35 feet. Austin – answered yes. Baer – asked if off-site parking needed to be discussed. Austin – indicated that off-site parking would require a conditional use and mentioned sharing the strip mall parking lot across the street to the south. He said that would require the planning commission’s review and approval. Gunter – cautioned the applicant regarding assumptions to sharing parking spaces, citing parking difficulties between Applebees and Los Cocos. Austin – said they felt comfortable in meeting the parking requirements on the existing lot. Riley – referenced item #5 of the general provisions and asked if they planned to have a transmission tower for their business. Austin – answered no, the language was copied from the zoning district regulations; he indicated that they could strike that language. Bird – added comments regarding prescriptive versus restrictive identification of uses; he indicated that for planning commission’s consideration, a restrictive approach would allow anything that is not listed as a restricted use and would be open to interpretation as to whether it could be allowed, versus a prescriptive approach which identifies the uses that are deemed appropriate for the adjacent properties. Austin – told the planning commission that the applicant is open to any concerns they have and would be willing to address those concerns. Baer – asked about limitations within adjacent B-2 zoning properties. Bird – answered that B-2 is the Neighborhood Business district which is compatible with residential uses with certain screening and buffering requirements, and would be a comparable district for this site. Baer – asked the applicant if B-2 would be acceptable for their case. Austin – answered that it would be an option, but would diminish the flexibility of uses. He indicated that historically, a prescriptive approach seems to encumber the uses they try to achieve and indicated that they would be hesitant to zone for B-2. Public Hearing Open Bird – indicated that no one had signed in to speak during the public hearing. Public Hearing Closed DISCUSSION – Findings of Fact: Baer – presented for discussion the findings of facts. The planning commission found the findings of fact to be as follows: 1. Zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Positive 2. Suitability of the subject property for uses to which it has been restricted: Positive 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Positive 4. Length of time subject property has remained vacant: Positive Poteete – asked about the statement regarding putting measures in place to ensure the residential use remains accessory to the business use; he asked what kind of measures would be considered. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 of 30 Bird – asked if he was referring to the architectural character. Poteete – answered yes. Bird – said the planning commission can discuss and add text as a requirement to the planned unit development. Staff added measures to make sure it was a viable option by ensuring the ownership stays the same. Riley – asked if there will be one legal description. Bird – answered yes. Riley – asked if the planning commission would need to review if the legal description was split. Bird – answered yes, a simple lot split requires administrative approval and further division would require replatting and planning commission review. 5. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value of the hardship imposed upon the applicant: Positive Poteete – asked if the language highlighted on the handout were revisions based on Staff’s recommendations. Bird – answered yes, the applicant made changes as a result of Staff recommendations. He noted that they made a good attempt to comply, but some items warranted discussion, including the debate on prescriptive versus restrictive approaches. He mentioned that another item of contention included the request for a drive through; Staff recommended restricting use of a drive through. 6. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized comprehensive plan: Positive 7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Neutral 8. Opposition or support of neighborhood residents: Neutral Bird – indicated that Staff did not receive comments from neighbors. 9. Recommendation of professional staff: Positive Baer – indicated that the Findings of Fact resulted in 7 positive results and 2 neutral results. The findings would also be subject to an agreement for planned unit development criteria. Baer – recommended reviewing the proposed uses and agreed to the use limitations mentioned in the handout, including liquor sales, grease traps, hours of operation, etc. He asked what uses would not be allowed and whether decisions should be based on the B-3 or B-2 zoning district regulations. Bird – said that B-3 is a less restrictive general business district, designed for more intense uses, and B-2 is designed for moderate intensity commercial uses intended to support residential uses nearby. The list compiled for the compatible uses in the staff report came from the B-2 zoning district regulations. Wills – asked if the planning commission was restricted to selecting one list from a zoning district’s regulations. Bird – said that all of the baseline zoning districts are set up with a list of prescribed uses, and some prohibited uses. Gunter –asked the owners if they could disclose the type of business they were planning. Timothy & Karen Dugger, Applicants – replied that they were interested in the property as an investment and also as a cost saving measure for residential use and business operation. They indicated that they were cognizant of the surrounding uses and would not operate a business that was not compatible with the zoning regulations. They let the planning commission know that they did not have a definitive plan for the type of business they were considering for the future. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 of 30 Bird – mentioned to the planning commission that the PUD process was a two-part process, reviewing the preliminary plan and concluding with a final plan. He suggested to the owners to narrow down the types of compatible businesses that could be presented at the final PUD review. Kippenberger – agreed that it would be interesting to know the types of businesses being considered, however, he did not want that to restrict the final approval. Hicks – asked if a delay would affect a pending contract. Dugger – answered yes, that they were under a time restriction for a contract, and the planning commission’s decision was a condition to closing. Baer – recapped the list of use limitations and noted a concern regarding the drive through. He said the location was not ideal for a drive through. Dugger – indicated that they were considering the drive through concept more as a pick up window and said they would like to have the pallet broadened for possible options. Austin – mentioned that B-2 provides certain types of uses for a drive through and that the small size of the facility would not generate a lot of traffic. Poteete – asked if a drive through versus a pick up window could be defined. Bird – said that to determine the basis for a drive through versus a pick up window the commission would need to consider traffic queuing. He said due to the small size of the facility and parking limitations, queuing more than two vehicles could be problematic due to traffic flow on public streets. Based on site conditions, Staff recommends against drive through uses. Baer – asked if a pick up window could be limited to the south side of building. Poteete – pointed out a concern for approving proposed uses that may affect prospective business uses in the event the business was unsuccessful. Austin – suggested changing the language to reflect a use that would satisfy the planning commission. Baer – asked Staff if that would be acceptable. Bird – said that traffic circulation and parking configurations could be considered. He said that was the purpose of a PUD, to decide these factors. Wills – noted a concern for the proximity to other uses in the area and how the demographics would open the business to potentially excessive traffic volume during peak hours. Poteete – indicated he agreed with the plan subject to limitations on the drive through. Hezlep – suggested approving the preliminary NRPUD. Riley – asked if the signage would include the residential portion of the building in its aggregate square footage calculation. Austin – answered that it would be limited to the commercial structure. Baer – stated that the architectural style should be consistent for the entire structure. Austin –noted the suggestion and changed the language to reflect it. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Herman Hicks VOTE: 8-0 DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 of 30 AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 DESCRIPTION: A Conditional Use to permit a “Utility, Major”; a Westar Energy electric substation. GENERAL LOCATION: Generally located approximately ½-mile south of 47th Street South on the west side of Webb Road (BoCC #5). APPLICANT: Steps to Life, Inc (owner) Westar Energy, c/o Allyson Wetter (applicant). REASON FOR REQUEST: New electric substation BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Westar Energy, is requesting a Conditional Use for an electric substation on the undeveloped RR Rural Residential (RR) zoned site. The Unified Zoning Code’s (UZC) definition of a “utility, major” includes electrical substations; UZC, Article II., Section II-B.13.i. The UZC permits a utility, major in the RR district only with Conditional Use approval. The unplatted site is located approximately ½-mile south of 47th Street South on the west side of Webb Road. The site will provide the power needed for the anticipated growth in this part of Sedgwick County, which is located within the City of Wichita’s 2030 growth area and the City of Derby’s Area of Zoning Influence. The site abuts the north side of the SF-20 Single- Family Residential (SF-20) zoned Steps to Life parochial school. The SF-20 zoned parochial school is the exception for the area, as the rest of the area is made up of RR zoned agricultural fields and scattered single-family residences (built 1918-2005). The closest residence is located approximately 85 feet southeast of the site, across Webb Road. There are six residences located within a ¼-mile of the site. McConnell Air Force is located approximately 1 ½-mile northwest of the site. The site plan shows the electrical substation located within in a 200-foot (x) 310-foot area, enclosed by a nine-foot tall simulated stone wall. The site plan shows the layout of the substation’s equipment including two 75-foot tall transmission dead-end poles, the tallest structures of the substation’s equipment. There will be flood lights mounted on top of the wall directed into the substation. The applicant anticipates a minimal increase in noise generated by the facility, noting that the new equipment that will be used is quieter than the equipment used in the past. The County does not have a noise ordinance. The site plan shows one drive onto Webb Road. The substation’s equipment area is located 82.68 feet from the south property line, 220.84 feet from the west property line, 220.84 feet from the north property line and 76.09 feet from its east, Webb Road frontage. There is a 20-foot setback located parallel to the south and north property lines, a 25-foot setback located parallel to the west property line and a 30-foot setback located parallel to the east property line. These setbacks reflect the minimum RR zoning district’s setbacks. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 of 30 CASE HISTORY: The RR zoning was essentially established with county-wide zoning in 1985; R Rural Residential (R) became RR Rural Residential in 1996, with the adoption of the UZC. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: RR Agricultural fields SOUTH: SF-20, RR Parochial school, single-family residences, agricultural fields, EAST: RR single-family residences, agricultural fields WEST: RR Agricultural fields, single-family residence PUBLIC SERVICES: Access to the site is via Webb Road, a section line road that is a sand and gravel Gypsum Township road, at this location. Traffic to and from the site will be minimal. The site is not served by public sanitary sewer. The site is located within Rural Water District 3. Neither sewer nor water service is required by the proposed use. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The “Wichita and Small Cities 2030 Urban Growth Areas Map” depicts this site as being inside of the City of Wichita’s 2030 urban growth area, which means that there is potential for urban develop to occur in the near future on land so designated. The proposed electrical substation will provide the power needed for the anticipated growth in this part of Sedgwick County. The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide Map” identifies the site as being in the “urban development mix.” The urban development mix category encompasses land that is likely to be developed in the next 30-years with uses predominately found in the “urban residential use” category. However there is a likelihood that concentrations or pockets of “major industrial uses,” “local commercial uses” and “park and open space uses” may also be developed in this area. The urban development mix category is an area waiting for development trends. The electric substation is defined as a utility, major in the UZC. The UZC permits a utility, major in the RR district only with Conditional Use approval. Transportation/Utilities Locational Guideline number 2 states that utility facilities with significant noise, odor and other nuisance elements should be located away from residential areas. The proposed electrical substation is located in a portion of Sedgwick County has a mix of agricultural fields and scattered single-family residences. There are six residences located within a ¼-mile of the site. Residential growth in the area has been minimal, as the area is used primarily for agriculture. The applicant has stated that any noise increase should be minimal, as the replacement equipment is significantly quieter than the current equipment; the County has no noise ordinance. The site is located within the City of Derby’s Area of Zoning Influence and as such the Derby Planning Commission will consider CON2013-00027 at their November 21, 2013, meeting; UZC, Article V., Section V-B.4.d. If the Derby Planning Commission recommends denial before the December 5, 2013, MAPC meeting and the MAPC recommends approval, CON2013-00027 will proceed to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC/Governing Body) for final action; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.6. It takes a unanimous vote all of the BoCC members to overturn the small city’s DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 of 30 recommendation of denial; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.9. The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map” shows the site’s future use to be “rural suburban acreage.” The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Growth Area Map” shows the site projected as being in a “long-term growth area.” The proposed electrical substation would not seem to be in conflict with the City of Derby’s long range plans for the area the site is located in. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the Conditional Use be APPROVED, for a utility, major/electric substation subject to platting within a year and the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, maintained and operated in substantial compliance with the approved site plan and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 2. Lighting shall be no taller than 12 feet and shall be directed away all residential uses and zoning 3. If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to enforcing the other remedies set forth in Article VIII of the Unified Zoning Code, may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare that the Conditional Use is null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The site abuts the north side of the SF-20 Single-Family Residential (SF-20) zoned Steps to Life parochial school. The SF-20 zoned parochial school is the exception for the area, as the rest of the area is made up of RR zoned agricultural fields and scattered single- family residences (built 1918-2005). The closest residence is located approximately 85 feet southeast of the site, across Webb Road. There are six residences located within a ¼-mile of the site. McConnell Air Force is located approximately 1 ½-mile northwest of the site. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The electric substation site is zoned RR. The RR zoning district supports agricultural activity and this is reflected by the area around the site being used for agriculture. The RR district also maintains a low density development pattern by requiring a minimum lot size of two acres, making the proposed utility, major /electric substation suitable in the RR district with Conditional Use approval appropriate. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The applicant anticipates a minimal increase in noise generated by the facility, noting that the new equipment that will be used is quieter than the equipment used in the past. The County does not have a noise ordinance. The electrical substation will generate less traffic than the single-family residences in DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 of 30  the area and possibly the agricultural uses in the area, thus minimizing the impact on Webb Road, which is a gravel Gypsum Township road at this location. The conditions of approval should minimize the anticipated nuisance elements. 4. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant: Approval of the site will enhance Westar Energy’s ability to provide its customers with a reliable and adequate supply of electricity. Denial would presumably be an economic loss to the applicant and cause the utility a delay in developing the infrastructure necessary to meet future demand. 5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The “Wichita and Small Cities 2030 Urban Growth Areas Map” depicts this site as being inside of the City of Wichita’s 2030 urban growth area, which means that there is potential for urban develop to occur in the near future on land so designated. The proposed electrical substation will provide the power needed for the anticipated growth in this part of Sedgwick County. The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide Map” identifies the site as being in the “urban development mix.” The urban development mix category encompasses land that is likely to be developed in the next 30-years with uses predominately found in the “urban residential use” category. However there is a likelihood that concentrations or pockets of “major industrial uses,” “local commercial uses” and “park and open space uses” may also be developed in this area. The urban development mix category is an area waiting for development trends. The electric substation is defined as a utility, major in the UZC. The UZC permits a utility, major in the RR district only with Conditional Use approval. Transportation/Utilities Locational Guideline number 2 states that utility facilities with significant noise, odor and other nuisance elements should be located away from residential areas. The proposed electrical substation is located in a portion of Sedgwick County that a mix of agricultural fields and scattered single-family residences. There are six residences located within a ¼-mile of the site. Residential growth in the area has been minimal, as the area is used primarily for agriculture. The applicant has stated that any noise increase should be minimal, as the replacement equipment is significantly quieter than the current equipment. The County has no noise ordinance. The site is located within the City of Derby’s Area of Zoning Influence and as such the Derby Planning Commission will consider CON2013-00027 at their November 21, 2013, meeting; UZC, Article V., Section V-B.4.d. If the Derby Planning Commission recommends denial before the December 5, 2013, MAPC meeting and the MAPC recommends approval, CON2013-00027 will proceed to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC/Governing Body) for final action; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.6. It takes a unanimous vote all of the BoCC members to overturn the small city’s recommendation of denial; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.9. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 of 30  The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map” shows the site’s future use to be ‘rural suburban acreage.’ The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Growth Area Map” shows the site projected as being in a “long-term growth area.” The proposed electrical substation would not seem to be in conflict with the City of Derby’s long range plans for the area the site is located in. 6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The proposed facility would improve Westar Energy’s ability to provide the anticipated power needs to this area of Sedgwick County. DISCUSSION: Bill Longnecker, Wichita Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Dept – presented the staff report. Baer – asked about the type of lighting. Longnecker – answered that it was basic security lighting. Allyson Wetter, Engineer, Substation Engineering Dept., Westar – indicated that the lights will be internal to the site on the inside of the fence and directed internally. The lights will operate in the event of an emergency or due to vandalism. Hezlep – asked if the 5 acre site will be enclosed within the fenced area. Wetter – answered that only the 310 foot by 200 foot area will be fenced and the rest of the area will remain as buffer space. Hezlep – asked if they plan to do any landscaping. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 of 30 Wetter – answered that the back half will remain natural and it may be leased. Screening might be added to the front. Wills – asked if Westar owned the property or whether it was under contract. Wetter – answered it was under contract pending approval of the conditional use permit. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Dennis Poteete VOTE: 8-0 RECESS 8:01pm RECONVENE 8:11pm AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 DESCRIPTION: Site Plan Review – Woodlawn United Methodist Church Expansion GENERAL LOCATION: Southwest corner of Woodlawn Blvd. and Kay St. APPLICANT: Woodlawn United Methodist Church AGENT: MJC Architecture – Matthew Cartwright REASON FOR REQUEST: Construction of Fellowship Hall addition and new youth addition BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  The subject site is located at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Woodlawn Boulevard and Kay Street, within the Riverview Addition.  Existing land uses adjacent to the subject site are as follows: Existing Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses Direction Zoning Land Use North R-1 "Single-Family Residential" El Paso Cemetery East R-4 "Multiple-Family Residential" Hearth Hollow Apartments Southeast R-1 "Single-Family Residential" Single-Family Homes South R-1 "Single-Family Residential" Single-Family Homes West R-1 "Single-Family Residential" Single-Family Homes  The subject lot contains 266,933 square feet, or approximately 6.1 acres, which exceeds the minimum requirements of the I-1 District.  