Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 2, 2014, 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Hezlep, Gunter Hansen, Mitch Adams, Pat Baer, Kathy Wills, Dennis Poteete, Shawn Riley MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Kippenberger, Herman Hicks CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner; Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Approve Minutes of Thursday, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Shawn Riley VOTE: 6-0-1; Mitch Adams abstained Approve Minutes of Thursday, December 5, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Gunter Hansen SECOND: Mitch Adams VOTE: 7-0 PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED ANNOUNCEMENT: Cody Bird, City Planner – Doug Chambers officially resigned his position on the planning commission. Due to recent employment with the City of Derby, he is no longer eligible to serve on the planning commission. The vacancy will be advertised and a new member will be appointed. 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 DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 11 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:  The application area is an approximately ½ acre site comprised of two platted lots and a portion of an additional platted lot.  The site is located adjacent to Rock Road, with direct 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 proposed to 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.  A public hearing for the zone change request was advertised in accordance with state law, and held on November 21, 2013. The applicant presented a preliminary development plan for the subject site. No other public comments were offered at the public hearing, and staff has not received any subsequent testimony from the public.  The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary NRPUD subject to discussion and comments contained in the staff report, and advised the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final NRPUD document.  The applicants and their agent have coordinated with city staff to address comments from the November 21, 2013 meeting. The attached revised drawings reflect most necessary modifications.  After consideration of the proposed NRPUD, the Planning Commission may recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions, or recommend denial. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 11  The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration at the January 28, 2014 meeting, pending timely submission of all required documents. Findings of Fact (from meeting held November 21, 2013): The Planning Commission reviewed the findings of fact at the November 21, 2013 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary NRPUD based upon the following findings: 1. THE ZONING, USES AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Positive: The description of the subject site and surrounding sites provided in the November 21, 2013 staff report is an accurate description of the existing zoning, land use and present conditions. 2. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED: Positive: The permitted uses of the present I-1 Institutional zoning are suitable for the subject site and are compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses. The proposed mixed-use development, consisting of a business use with an attached single-family dwelling unit would also be appropriate for the subject site if specific uses and appropriate limitations are clearly identified. Based on the identified uses, appropriate limitations may be required to mitigate impacts such as: traffic generation and circulation, offensive noises or odors, required screening and drive thru uses, among others. 3. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY: Positive: A mixed-use development consisting of a business use with an attached residential dwelling should not detrimentally affect adjacent properties, provided that some regulations are necessary to carry out the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Regulations required as conditions of approval include:  Residential use shall be accessory to the business use o Business use must be owned or operated by the occupant of the attached single-family dwelling unit o Business use and residential use shall share common water and sewer service lines  Remove multiple-family dwelling units from the proposed uses  Reduce the maximum structure height from the proposed 45 feet to a maximum of 35 feet  Show building setbacks on revised NRPUD document o Minimum building setback of 20 feet on west side of lot DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 11   Require landscaping plans and site lighting plans in accordance with Section 304 of the Zoning Ordinance to be submitted with building permit application – Provide notes on NRPUD document 4. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED: Positive: The building on the subject site has been vacant since November 2009. The relatively small size of the site would prevent many of the uses permitted under the existing I-1 zoning to locate there. 5. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AS COMPARED TO THE LOSS IN VALUE OR THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE APPLICANT: Positive: The health, safety and welfare of surrounding properties should not be adversely affected by the proposed zoning when the previously identified restrictions are in place. The restrictions required as a condition of approval of the preliminary NRPUD do not constitute a significant loss in value or hardship upon the applicant when weighed against the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 6. