Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 16, 2014, 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Hezlep, Gunter Hansen, Herman Hicks, Larry Gould, Josh Kippenberger, Mitch Adams, Pat Baer, Kathy Wills, Dennis Poteete, Shawn Riley MEMBERS ABSENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Kathy Sexton, City Manager; Jacque Butler, City Attorney; Dan Squires, City Engineer; Cody Bird, City Planner; Stephanie Cox, Recording Secretary ANNOUNCEMENT: Cody Bird, City Planner – Introduced Larry Gould as a new appointment to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gould was appointed to fill a seat which became vacant December 23, 2013 when former Commissioner Doug Chambers resigned. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Approve Minutes of Thursday, January 2, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Herman Hicks VOTE: 8-0-2, Josh Kippenberger and Larry Gould abstained PUBLIC FORUM OPENED Cody Bird, City Planner – Introduced the new City Attorney, Jacque Butler. PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED Chairman Baer disclosed that he is an employee of Baughman Company and will be abstaining from voting on agenda item 1. He will still be acting as Chairman of the meeting to direct proceedings and maintain order. Cody Bird introduced agenda item 1 (staff report included). DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 19 AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Request (Public Hearing) R-1 Single-Family Residential to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) GENERAL LOCATION: North of Meadowlark Blvd. at the intersection of Meadowlark Blvd. and Rawhide St. APPLICANTS: Lusk Communities, Inc. CONTRACT PURCHASER: JEL Land Acquisitions, LLC AGENT: Baughman Company, PA REASON FOR REQUEST: Allow increased density for construction of a multiple- family apartment development and ancillary on-site amenities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  The applicant has requested to change the zoning district classification for the subject site from R-1 “Single-Family Residential” to RPUD “Residential Planned Unit Development.”  The RPUD request would include combining existing platted lots into one large lot to accommodate apartment buildings along with a clubhouse, pool and ancillary on -site amenities.  The zone change request for the subject property was originally presented to the Planning Commission at a required public hearing November 7, 2013.  At the hearing, public testimony was provided and concerns were identified. o A list of those identified concerns is included in this report, along with follow -up actions and findings.  The applicant requested to table the zone change hearing to a later date in order to allow the plan to be revised and address comments from the meeting and those contained in the staff report. o The item was tabled until the January 16, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting.  The applicant has since modified the site layout to address concerns and has submitted revisions for review by the Planning Commission.  Zone change requests require a Public Hearing. The “Notice of Public Hearing” was published in the Derby Informer on December 25, 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. Additionally, a sign advertising the Public Hearing was posted on the site of the area requested to be rezoned.  Written public comments concerning the requested rezoning of the subject property received prior to the November 7, 2013 Planning Commission meeting DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 19  were provided with the November 7 staff report. Subsequently, additional written comments were received. Written comments received, prior to and since the November 7th meeting, are included in the back of the Planning Commission packet. General Site Background  The application area is comprised of 62 platted lots in The Oaks and The Oaks 2nd Additions, totaling approximately 23.9 acres. A complete legal description of the application area is on file at City Hall.  The area is presently zoned and platted for R-1 “Single-Family Residential” use and is currently undeveloped.  The contract purchaser presently owns and manages the existing apartments (The Greens and The Fairways) as well as the Derby Golf and Country Club. The company has made substantial investments to develop the golf course, and now desires to take advantage of development potential on the available real estate adjacent to the golf course.  The site is proposed to be rezoned to RPUD “Residential Planned Unit Development.”  A Residential PUD is not a standard zoning district; it is a conditional use development. Development within the RPUD 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. Concerns Identified at November 7, 2013 Public Hearing Concern Action Findings / Results Existing sanitary sewer has sufficient capacity Sanitary Sewer Study of existing facilities to accommodate the proposed number of Capacity conducted units. Meadowlark Blvd. can accommodate traffic generated: Traffic signals on Meadowlark may be warranted at Triple Creek Dr. and at Traffic study for proposed site and Rawhide St. (Petitions for signals will be Increased Traffic surrounding areas conducted required) Traffic from proposed site will not be allowed onto Lookout Street, thus there will be no Traffic on Newberry Gate provided at Lookout Street to additional vehicular traffic through the Street allow emergency access only Morningside neighborhood DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 19 Concern Action Findings / Results Proposed development is