Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 6, 2014, 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Rhein, Kathy Wills, Larry Gould, Herman Hicks, Jack Hezlep, Dennis Poteete, Gunter Hansen, Patrick Baer MEMBERS ABSENT: Mitch Adams, Shawn Riley CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner; Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary ANNOUNCEMENT: Cody Bird, City Planner – Introduced Jessica Rhein as a new appointment to the Planning Commission. Ms. Rhein was appointed to fill a seat which became vacant January 16, 2014 when former Commissioner Josh Kippenberger resigned. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Wills – pointed out a correction to a statement she had made at the January 16, 2014 meeting. Hezlep – moved to make the correction identified and approve the minutes of Thursday, January 16, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Kathy Wills VOTE: 7-0-1, Jessica Rhein abstained PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED Public Hearing Opened Shirley Pickenpaugh, 2018 N Woodard – told the Commission that she wished they would listen to the people who have opposed the zoning changes rather than those who are in it for the money. She asked them to save the community and the residents who have lived in this area. Richard Moon, 1928 Newberry Place – said he applauded comments about the concerns for making a zone change and stressed the importance of the neighborhood character. He said home owners could not rely on the home owners association, indicating that the rules were not always enforced. He stated that neighbors’ confidence levels were low DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 11 after the previous Planning Commission meeting and that they were frustrated with the outcome. He asked the Commission to consider residents’ investment into not only their homes, but also to the City of Derby. Barney Tull, 2121 Newberry – said he applauded the questions about the future of the neighborhood. He stated that the decisions recently made have had a great impact on the city, indicating that people will shy away from the Oaks because they distrust the city and the builders. Public Hearing 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 act as Chairman of the meeting to direct proceedings. Bird – presented the staff report. AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Request (Public Hearing) R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-2 Two-Family Residential GENERAL LOCATION: SE and NW corner of Lookout Street and Newberry Street APPLICANT: Lusk Communities, Inc. AGENT: Baughman Company, P.A. REASON FOR REQUEST: Allow construction of two-family residences BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  A request has been submitted to rezone 15 platted lots of The Oaks 2nd Addition from the existing R-1 “Single-Family Residential” zoning to R-2 “Two-Family Residential” zoning to allow construction of two-family residences.  The application area of this request is comprised of 15 platted lots in The Oaks 2nd Addition totaling approximately 6.3 acres (including street rights-of-way). A complete legal description of the application area is on file at City Hall.  The zone change request for the subject property was originally scheduled to be considered at the November 7, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Prior to holding the public hearing, the applicant requested to table the zone change hearing to a later date.  The item was tabled until the February 6, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 11   Zone change requests require a Public Hearing. The “Notice of Public Hearing” was published in the Derby Informer on January15, 2014. 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.  At the time of this writing, no written comments have been received. 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 in 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 6.3 acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of Lookout Street and Newberry Street. The property lies within the area platted as The Oaks 2nd Addition, approved in 2003. All of the subject property is presently 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: North of the subject property is a portion of The Oaks 2nd Addition that is developed as a single-family residential neighborhood with approximately 41 of 56 lots (73%) developed. All houses are less than 10 years old. To the west are the tee boxes and fairway of an existing golf course. The golf course provides a buffer of open space and vegetation which is 200 feet or greater from residential properties to the west. East and south of the subject property is a reserve area dedicated for drainage purposes, open space, landscaping and which allows sidewalks and utilities. The reserve contains a detention pond. South of the reserve is vacant B-1 and B-2 commercial property. Beyond the reserve to the east is vacant B-3 commercial property. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 11  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-2 Two-Family Residential zoning would also be suitable for the proposed site. R -1 and R-2 zoning have many similarities in uses, building size and bulk regulations. R-1 and R-2 are compatible zoning districts and no screening or buffering is required between the two districts. 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 R-2 zoning proposed allows the same permitted uses as the current R-1 zoning, except that residential-design manufactured homes are not permitted in the proposed R-2 zoning district. R-2 zoning also allows two-family dwellings, such as duplexes, thus allowing a slightly higher density of dwelling units. Lot sizes in the R-2 district are slightly smaller than those of R-1 zoning, however, lot coverage limitations and setback requirements ensure adequate open space around two-family dwellings that would be compatible with single-family residential developments. The maximum structure height is 35 feet in both the R-2 and R-1 districts. North of the subject site is a developed single-family residential development. Two-family residential neighborhoods and single-family residential neighborhoods are compatible land uses and therefore additional screening or buffering is not required. The adjacent reserve to the east and south provides an effective buffer from existing commercial zoning. West of the site is a golf course which should not be impacted by the proposed R-2 zoning. Preliminary approval has been given to a rezoning request to change the zoning of the property to the west of the adjacent golf course to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) which allows construction of multiple-family apartments. The requested R-2 zoning for the subject site would provide a good transition between a higher density multiple-family development and the existing single- family residential neighborhood. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 11  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 is currently vacant and has not been developed since it was originally replatted as part of The Oaks 2nd Addition in 2003. The approximately 6.3 acre site has been used for minor 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. The land uses of the proposed R-2 zoning are limited to two-family and single- family residential dwellings, golf courses, parks and playgrounds, public and private schools, and, with approval, certain conditional and special uses. The R-2 zoning designation is consistent with the uses of R-1 zoning and is compatible with adjacent residential land uses. R-2 zoning regulations include minimum lot sizes to control density. Established lot coverage, building setbacks and maximum building height requirements serve to ensure adequate open space and separation. The health, safety and welfare matters associated with the proposed R-2 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?) The proposed R-2 zoning is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject area as moderate density residential development on the Future Land Use Map. Moderate density DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 11  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. Furthermore, a goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a balance of housing choices to meet the needs of residents of different economic levels and age groups. 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 has access via Newberry St., a 31 foot residential street. Newberry St. connects to Tall Tree Road which is a 41 foot collector street, providing access to Rock Road, an important transportation link from Derby to major employment centers and attractions in Wichita. These existing streets are sufficient to provide vehicular access to the subject property.  There is dedicated street right-of-way for Lookout St. which will provide additional access to the subject site when nearby property to the west develops. When Lookout St. is completed, access to the subject site will be improved as Lookout St. will then connect to Triple Creek Drive, a 41 foot north/south collector. Sanitary Sewers  A 12-inch sanitary sewer line is in place along the east and south side of the subject property. The line connects to the city’s midtown interceptor sewer, which serves nearly all development north of Meadowlark Blvd. between Buckner Street and Rock Road.  A recent study of the sanitary sewer system was conducted to analyze proposed increases in density on this site and on surrounding sites. The results of the study indicate that the existing sanitary sewer facilities are able to handle the additional flow which would be generated if the subject site was developed as duplexes. Additional increased densities for other sites utilizing this portion of the system can also be accommodated. Water & Fire Protection  There are no existing water lines present on the subject site. Water lines can readily be extended south from the existing 8-inch line in the Newberry St. right -of-way.  The water line serving this development would ultimately be looped connecting to future development along Lookout St.  Hydrant locations will be as required by the Derby Fire Department. Drainage  The subject site drains primarily to the east and south, into the adjacent pond platted within a drainage easement. Development of the site as two-family residential should not have a significant effect on the amount of runoff DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 11  generated as compared to single-family residential development.  A grading and drainage plan will be required at the time the subject site is replatted to confirm that the pond is adequate to serve the development. 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 the platting process. Parks and Library  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). At the time of this writing, City staff has not received any written public comment concerning the requested rezoning of the subject property to R-2 zoning. 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 R-2 Two-Family Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the request to change the zoning district classification from R-1 “Single-Family Residential” to R-2 “Two-Family Residential” based on the facts stated in the staff report and direct staff to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Attachments: Location Map Existing Zoning Map DISCUSSION: Russ Ewy, Baughman Company, agent for the applicant – indicated that this was a reasonable zone change request and appropriate land use transition. He said they agreed with staff comments and the rationale behind staff’s position. Poteete – acknowledged that although Commissioners may have differing opinions, everyone’s input was valuable whether it was for or against the case. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 11 Hezlep – asked if there was information available on what the development would look like. Bird – answered no and explained that this case was a zone change request rather than a review of the development. He explained that a zone change request recently considered by the Planning Commission was for a PUD, which requires more detailed plans by the applicant. With an R-2 zone change, the applicant is not required to provide specific development information. He also said that the R-2 District has specific zoning regulations to control the type of development proposed in the future and reminded the Commission that the development would need to fit within those established parameters. Poteete – said he was concerned that the Commission did not have the information about the development that would enable them to make appropriate decisions to protect residents from low rent duplexes in the area. Hansen – asked how the traffic will flow through The Oaks