Churches are a permitted use in the I-1 District. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 of 30   Staff approved the applicant to submit site plans for only the portion of the site which will be affected by the proposed building additions; however, the applicant was advised that many of the requirements are based upon the overall site development, and that the whole site would be considered as part of the site plan review. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Legal Description. The legal description shown on Sheet C1.1 reads: Lots 11 through 15, Riverview Addition to El Paso (Derby), Kansas. The church does own Lots 11-15, however, the construction is only occurring on Lot 15. Therefore, the legal description should be updated to the following: Lot 15 and vacated Old K-15 Highway right-of-way, Block 2, Riverview Addition to El Paso (Derby), Kansas. 2. Building Setbacks. The existing building and the new additions meet or exceed the 25-foot building setback requirements. The nearest corner of the new addition is 70 feet from the property line. A new playground area on the north side of the site is also proposed. It is 25 feet from the north property line. The applicant shall include the building setback lines on the revised site plans. 3. Easements. The Riverview Addition plat includes a 25-foot utility easement along the west property line and is shown on the site plan. There is also a 10-foot electric utility easement shown along the south property line which accommodates an overhead electric line. The proposed building addition and improvements do not encroach upon the easements. There are two existing storage sheds which appear to be located partially within the 10-foot electric utility easement. The applicant is advised that neither the City of Derby nor any utility company with facilities located within an easement is liable for damage to structures within the easement as a result of utility maintenance, repair or replacement activities. The applicant should obtain a notice stating such from city staff to post on the storage sheds, in accordance with Section 901.A.3. of the Zoning Ordinance. No additional easements are shown on the plat or the site plans. The applicant shall verify that no additional encumbrances exist. 4. Access. The subject lot currently has two full movement openings to Woodlawn Boulevard and one full movement opening to Kay Street. These drives provide excellent access to the site. No new approaches are proposed and no modifications are proposed to be made to the existing approaches. 5. Streets. The site is located adjacent to Woodlawn Boulevard and Kay Street. The existing street system adequately serves the site and is sufficient to accommodate the proposed additions to the church. No improvements to the streets are required. Parking. The parking regulations for churches and places of worship require 1 parking space per 4 seats in the sanctuary. Plan sheet C1.1 notes that 127 parking DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 of 30  spaces are required per code: Working backwards, this equates to 508 seats in the sanctuary. Parking notes further indicate that 46 parking spaces will be removed to accommodate the proposed building additions, leaving 325 parking spaces to serve the overall site. The applicant shall verify the number of sanctuary seats and ensure that the number of existing parking spaces is adequate to meet the minimum requirements. A note on the plan indicates that two parking spaces in the southwest corner of the existing parking lot will remain, but the rest will be removed to provide a circulation aisle around the new addition. Allowing the two parking space to remain will encourage parking adjacent to the two spaces, which will restrict the circulation aisle. Staff recommends that the two parking spaces be “blacked out.” Alternatively, if these two parking spaces must be retained, diagonal striping shall be installed to discourage parking in the area which would obstruct the aisle. Dimensions of parking spaces south of the new building addition are shown to be 9 feet by 18 feet. The minimum length for parking spaces is 19 feet. All new or modified parking spaces shall meet the minimum requirements. 6. Circulation Aisles. The minimum required width for two-way vehicular circulation is 24 feet. The distance from the edge of the existing pavement and the existing sidewalk to remain at the southeast corner of the addition is 22 feet and does not meet the minimum requirement. Similarly, the drive providing access to Kay Street to the north measures at 21 feet, also less than the minimum requirement. This condition existed prior the proposed improvements and in the opinion of staff should be allowed to remain. 7. 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 325 parking spaces which will remain, 8 accessible spaces are required. The plans note that there are 6 existing accessible spaces proposed to remain. Based on the aerial photograph provided with the site plans, there appear to be 3 additional accessible parking spaces provided at other locations on the site (2 on the west side of the building and 1 at the northeast corner). The applicant will need to coordinate with the Building Trades Official to ensure that the number and location of accessible parking spaces is sufficient to meet ADA requirements. For every 6, or fraction of 6, accessible spaces provided, at least one space is required to be van accessible. For the 8 accessible spaces required, 2 spaces are required to be van accessible. 2 of the existing spaces on the east side of the building are 8 feet wide with an 8-foot wide accessible aisle meeting the requirement. The plans propose a new accessible ramp from the drop-off lane to the east door of the existing building. This ramp should adequately serve as the accessible route from the accessible parking spaces to the entry door. Spot elevations shown on the grading plan appear to be within the maximum allowable slope tolerances. 