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE ADOPTED OR RECOGNIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Positive: Mixed-use development and blending of compatible uses is encouraged in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Guidelines for mixed-use development are provided in the Comprehensive Plan, and should continue to be referenced during the review procedures for the proposed NRPUD. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Neutral: Utilities are currently in place to serve the subject lot. The proposed development is not expected to generate any significant increase to utility needs or emergency services. The proposed attached single- family dwelling unit is required to be connected to the same water and sanitary sewer service lines as the existing building connection. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: Neutral: No testimony, either supporting or opposing the proposed NRPUD, was provided at the public hearing. Additionally, no written comments were received by city staff. 9. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Positive: City staff is supportive of the requested zone change. Allowable uses and appropriate restrictions as recommended by staff are contained in the November 21, 2013 staff report and adopted by the Planning Commission as requirements for the proposed development. STAFF COMMENTS: DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 11   The applicant has made revisions to the NRPUD document to address the regulations required at the preliminary NRPUD hearing, including those noted above.  Additionally, the applicant has coordinated with city staff to clarify details in the text of the NRPUD document.  Staff recommends the following minor changes to further improve clarity: o General Provisions notes #4 and #5 should be moved to the parcel description for Parcel One. o General Provision note #11 should be divided into two separate notes o General Provision note #12 should be located between current notes #14 and #15. o General Provision note #13 should be located between current notes #7 and #8. o Use Limitation note #1 – Remove “pick up lanes, etc” and reword as follows: “All business uses, services, storage and display shall be conducted within completely enclosed structures except that customer and employee parking, drive aisles and vehicles used in conjunction with the business occupying the zoning lot are permitted outdoors. No more than two (2) vehicles used in conjunction with the business shall be allowed to park overnight.”  Section 416.C.1. of the Zoning Ordinance states: All uses allowed within the NRPUD shall be specifically listed in the text accompanying the NRPUD Site Plan. City staff recommends adoption of the following permitted uses for the subject site: Permitted Uses One Single-Family Attached Residential Dwelling Unit Appliance Repair Shops Arts and Crafts Shops Art Studio and/or Gallery Barber/Beauty Shops or Salons Bed and Breakfast Inns Bicycle Sales/Repairs Shops and incidental bicycle rental Book Stores Business and Professional Offices Candy, Ice Cream, Coffee and Donut Shops, and Bakeries Child and Adult Daycare, which may include outdoor recreation space Clothing Alteration Shops Florist Shops Home Decorating Shops Jewelers and Jewelry Repair Key and Locksmith Shops Picture Framing Shops or Photographic Studios Pharmacies (without drive-thru facilities) Restaurants & Delicatessens; provided however, that restaurants DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 11  requiring a grease trap or grease interceptor are not permitted Sporting Goods Shops Vision and Optical Shops Other general retail or service uses not specifically listed above as permitted uses, but which in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator are compatible with the uses listed  Identification of permitted uses results in elimination of the line beginning with “Proposed Uses” and is replaced by the above listed “Permitted Uses.”  Adoption of the above permitted uses also eliminates the need for Use Limitation notes #6 through #11.  If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the NRPUD, the applicant shall submit a PUD certificate as outlined in Section 415.D.5.e. of the Zoning Ordinance. o The certificate shall specify that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District has been approved for the subject property. Such certificate shall contain the following information:  A legal description of the property.  A statement that copies of the PUD Site Development Plan and its written provisions are on file with the City of Derby.  A statement that development restrictions imposed by the PUD District and the responsibility for continuing maintenance and compliance with the PUD Site Development Plan and its written provisions shall be binding upon all successors and assigns, unless the PUD District is amended in conformance with the procedures set forth by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby.  Any Planning Commission recommendation of approval should require the site to be replatted within one year if subsequently approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the Walnut Grove Planned Unit Development subject to the list of permitted uses contained in the staff report, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to change the zoning district classification from I-1 “Institutional” to NRPUD “Non-Residential Planned Unit Development.” Attachments: Proposed NRPUD Site Plan DISCUSSION: Bird – presented the staff report. Hezlep – asked how the discussion regarding a drive through was resolved. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 11 Bird – indicated that the preliminary hearing’s staff report recommendation was that a drive through should not be permitted. After discussion with the applicant, they have agreed to remove the drive through from the proposed PUD document. Gunter – asked if the applicant could disclose the type of business. Tim Austin, Poe & Associates – said he worked with staff to reconcile the changes recommended. He said one item they disagreed on was the request for a drive through; however, it was determined that this type of use would not be in the best interest of the area. He emphasized the client’s request for a restrictive approach rather than prescriptive and asked the planning commission to consider focusing on the applicant’s attempts to address all the changes recommended by staff and that the revisions made would meet zoning requirements. Hezlep – asked what would happen if the applicant didn’t select a permitted use as indicated by staff. Bird – answered that staff expanded the list of permitted uses to include more uses. He said if proposed uses are not listed as permitted, but which are compatible with the uses listed and the surrounding neighborhood, they could be allowed, if determined by the zoning administrator that they are compatible. If something were proposed that was not consistent with the uses, the planning commission could consider amendment to the PUD to include the proposed use. Austin – debated the prescriptive approach once again, siting a previous case with another city, and used an analogy regarding grocery stores as conditional uses. He emphasized to consider the restrictive criteria to satisfy concerns of the public. Wills – asked who decides whether the use is compatible. Bird – answered that it is the responsibility of the zoning administrator, which is currently Bird’s position with the City. Wills – asked if the applicant disagreed with the decision, could a solution be worked out to resolve the disagreement. Bird – answered that he would recommend bringing the case back to the planning commission to make an amendment to the planned unit development. He indicated that an alternative solution would be for the applicant to appeal the case to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Poteete – sympathized with the applicant’s request, but also indicated that it would be difficult to list all the restrictive uses. He said using the permitted uses approach would allow uses that were compatible with the area. He stressed that if the current applicant met the restrictive uses, it did not prevent a future retailer at that location from operating a business that would not be permitted if the planned unit development utilized restrictive uses. Austin – reiterated that his client would not operate a business that would cause concern to the public or that would not meet zoning ordinance regulations; he did not address Poteete’s concern for future business uses. Poteete – asked Bird if he could clarify retail service uses and conditions for this area. Bird – said that Derby’s zoning district for general retail is B-3, which is not compatible with this site and the surrounding uses. Austin – said the definition of retail use was not entirely accurate and indicated examples of retail businesses that could be permitted. Baer – said the non-residential PUD section of the zoning ordinance specifically states that permitted uses are established by the planning commission. He felt that the direction of the debate deviated from the permitted use definition. Austin – disagreed with that notion and indicated they had stated the uses that were DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 11 allowed, subject to the specified restrictions. He continued to debate the restrictions. Wills – asked Austin if he was happy with the proposal as written. Austin – acknowledged that the applicant and city staff had opposing views on the case, but asked the planning commission to make a decision on it as it was presented so his applicant could move forward on his real estate decision. Baer – clarified to the commission that Austin was asking for approval based on restricted uses rather than permitted uses. Austin – confirmed Baer’s statement but added that specifically, they disagreed with the items listed on page 5 and page 6, the last bullet of the staff report. Bird – asked Austin if, based on the restrictions listed, would mini-storage warehouses, funeral homes and mortuaries be allowed? Austin – answered that conceivably, yes, they could be allowed. He felt that uses, in his opinion, were over-regulated. Bird – pointed out, that the question at hand was whether the staff and the commission could be responsible for foreseeing every possible restriction needed, not knowing what the future would hold. Without that knowledge, the permitted uses listed were considered to be compatible at this time and would be in the best interest of the public. Baer – asked Austin if he had an issue with the replatting requirement. Austin – mentioned that another city does not require replatting, and he indicated that it was costly. Bird – said that staff recommended replatting because the setbacks shown do not match the setbacks on the plat for the existing lots. In addition, as part of the platting and regulatory process, utility companies must be notified. Baer – asked if it could be handled via a vacation request. Bird – answered that it could be done that way, but would require multiple vacation requests and planning commission time to review each case. He said that it may cost the same as platting. Austin – said it would cost more to replat. Baer – said that both sides of the case had been thoroughly discussed and asked to entertain a motion. Hezlep – moved to approve the zone change subject to the list of permitted uses contained in the staff report. Baer – restated the motion. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Mitch Adams VOTE: 6-1; Gunter Hansen opposed DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 11 AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 CASE DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing – Amendments to Sections 202; 411; Appendix 1; Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of the Derby Zoning Ordinance APPLICANT: City of Derby REASON FOR REQUEST: Update the Zoning Ordinance to address changes in local conditions and needs BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  In 2008, the Planning Commission recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to “Convenience Cash Businesses” and similarly recognized businesses. o The amendments included definitions for several similar types of convenience cash businesses, and also identified B-3, B-4 and B-5 zoning as appropriate for those types of commercial uses. o Use imitations were included, which established a minimum separation distance of 1,500 feet between similar convenience cash businesses and 250 feet from any residence. o A use limitation was also added which required all new convenience cash businesses to be located within a multi-tenant building. o The Planning Commission’s recommendations were approved by the City Council and incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance by passage of Ordinance No.1939.  In 2009, the same sections of the Zoning Ordinance were again amended; however, the 2008 amendments pertaining to convenience cash businesses were mistakenly not included in the approved ordinance. o Thus, when the 2009 amendments were approved by City Council by (Ordinance No. 1994) the regulations pertaining to convenience cash businesses were inadvertently amended out of the official Zoning Ordinance.  Staff recommends that the amendments approved in 2008 be reincorporated into the Zoning Ordinance, with one exception. o Staff recommends the requirement for convenience cash businesses to be located within a multi-tenant building be removed. o There does not appear to be a rational justification for the requirement that a convenience cash business be located in a multi-tenant building.  Additionally, several appendices to the Zoning Ordinance are also in need of updating: o The Table of Comparability of Zoning Districts should be updated to reflect the addition of new zoning districts. o The Preferred and Prohibited Plant Materials should be updated to be consistent with current plant diseases and water conservation measures. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 11  o The schedule for ADA parking spaces is not consistent with current ADA requirements and should be updated to reflect current requirements.  It is advisable to continually review and update local regulations to address changes to local conditions and needs.  A Public Hearing is required to amend the ordinance. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the city’s official newspaper on December 11, 2013. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: (All proposed amendments to Article 2 and Article 4 are as originally included in Ordinance No. 1939 with the elimination of the requirement that Convenience Cash Businesses be located in multi-tenant buildings)  Article 2, Section 202 – Add definitions for the following terms (as originally included in Ordinance No. 1939): o Convenience Cash Business o Currency Exchange Business o Pawnbroker o Payday Loan Business o Title Loan Business  Article 4, Section 411.A. – Add a new paragraph #10 to include Convenience Cash Businesses as a permitted use.  Article 4, Section 411.A. – Add a new paragraph #20 to include Pawnbrokers as a permitted use.  Article 4, Section 411.F. – Add a new subparagraph #8 to the Use Limitations for the B-3 Zoning District. Specifies a minimum distance of 1,500 linear feet between similar Convenience Cash Businesses and also a minimum distance of 250 feet between a Convenience Cash Business and a residence.  Appendix 1 – Add R-1C, B-2A and PUD Districts to the note clarifying that these are unique districts and are therefore not listed in the table of comparability.  Appendix 2 – Update list of preferred plant materials to ensure recommended plant species are appropriate for South Central Kansas based on consultation with Sedgwick County’s K-State Research & Extension Office.  Appendix 3 – Update schedule for ADA parking requirements to be consistent with the current edition of ADA Standards of Accessible Design (2010 Edition) RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to Sections 202; 411; Appendix 1; Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of the Derby Zoning Ordinance as submitted and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Amendments DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 11 DISCUSSION: Bird – presented the staff report. Baer – mentioned that Sedgwick County and the City of Wichita adopted the universal parking stall standards of 11 foot wide with a 5 foot landing, and Derby has an eight foot stall with an eight foot landing. Bird – responded to say that the 2010 guidelines allows for 8 and 8 if shared between 2 ADA stalls. A single accessible stall has to have a 5 foot accessible aisle. Staff reviews the requirements and makes necessary corrections before the planning commission meeting. Hezlep & Hansen – offered an explanation of why the Scotch Pine and Ash trees were on the prohibited trees list. Adams – pointed out an error on page 3 of 9, indicating the institutional district should be listed as I-1 rather than 1-1. Bird – asked the commission if they had any questions or concerns regarding the convenience cash business amendments. Gunter – indicated that he liked containing those businesses in multi-business buildings. Bird – indicated that staff recommended removing the restriction. Staff consulted with the City Attorney and found that there is not a direct public interest for regulating that requirement. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Mitch Adams VOTE: 7-0 COMMUNICATIONS: Bird – reminded commission members whose terms were coming to an end in May 2014, could re-apply for another term. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Pat Baer SECOND: Gunter Hansen VOTE: 7-0 Meeting adjourned at 7:34pm Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 11