anticipated to connect to water lines existing along Newberry Water Pressure at Evaluated water pressure south of St. and will not affect pressure south of Nearby Sites Meadowlark Meadowlark. All new developments are required to detain stormwater on site. A drainage plan is required at the time of platting and will be Require drainage plan at time of reviewed for compliance with applicable Drainage platting standards. Existing apartments in The Oaks are Analysis prepared by Derby Police statistically no more prone to crime than Increased Crime Department adjacent single-family neighborhoods New layout removes previously disjointed Configuration for Lookout Street layout redesigned single-family lots and curve radius is compliant Lookout Street in revised submission with Subdivision Regulation requirements Revised submission limits 3-story buildings to the interior of the 2-story buildings around perimeter are development site and reduces the compatible with surrounding building heights number of proposed 3-story units and provides a visual buffer from 3-story Building Heights from 19 to 10. buildings at interior The 25-foot setback exceeds requirements of R Revised submission provides a -3 and R-4 multiple-family district regulations. Separation from minimum 25-foot building setback Additional buffer space provided by the golf Existing Single-Family around the perimeter of the course provides significant separation from Residential development site existing single-family residences. 2-story buildings at the perimeter will be compatible with surrounding building heights and will buffer views of interior 3-story Perimeter buildings reduced to 2 buildings. Screening and landscaping will View / Appearance -story and screening/landscaping further soften views from adjacent properties. of Apartment will be provided as required at final Requirements will be considered at final RPUD Development RPUD hearing and site plan review and details coordinated at site plan review. Master Plans for any development are fluid and subject to change. Review procedures, such as public hearings for zone changes, are in place to facilitate changes to development Changes to The Oaks plans while ensuring protection of the public Master Plan No action necessary health, safety and welfare. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 19 Concern Action Findings / Results The Oaks is a mixed-use development which provides a variety of housing types including single-family and multiple-family residential, as well as commercial uses and golf course facilities. Potential change to property value is a subjective measure and adequate information does not exist to draw accurate Property Values No action necessary conclusions. 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. 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.) The subject property is approximately 23.9 acres in size and is located on the north side of Meadowlark Blvd. at the intersection of Meadowlark Blvd. and Rawhide St. The western portion of the property is platted as The Oaks Addition (41 residential lots) in 2001. The eastern portion of the property was replatted as The Oaks 2nd Addition (21 residential lots) in 2003. All of the subject property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential. The property is undeveloped and has been used primarily for agricultural purposes. There are no existing structures on the subject property. Existing land uses and zoning adjacent to the proposed rezoning area are as follows: The subject property is nearly completely surrounded by an existing golf course. The open space and vegetation of the golf course provides an effective buffer from other nearby properties. Beyond the golf course to the north, east and west are areas that are currently platted and zoned for single-family residential development. These properties adjacent to the golf course are undeveloped and are presently used for agricultural purposes except for a few small wooded areas that have been left in a natural state. Northeast of the subject property is a portion of The Oaks 2nd Addition that is developed as a single-family residential DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 19  neighborhood with approximately 41 of 56 lots (73%) developed. All houses are less than 10 years old. South across Meadowlark Blvd. is Tower Heights Addition, a fully developed residential neighborhood primarily comprised of single-family residential homes, with some two-family duplexes along Rawhide St. Residences are 15 to 25 years old. 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 R-1 Single-Family Residential District which is intended for medium density single-family dwellings and certain public facilities. Uses that are allowed within the R-1 District include single-family detached dwellings, residential-design manufactured homes, golf courses, public parks and playgrounds, and public and private schools including related facilities. The R-1 District also permits conditional uses for places of worship, adult and child care centers, recreational club activities accessory to golf courses and public utility uses. The uses permitted in the R-1 District are suitable for the subject site and are compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses. R-1 zoning is the most restrictive zoning district in the city, and may limit the subject site to fewer uses than may be appropriate. The adjacent golf course provides a buffer of open space (190 feet or greater) which helps to create separation and eases the transition between higher density residential developments from single-family residential uses. The