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 DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 of 30  accessible parking spaces and accessible routes shall be coordinated with the Derby Building Trades Official. A note shall be added to the plans that states “Where discrepancies exist between the approved plans and the minimum requirements to meet ADA, the more stringent of the two will prevail, as determined by the City of Derby.” 8. Pedestrian Access. The Design Criteria of the Zoning Ordinance normally requires a sidewalk connection from the site to adjacent public sidewalks or public rights-of-way. There are no existing sidewalk connections on site. In this situation, the public sidewalk is on the opposite side of both adjacent street rights-of-way (north side of Kay Street and east side of Woodlawn Boulevard) which makes the requirement less feasible. Additionally, sidewalks exist on the west side of Woodlawn Boulevard both north and south of the site. Sidewalks are typically required as part of site plan review. In lieu of providing a sidewalk connection, the applicant shall install a 5-foot wide sidewalk along Woodlawn Boulevard. 9. Signage. There does not appear to be any new signs proposed as part of this building addition. If signage is desired, now or in the future, the applicant is advised that all signs will require a separate permit be obtained prior to installation. 10. Site Lighting. It appears that an existing light pole will be relocated from the southwest corner of the existing building, to the southeast corner of the new building addition. Notes on the lighting plan indicate that the light will be a single 400 watt overhead light provided by Westar Energy. The lighting plan also shows that a combination of wall mounted lighting and decorative lighting will be provided near doorways into the new building addition. The photometric plan shows minimal or no light spillage onto adjacent properties and street rights-of-way. Existing site lighting on portions of the site not affected by the proposed addition is not being altered, and is currently acceptable to meet the standards of the lighting requirements. 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. 11. Landscape/Screening and Buffering. 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 two property lines abutting public streets. 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. The minimum landscaped street yard is met along Kay Street; however, the parking lot along Woodlawn Boulevard reduces the landscaped street yard to 10 feet for a large portion of the lot frontage. Although the width is reduced along Woodlawn Boulevard, the wide street right-of-way provides a good green space buffer. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 of 30  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: Min. Total 1 Tree Street # of Trees # of Trees Street Name Yard Square per 500 Frontage Required Existing Width Feet Sq. Ft. Woodlawn Blvd. 600 x 20 = 12,000 ÷ 500 = 24 10 Kay St. 445 x 20 = 8,900 ÷ 500 = 18 13 Total Trees Required 42 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. Staff recommends reducing the required number of street yard trees because there are additional trees and landscaping provided elsewhere on site which complement existing building features and make the site aesthetically pleasing. Screening/Buffering.Screening is required along rear and side lot lines between non- residential uses and adjacent residences. There is an existing screening fence along a portion of the south property line to fulfill this requirement. The portion that is not screened by the fence is property owned by Woodlawn United Methodist Church, and no screening is required. For permitted uses within the I-1 Institutional District, the rear and side yard screening requirements can be omitted if a minimum 25-foot landscaped buffer is provided to separate the non-residential use from adjacent residential properties (Section 304.I.1.a.). Sufficient buffer space exists to provide a landscape buffer in lieu of screening. Landscaping buffers are required to include 1 shade tree or 2 ornamental trees for each 40 linear feet of the buffer abutting the residential district (Section 304.J.2.a.). The property line abutting the residential district to the west is approximately 600 feet in length, thus the requirement would be 15 shade trees or 30 ornamental trees, or some combination thereof. The 25-foot utility easement and overhead electric lines may limit the ability to plant this many trees in the buffer. Staff recommends that the requirement be reduced to allow 15 ornamental trees in place of shade trees to avoid interference with the overhead electric lines Parking Lot Screening/Landscaping. A continuous row of shrubs is already in place along the east edge of the parking lot to screen the parking from view of the public right-of-way. The applicant is advised that any diseased or damaged plants within this row need to be replaced, and new plants need to be provided to fill any gaps in the continuous screening. There are 7 existing trees planted in parking lot islands. The existing trees meet the minimum requirement for providing trees in parking lot islands (1 tree per 50 parking spaces = 325 spaces / 50 = 6.5 trees required). DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 of 30  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. An 8-foot high cedar fence is proposed to meet the screening requirement for the trash enclosure. The enclosure would also include cedar gates to fully screen the trash dumpster from view. Details are provided on Sheet C1.3. It appears that there are a number of ground-mounted air conditioning units and other mechanical equipment on the west and south sides of the new building addition. The applicant shall be prepared to discuss how ground-mounted mechanical units will be screened from view. Miscellaneous Landscaping Notes Notes on the landscape plan state that an irrigation system will be bid separately. A note should be added 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. “General Planting Notes” #3 and #19 indicate procedures for making modifications to the landscape plan or plant substitutions. A note shall be added that any modifications to the landscape plan shall be submitted to the City Planning & Engineering Department for review and approval. Substantial changes to the plan may require approval of the Planning 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. 12. Drainage. Drainage from the site is shown to flow overland to the southwest corner of the site, and is discharged off-site onto two vacant lots, also owned by the church. From the vacant lots, drainage flows to the open drainageway between Westview and Lakeview Streets. The additional runoff resulting from the proposed building addition should not significantly impact the adjacent drainage way. A 6-inch berm is proposed to be constructed to divert surface drainage away from the existing Jack & Jill building. The location of the proposed berm is not on the construction site, but is on property owned by the church. The location and design of the berm is acceptable to City staff. 13. Utilities. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 of 30  Fire Protection. The Fire Department has reviewed the submitted plans and has provided the following comments:  The proposed location of the fire line supplying the automatic sprinkler system in the basement of addition is not identified on the site utility plan, Sheet C3.1.  Flushing of underground piping and hydrostatic testing of system in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 24 and NFPA 25 shall be performed and witnessed by the Fire Department.  The Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be a 5-inch Storz type with 30 degree downward angle mounted 30 inches to 36 inches above finished grade. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. These notes shall be included on the revised site plans. Water. A 2.5-inch water service line is proposed to extend approximately 400 feet to the new addition, connecting to the existing water service line. The applicant shallverify that the capacity of the existing service line is sufficient. In order to provide adequate service for a building of this size, a larger tap and larger water meter may be necessary. Sanitary Sewer. Sanitary sewer service for the building addition is proposed to be provided by connection of a new 4-inch service line to the 4-inch sanitary sewer service. The applicant shall verify that the existing 4-inch line has the capacity to handle the additional load. 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. Others. Gas is shown to extend from the existing service line and enters the new building addition on the south side. Electric, phone, cable and other service lines are not shown on the site plans. 14. Design Standards. Elevations for the proposed building addition are shown, including proposed materials. Colored renderings have been provided to show the proposed colors, design features and landscaping. All rooftop mechanical equipment is required to be screened using materials that are compatible with the principal structure. A parapet wall is used to provide screening for rooftop units; however, it appears that one of the rooftop units will not be completely screened from view. A note on the elevations page indicates that the design of the parapet wall is an appropriate scale for the new addition and the existing building. The applicant or their agent shall be prepared to discuss options for how the exposed rooftop unit can be further screened or disguised. 15. 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-foot smoke free zone at all entrances to the facility. Woodlawn United Methodist Church may have more stringent requirements than City ordinance requires, in which case, the more stringent requirements govern. The applicant should be prepared to discuss their plans for limiting smoking or prohibiting smoking and for installation of required signs. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 26 of 30 16. Miscellaneous. 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. To assist the City’s utility department in accurately assessing the stormwater utility fee, the applicant shall provide the total impermeable surface area of the lot. This information shall be submitted with the revised plans. 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 15, Block 2, Riverview Addition, subject to staff comments and discussion. Attachment: Site Plans DISCUSSION: Bird – presented the staff report. He advised the planning commission that they would need to consider the whole site as part of the site plan review. He noted that the applicant is checking on encumbrances to the site and that they need to verify the number of sanctuary seats to ensure the number of parking spaces meet the minimum requirement. Matthew Cartwright, MJC Architecture – indicated that they were in full agreement with staff recommendations and will provide revised drawings and language. He noted changes made to landscaping recommendations on the west side of the site and indicated that they were asking for a reduction in ornamental trees from fifteen to five. He addressed Staff’s recommendation for a 5-foot wide sidewalk along Woodlawn, indicating that the sidewalk was not located on the church’s property. He expressed concern regarding construction of the sidewalk at Kay Street moving south and the cost of providing a path for pedestrian traffic. He indicated wanting to work with staff on the complexity of the project and to consider alternative solutions. Bird – indicated that Staff feels it is necessary to have the sidewalk in that location because of the proximity to schools. He said Staff would consider alternative options and could extend the deadline to review. Cartwright – said the church’s budget and scope was very specific and was targeted at a particular area; the sidewalk could be incorporated into the master plan and included in the next phase. Bird – pointed out that public sidewalks are eligible for special assessments and the cost of the project could be spread out over time to help alleviate some of the financial burden. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 27 of 30 He also mentioned that the City has a program for completing “missing links” in sidewalks and if the site met all the appropriate measures, it could be a suitable site for the program and the City could share the cost of the project. Baer – indicated that the City typically does not want open gaps in sidewalks; however, he noted a concern in regard to placing a sidewalk on the west side of Woodlawn and said that it may increase pedestrian traffic at Woodlawn and Kay and be problematic for visibility. Baer – asked about the minimum parking requirement. Cartwight – said they far exceeded the parking requirements. The sanctuaries will hold 700 people, requiring 175 parking stalls and the church has 200 parking spaces. Hezlep – noted a concern for the narrow space between parking spaces. Cartwright – mentioned one deficiency on the south parking stall widths, which they would correct from 22 feet to 24 feet. Kippenberger – asked if the planning commission could approve the site plan review while tabling the sidewalk discussion to resolve at a later time. Bird – indicated that he was confident the church would work with staff to review options for a sidewalk; however, the site plan review will be the only time the planning commission can require the sidewalk. He said the site plan review could be approved subject to additional considerations for the sidewalk and coordination with city staff. Cartwright - asked about the missing links program and how that process works. Bird – answered that Staff is reviewing to see if the site is eligible, and would coordinate with the agent. He indicated that if the missing links program was not feasible for the site, a site plan review amendment could be made. Baer – asked the planning commission if they wanted to discuss concerns with landscaping. Hezlep – indicated that the church should abide by the requirements. Baer – asked if there were existing trees to be taken into consideration. Cartwight – answered that there were 2 existing trees in the SW corner and a 6 foot grade change between the edge of the church property and the adjacent residential property. He wanted to address more efficiently the unattractive components that would be screened by landscaping, which was not a site plan review requirement. Gunter – asked if the power lines were encumbering. Cartwright – showed the planning commission the location of the power lines and easement, and indicated a concern for placing trees in that location. He pointed out that the density of trees would be within a smaller area on the west side. He felt this method would be more attractive and efficient, rather than lining up 15 trees through the easement. Baer – asked if the requirement for 15 trees was for the entire site to be in compliance. Bird – answered 15 trees was for the entire length of the buffer for the site. Baer – said he could sympathize with the applicant and would be willing to make a concession for 5 ornamental trees as a suitable compromise. Kippenberger – agreed with Baer. Gunter – indicated that he agreed with Hezlep and that the zoning ordinance for landscaping should be met. Baer – asked the planning commission for further comments. He indicated that 2 issues remain for discussion, including landscaping on the west side and the sidewalk on the west side of Woodlawn. Poteete – asked if the planning commission could make a recommendation contingent upon the missing links program. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 28 of 30 Bird – said they could add those conditions to the overall site plan. Kippenberger – agreed with Poteete in his suggestion for allowing contingencies. Hicks – asked what the cost split would be if the site was eligible for the missing links program. Bird – answered that Staff would need to review the stipulations for that program. MOTION: Josh Kippenberger, approve subject to staff comments and coordinating sidewalk improvements with staff SECOND: Herman Hicks VOTE: 8-0 AGENDA ITEM NO: 4 DESCRIPTION: Presentation of the South Central Kansas Prosperity Plan DISCUSSION: Paula Downs, Wichita State University – presented information regarding the work in progress to create the South Central Kansas Prosperity Plan. AGENDA ITEM NO: 5 DESCRIPTION: Approve 2014 Meeting and Closing Date Schedule MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Josh Kippenberger VOTE: 8-0 COMMUNICATION Bird – announced that Staff received a letter from Lusk Communities, Inc. that indicated they have withdrawn a previous request for R-3 zoning on an approximately 15 acre site in The Oaks Addition. Bird – announced a learning opportunity for planning commission members. The Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University and the Regional Economic Area Partnership (REAP) is offering a seminar on Planning and Zoning Basics, March 22, 2014. He asked that planning commissioners notify staff if they were interested in attending. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Pat Baer SECOND: Gunter Hansen VOTE: 8-0 DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 29 of 30 Meeting adjourned at 9:26pm Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 30 of 30