site is also set back from Meadowlark Blvd. and the residential development to the south. The additional distance from the public right-of-way (approximately 250 feet from nearest proposed building) creates significant separation from single-family homes. R-2 two-family duplex residences exist on both sides of Rawhide St. to the south of Meadowlark Blvd., immediately across from the entrance to the subject site. Slightly more restrictive zoning districts such as R-2 provide a good transition between more intense land uses and single-family residential neighborhoods. To the northeast of the subject site is a partially developed single-family residential neighborhood. The nearest proposed building (in the northeast corner of the site) is approximately 160 feet from the nearest single-family platted lot and 300 feet from the nearest developed lot. In the future, a zoning district, such as R-2, should be considered to serve as a transition between the existing R-1 single-family residential neighborhood. Additional landscaping and screening may also be required to further soften the transition from higher density to medium density residential developments. The subject site would not be appropriate for most business uses and should not be considered for general commercial zoning. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 19  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 Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). A Residential PUD differs from a baseline zoning district in that the applicant is required to submit 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 RPUD 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 RPUD zoning is a conditional use zoning district intended to provide for well planned residential 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. The RPUD proposes one large lot to accommodate multiple-family apartments with a clubhouse, pool and other amenities. Locating higher density residential uses adjacent to existing medium density residential developments is an appropriate use of the subject site. Further, the proposed development is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to provide a balance of housing choices to meet the needs of different economic levels and age groups. The apartment development is proposed to include 444 apartment units on a 23.1 acre lot (area used for density calculation does not include street right-of-way) which equates to a density of 19.2 dwelling units per acre. The requested increased density can be permitted; provided, that the RPUD specifies the manner by which the proposed density will adequately mitigate any potentially injurious effects to surrounding properties. This can be accomplished by restricting the maximum heights of buildings, increasing building setback requirements and requiring additional landscaping and screening. The proposed RPUD includes a maximum building height of 45 feet in order to allow 3-story apartment buildings at the interior of the lot. The proposed development limits 3-story structures to the interior of the development and restricts perimeter buildings to a maximum of 2- stories. The 2-story structures would provide a visual buffer and transition from existing surrounding land uses to the proposed 3-story buildings. A building setback of 25 feet is proposed around the perimeter of the lot to ensure appropriate separation from adjacent developments and to provide room for utility easements. The 25-foot building setback exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the R-3 and R-4 zoning district regulations. The surrounding open space afforded by the adjacent golf course further compliments the buffer and provides open space around the proposed apartments. Landscaping and screening are an important control measure for minimizing potentially obtrusive views or incompatibilities of adjacent land uses. The current DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 19  rezoning request is a preliminary RPUD, and thus, only general locations for landscaping and screening are identified on an accompanying sheet. Screening and landscaping will be considered with the final RPUD. Specific details for number, location and species of plants can be addressed at the time of site plan review, which is noted in the text of the proposed RPUD document. The Planning Commission has discretion to consider requiring additional landscaping or other measures to fulfill the intent of the screening requirements. 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 largely unchanged since it was originally platted and zoned in 2001. A portion of the application area was replatted in 2003 to allow a different configuration, but remains undeveloped. The approximately 23.9 acre portion of The Oaks and The Oaks 2nd Additions has remained vacant and used primarily for agricultural purposes. It is possible that the existing R-1 zoning has not developed because of an existing sufficient supply of other R-1 zoning in Derby. Additionally, the property remaining vacant as presently zoned may be attributed to the effects of the economic recession and the housing market collapse beginning shortly after the property was platted. 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 of the proposed RPUD are limited to single-family, two-family and multiple-family residential dwellings and accessory community facilities, which are compatible with adjacent residential land uses. Restrictions of the RPUD include the provision of maximum development densities, building setbacks and maximum building heights. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 19  A building setback of 25 feet provides a sufficient buffer between proposed apartment buildings and adjacent properties or street right-of-ways, in addition to providing adequate space for utility easements. The maximum building height proposed is 45 feet. The proposed height would allow construction of 3-story buildings that are proposed to be located in the interior of the development. A General Provision requirement indicates that all perimeter buildings shall be limited to 2 stories in height, which is compatible with the height and massing of buildings permitted in surrounding developments and would provide a visual transition. A general landscape concept was submitted with the RPUD which shows placement of trees that will visually soften the impact of the proposed development. Landscaping and screening will be further considered with the final RPUD. Section 304 of the Zoning Ordinance may be used as a guide for determining minimum requirements, though the Planning Commission has discretion to require additional screening to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The health, safety and welfare matters associated with the proposed RPUD zoning should not be significantly different than those associated with the existing R-1 zoning. 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?) Derby’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2006, identifies the subject area as moderate density residential development on the Future Land Use Map. Moderate density developments, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, are characterized by a mix of single-family detached dwellings and moderate density attached residential dwellings with a mix of housing types. The requested RPUD zoning proposes a residential development density of 19.2 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is more consistent with the description of higher-density residential development which is typically characterized by higher density attached or detached residential uses including smaller lot single-family detached dwellings, attached single-family dwellings, duplexes, town homes, condominiums, and other multifamily dwellings and special residential accommodations for the elderly. Although the proposed RPUD density is higher than the moderate density area identified, the Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that the Future Land Use Map is but one aspect of the Comprehensive Plan and that future growth must also accommodate changes in market demands and style of living. The Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance of referring to the other sections contained in the Plan. Considerations of other sections of the Comprehensive Plan are identified below: DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 19   Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan – “Goals and Policies” – provides the following goals for residential developments: 1. Provide new residential developments with livability and quality design.  Applicable polices listed to guide development to achieving this goal can be met through modifications to the proposed RPUD.  Policies “I” through “L” as noted below may require additional consideration during subsequent phases of the RPUD approval process. I. Require building designs in planned development that create variety and do not look monotonous if replicated throughout the development. J. Provide multiple-family development through site design and building design features that form a sense of “quality” and ensure compatibility with surrounding developments. K. Require internal circulation systems in multiple-family development that are reflective of a single-family residential street system, as opposed to looped systems that appear disjointed and confusing. L. Design new residential developments in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Planning Principles and Design Guidelines. 2. Provide a balance of housing choices to meet the needs of residents of different economic levels and age groups.  Most applicable polices listed under this goal can be met using the RPUD process.  Policy “D” – Integrate differing housing types together through appropriate architectural design, site layout, and landscape/buffering – may be considered further during subsequent phases of the RPUD approval process.  Policy “L” of Goal 1, listed above, addresses the land planning principles and design guidelines provided in Chapter 6. The following guidelines provided in the Comprehensive Plan may require additional attention during subsequent phases of the RPUD approval process: 1. Multiple-family dwelling structures should have similar massing, height, roof pitch and architectural features to be complimentary of surrounding land uses. 2. Internal vehicular circulation system should be reflective of single-family residential street systems, as opposed to looped drive systems through parking lots. 3. Parking lots should be located behind buildings or screened from view from internal streets. 4. Building designs should create variety and should not look monotonous if replicated throughout the development. Such designs should include elements of the following: DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 19   Varied rooflines, varied façade depths and architectural detailing to create variety and individuality of each dwelling within the building.  Windows and projecting wall surfaces to establish visual interest on larger wall surfaces.  Garages designed to be integrated with the building design and oriented so they do not visually dominate the building façade or streetscape.  Elements of the Comprehensive Plan principles and design guidelines should continue to be incorporated into the proposed RPUD throughout the review procedures and the public meeting process. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (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  This site is adjacent to Meadowlark Blvd., a 4-lane urban arterial roadway which provides an east-west transportation link across the city. Meadowlark Blvd. provides direct access to Rock Rd. and K-15 Highway, both of which are major transportation links from Derby to major employment centers and attractions in Wichita. A traffic impact study conducted indicates that these streets provide adequate capacity to handle traffic volumes anticipated with the proposed apartment development.  The traffic study recommends that when The Oaks is fully developed, a traffic signal is likely warranted at the intersection of Meadowlark Blvd. and Triple Creek Dr. (Windmill Rd.) and may be warranted at Meadowlark Blvd. and Rawhide St. Installation of the signals should be based upon warrants satisfied by actual traffic counts and conditions as development occurs.  The proposed private street serving the interior of the proposed development is aligned with Rawhide St. on the south side of Meadowlark Blvd. Minimal vehicular traffic is expected to utilize Rawhide St. as a result of the proposed development.  A private street is proposed to connect to Lookout St., a public street which will connect to Newberry St. to the east of the proposed development. The private street will be gated and utilized for emergency access only. No day-to- day vehicular traffic will be able to enter/exit the proposed apartment site via Lookout St. Sanitary Sewers  A 12-inch sanitary sewer line is in place along the south side of the subject property and extends west parallel to Meadowlark Blvd. The line connects to the City’s Mid-Town Interceptor, which serves nearly all development north of Meadowlark Blvd. between Buckner St. and Rock Rd.  A study of the sanitary sewer system was conducted to determine if the existing downstream system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 19  proposed RPUD, in addition to other future development. The results of the study indicate that the existing facilities are able to handle the additional flow which would be generated by the proposed RPUD development. Modest increases in densities on adjacent sites could also be accommodated.  Locations of proposed sanitary sewer lines to provide service to the proposed apartment buildings need to be identified. Additional design coordination is required, and can be addressed during subsequent phases of the RPUD approval process. Water & Fire Protection  There are no existing water lines present on the subject site. Locations of future water lines and hydrants to serve the apartment will be determined during subsequent phases of the RPUD approval process.  The original concept utility plan for The Oaks Addition included plans for water lines that were looped to ensure adequate service and pressure even if a portion of the lines need to be shut off for repairs. The design of the new water line system will also be looped.  Additional water lines required to provide water service and fire protection to the proposed apartments can be provided without significantly impacting the pressure and flow available to adjacent neighborhoods. Drainage  The applicant is required to address all drainage issues in conformance with the City’s Stormwater Management Criteria.  A drainage plan is required and must be submitted to city staff for review with the preliminary plat. Emergency Services  Derby Police Department has indicated that present resources and staffing are sufficient to serve the proposed development and can accommodate the expected increase in traffic.  Derby Fire & Rescue has indicated that the proposed development can be served with present resources. Additional coordination regarding site layout, fire lanes and fire hydrant locations will be needed and can be addressed during site plan review. 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 received written public comment concerning the proposed rezoning of the subject property and those comments received are included in the Planning Commission packet. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 of 19  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 provided, City Staff supports the requested zone change from R-1 Single-Family Residential to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development. Recommendations contained in the staff report for the November 7, 2013 public hearing have been addressed in the revised drawings submitted. Should the Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary RPUD, such approval should require the following:  Required modifications to the Preliminary RPUD document shall be addressed in the revised drawings submitted for Final RPUD approval  Platting of the site within one year of subsequent approval by the City Council  Submission of an application for Final RPUD pursuant to requirements of Section 415 of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly the following: o A preliminary drainage concept, depicting the location of existing above-ground drainage facilities and the general location of planned drainage facilities o Landscaping and screening plans which depict landscaping and screening which meets or exceeds the standards of Section 304 of the Zoning Ordinance or Section 502(R) of the Subdivision Regulations (for screening walls) Additional coordination will be needed throughout the approval process, including at the time of platting and site plan review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the preliminary Planned Unit Development request to change the zoning district classification from R-1 “Single-Family Residential” to RPUD “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 RPUD document. Phil Meyer, Baughman Company presented on behalf of the applicant. DISCUSSION: Bird verified that a quorum was established for the public hearing. Bird stated that notification of the public hearing was published and mailed in accordance with state law. Additionally, a sign advertising the public hearing was posted on the subject site. Baer requested for ex parte communications to be disclosed at this time. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 of 19 Gould disclosed conversations that centered on procedures and not the specific subject at hand. Gould also provided a one page handout of research he had done independently. Wills explained that there were comments made by individuals who spoke at the November 7, 2013 public hearing which led to her having questions regarding the availability and development of land. Wills disclosed that she had met with Cody Bird, City Planner for a general discussion on land development procedures and the City’s overall development plan. Poteete confirmed that he had also had conversations with Bird regarding procedures and policies. Public Hearing Opened Kevin Ulwelling spoke in opposition of the RPUD as presented. While apartments are needed in Derby, this location is already platted as single-family homes. Mr. Ulwelling also read a letter from Sherrie Kennedy which stated that single-family homes generate more taxes than multi-family units. The letter also claimed that the proposed apartment complex will also reduce home values by 17%. Melissa Moon spoke in favor of keeping the existing single-family zoning. She added comments regarding a possible financial impact the proposed apartments, if approved, would have upon the school district and community facilities such as Rock River Rapids, Derby Recreation Center and the Library. Barney Tull claimed that McConnell Air Force Base’s new tanker mission would result in a reduced demand for housing. Judy Espinoza spoke against the proposed RPUD and added that there are other parcels of land which are currently zoned for multi-family communities. Bob Runyon spoke against the proposed apartments citing that the original development plan should be honored. Jim Meidinger spoke about the history of the area surrounding the proposed development site, stating that the proposed apartments do not fit into the area. He pointed out that no one from the private sector has spoken in support of the proposed apartments. He added that stormwater run-off, sewer capacity and increased traffic on Meadowlark Blvd. are also concerns. Dan Squires, City Engineer addressed the sewer capacities and explained that he is confident the City’s current system can handle the additional flow. Commissioner Hezlep asked about addressing the water pressure concerns. Squires replied that the City’s water system is divided into two water pressure zones – a high pressure zone and a low pressure zone. There are control valves in place that control the water pressure from one zone to the other. The concern brought up at the November 7, 2013 meeting was that the proposed apartments tapping into the water line south of Meadowlark would result in reduced pressure for the homes south of Meadowlark. It was always planned that the site proposed for apartments would be connected to the high pressure zone, and a control valve would be required if there is a connection to the water line south of Meadowlark Blvd. to regulate pressure. Commissioner Hicks asked if the City spoke with McConnell Air Force Base regarding the new tanker mission. Bird replied that the City has not spoken directly to anyone at the base regarding staffing needs for the new tanker mission, and added that those concerns were outside of what could be addressed through zoning. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 of 19 Hicks stated that the Planning Commission should not base their decision on what McConnell Air Force Base is doing, that the mission of the base is not a factor to be considered. Hicks also asked if the Planning Commission considered if there was a need for apartments when the existing apartments in The Oaks were being planned. Kathy Sexton, City Manager responded to Mr. Hicks’ question by noting that it is not a governmental function to dictate private sector business decisions. She continued by stating that the role of the Planning Commission in considering the case was determining if the requested zoning is an appropriate use for the subject site based upon the city’s regulations. Hicks concurred that was the point he was trying to make. The Planning Commission should not be considering whether or not more apartments are needed. Commissioner Poteete asked for more information regarding site drainage. Squires stated that the drainage will be addressed during the platting process, subsequent to a final zoning determination. A drainage plan was already established for this site when The Oaks was originally platted. The proposed development will create an incremental change to the existing drainage plan. Commissioner Riley asked if a traffic study has been conducted. Squires stated that a traffic study was conducted which considers full build out of The Oaks Additions, including existing traffic and projected traffic of the proposed apartments. Based upon the results of the study, staff is confident that a traffic signal on Meadowlark at either Triple Creek or Raw Hide will be sufficient to address the increased traffic. Hicks asked if one entrance/exit for 444 apartments was sufficient. Squires stated that the City has evaluated the traffic study and is satisfied with the plan. Commissioner Hansen stated his concern about the increased traffic on Meadowlark west of Rock Road. Squires replied that he is confident in the traffic study and that an additional light for the apartments would not create a problem. Chairman Baer asked the applicant to respond to the topics discussed. Phil Meyer, Baughman Company began with an overview of the overall Oaks Development. The first thing built in The Oaks was the existing apartment complexes. Houses weren’t started until 6 months after the apartments were under construction. It was commented earlier that “signature homes” are being built in The Oaks. The “signature homes” will still be built even if the proposed apartments are built. The existing apartments were underway before any houses were, and it did not affect the market for single-family homes. The proposed development will not have an impact on the single-family home market. In my opinion the Planning Commission shouldn’t be looking at the property values and the tax evaluations. Change happens and change is inevitable and this is not the first time the overall plan to The Oaks has been changed. Apartments are one of the strongest markets in the country right now. The market is not demanding starter homes right now because people are having difficulty getting loans. Instead, those individuals are looking for rental units to stay in until they can afford a house. In closing, there is a nice buffer along where the apartments will be built. There are existing trees and berms which protect the views from adjacent properties. Additionally, the golf course provides good separation and open space. Landscaping and buffering already exist and more will continue to be provided with this development. The proposed site is a good location for the proposed apartment complex. If more apartments are to be located within The Oaks, this is the best location with regard to both traffic and buffering. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 of 19 Hugh Jarratt, Lindsey Company presented aerial photos of The Oaks Addition which highlighted single-family residential developments in the vicinity of The Fairways and The Greens apartments. The timeline of photos demonstrated that the single-family neighborhoods were developed after the existing apartments were already under construction. Mr. Lindsey takes pride in his ownership of the apartments and the golf course and will continue to keep his apartments and his golf course maintained in an excellent condition. In the last five years, The Greens and The Fairways apartments have had a vacancy rate of less than 1%. There is a demand for apartments. Mr. Lindsey would not be pursuing this zoning request if there was not a demand for more apartments. Lastly, there are other apartments, nice apartments, all through this area in nearby communities. People who live at The Greens or at The Fairways chose Derby because they like the community, not because they like Lindsey’s apartments. When they leave Lindsey’s apartments, they are looking to buy a starter home or other housing options in Derby so that they can continue to live in Derby. They don’t just “disappear” from the community as some have suggested. Barney Tull clarified on a previous comment regarding McConnell Air Force Base staffing. He explained that he had presented that information because others had brought up the subject of the base’s mission, so he was providing numbers to support the other comments. Hicks asked Mr. Jarratt if Lindsey Management had experienced any problems with “bad seeds” residing in his developments. Mr. Jarratt replied no. Though there is always the possibility of someone making poor choices which lead to isolated incidents, Lindsey Management has a very intensive screening program that can control who lives in Lindsey apartments. Background checks are conducted with each application and we have management that lives on site. Mr. Lindsey takes a very proactive approach to ensuring good residents in his communities. He is very passionate about his properties and takes great pride in his buildings. Kim Fugitt, Lindsey Company commented that there are options for concerns on traffic. We feel that this is a great location for the apartments, but if there are tangible concerns that need to be addressed, since Lindsey owns the golf course, there is room to come up with solutions. Derby is a good market and we would not be looking to proceed with this development if we did not feel it was needed. Scott Walker commented that he feels Lindsey apartments are very nice developments and are well maintained. However, his concern is changing the zoning of the master plan for this development will lead to other changes in the future. The developer stretches the line on what he requires for building single-family homes in his development, and he is concerned the developer will continue to stretch the line. Dean Parker introduced himself as a member of the golf club. He commented that this is not the right place for the apartments. Safety is a concern with children playing in the areas along the golf course. Will put liability on golfers who would risk injuring children playing. Claimed that permitting the proposed apartments would put property and residents in harm’s way. Chairman Baer commented that single-family residences would also have children and the safety concern would be the same, regardless of the type of development. Fugitt stated that as pointed out earlier in the evening, apartments would have fewer children than single-family homes, if safety a concern. Commissioner Hansen wanted to clarify that the applicant is the property owner and Lindsey Management is the contract purchaser. Hansen asked if this development is driven by the lack of single-family lots sold over the last several years. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 of 19 Phil Meyer, Baughman Company stated that there may be some validity to the fact that lot sales were down in the last several years. However, the fact of the matter is that the property owner did not seek out someone to buy the lot for apartments just so he could sell the property – Lindsey Management approached the property owner with the idea of expanding on their existing investment and asked to purchase the site. Additionally, the owner still has 10 years or more of single-family lots available to develop in The Oaks. The last thing he wants to do is impact his ability to market his remaining properties in The Oaks. Public Hearing Closed Motion to take a 10 minute recess, with the meeting reconvening no earlier than 8:50pm. MOTION TO RECESS: Larry Gould SECOND: Dennis Poteete VOTE: 10-0 The meeting reconvened at 8:50pm. Commissioner Hezlep stated that people make decisions on purchasing land and building their homes based on zoning. He expressed that he feels the proposed development is the wrong thing to do at this location. Commissioner Wills referred to a previous comment and asked if there was opposition to purchasing the land for Garrett Park. Commissioner Gould confirmed that there was. Cody Bird, City Planner explained the Findings of Fact. A Kansas Supreme Court case established the 9 findings which are to be considered during a zone change proceeding. The 9 factors are all considered, but the Planning Commission may determine that some factors are not relevant, and that some factors may carry more weight in making a decision than other factors. The Planning Commission, serving as a quasi-judicial body during a zone change hearing, has the discretion make recommendations based upon those Findings of Fact which are deemed to be most relevant. Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary RPUD based upon the following findings: 1. THE ZONING, USES AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Neutral Based upon the description provided in the staff report. It was also noted that all properties are brought into the city as R-1 single-family residential, t herefore, rezoning is a natural progression in any development that does not remain single-family. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 of 19 2. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED: Neutral Based upon the findings of the staff report. 3. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY: Positive Based upon the findings of the staff report. Other determining factors included the presence of existing screening and buffering around the site provided by open space, elevation changes and landscaping. Also included were comments that well planned and landscaped multiple-family developments are an attribute to the community, and that screening and landscaping requirements will be determined during subsequent phases of the planning process. 4. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED: Neutral Based upon the findings of the staff report, and added that a zoning designation is not a guarantee for a certain type of development, but rather, the rezoning process is a part of land development. 5. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AS COMPARED TO THE LOSS IN VALUE OR THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE APPLICANT: Neutral Based upon the findings of the staff report. 6. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE ADOPTED OR RECOGNIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Positive Based upon the findings of the staff report. During general discussion of finding #6, it was noted that there seems to be a perception that the Comprehensive Plan is an actual contract, but that is not the function of the Comprehensive Plan. It was added that the Comprehensive Plan is a fluid tool which constantly adjusts. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Positive Based upon information provided in the staff report. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: Negative Based upon the public testimony provided during the public hearing and the written objections to the proposed development. It was noted that very few addresses from which written comments were received are within the notification area. It was also noted that the City as a whole has a stake in the project being considered, not just residents of The Oaks Development. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 of 19 9. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Positive Staff supports the requested zone change to the Residential PUD based upon the preceding 8 factors. MOTION: Larry Gould moved to approve the preliminary Planned Unit Development request to change the zoning district classification from R-1 “Single-Family Residential” to RPUD “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 RPUD document. SECOND: Mitch Adams VOTE: 6-3-1 Josh Kippenberger, Gunter Hansen and Jack Hezlep opposed; Pat Baer abstained. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Herman Hicks SECOND: Dennis Poteete VOTE: 10-0 Meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm Stephanie Cox Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 of 19