development to the subject site. Bird – answered that the street configuration may change slightly if a recently considered zoning change request is approved. Lookout Street was always intended to be a through street. A gate intended for a pending zone change request would be on a private street and not affect the public street configuration. He indicated that the traffic impact will not change from how it was originally platted. Poteete – asked if the parameters included the physical aspects of the housing, such as the type of dwelling. Bird – answered that the baseline zoning district specifies that 2 attached dwelling units or detached dwelling units, such as patio homes would be permitted; however, it does not control color or architecture styles. Ewy – reiterated that this was a zone change request and the development information was not available at this time. He said there was a trend toward the type of housing in an R-2 zoning district and that Lusk is heavily committed to the Oaks to provide quality housing. Hansen – stated his concern for the contrast in value of housing, estimating the homes to the north to be valued at $300,000 and speculated the value of the housing proposed for the south land use to be $150,000 to $180,000. Baer – indicated that the agent could not aptly address specific building questions right now since they were in the preliminary stage of the zone change request application process. Hansen – said he didn’t feel he could make a decision without knowing specific dwelling information. Gould – mentioned that there are restrictive covenants throughout the community to serve in addressing homeowners’ housing agreements. He said the structure, size and aesthetics were not within the Commission’s responsibility. Hansen – asked if the home owners association was run by Lusk. Bird – advised the chairman that the discussion had strayed from the zoning matter; explaining that property values and construction materials were not a function of zoning; he asked the Commission to refocus on the zoning request. Gould – asked Bird to address the power lines to the north of the zoning area, specifically the easement. Bird – answered that it is a 50 foot easement for the overhead power lines; a 50 foot gap between the proposed area and the existing single-family homes. The power lines at this location are within the easement along with the drainage pond east of the subject site. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 11 Gould – asked Bird if he could explain the continuum of zoning districts from the proposed R-2 to the adjacent land zoned B-3. Bird – said the commercial property to the east along Rock Road is zoned as B-3 and to the south it is B-2 and B-1. The R-2 and R-3 zoning areas are higher density residential and commonly used to serve as a buffer between single-family homes and more intense retail uses. He stated that a change in zoning to an R-2 would provide a transition from the single-family homes to the commercial developments to the south and east. Gould – asked if the detention pond on the B-3 zoning area would be visible from the proposed R-2 zoning area. Bird – answered that there was a detention pond recently constructed east of the subject property where dirt was excavated from the pond to level the adjacent commercial site. He indicated that the pond could probably be seen from the R-2 area. It is possible that trees in this location could provide screening. Wills – addressed Ewy regarding a statement he made about similar type duplexes on the east side of Wichita that could command a $2,400.00 monthly rent. She asked what design and building materials were used to associate that value to the cost of the structures. Ewy – answered that it was standard building materials. Wills – asked for clarification on the square foot and value of these homes. Ewy – answered that the homes mentioned would be similar to those possibly proposed for the R-2 zoning and said they would be approximately 4,000 square feet for the whole dwelling, or approximately two 1,700 square foot units. Poteete – asked if the Commission would see the platting if zoned R-2. Bird – said that replatting was not absolutely necessary for this site, but if replatting was needed for land or street configurations, it would come back to the Planning Commission for review. Poteete – asked if Lookout Street could be eliminated and an entrance into the proposed apartments on an adjacent site be configured on the east side for emergency access. Bird – replied that street configuration and layout is typically a function of platting. Bird – presented staff’s findings for each of the nine Findings of Fact. After discussion of each of the findings, the Planning Commission found the following: 1. THE ZONING, USES AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Neutral Based upon the description provided in the staff report. 2. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED: Positive Based upon the findings contained in 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. Some comments were made which indicated concern that this may be negative or neutral. 4. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED: DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 11  Neutral Based upon the findings contained in the staff report. 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 contained in the staff report. 6. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE ADOPTED OR RECOGNIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Positive Based upon the findings contained in the staff report. 3 Commissioners disagreed. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Neutral Based upon the findings contained in the staff report. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: Negative Based upon the public testimony provided during the public hearing. 9. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Positive Based upon the findings contained in the staff report. 2 Commissioners disagreed. Bird – reminded the Commission that each finding does not have to be weighed equally – any item can be weighed greater than or equal to the other items. Hansen – reflected on a previous statement by Mr. Gould during a Planning Commission workshop that it is the Commission’s job to look out for the betterment of the community. He expressed that a recommendation made at the last Planning Commission meeting was a joke and the R-2 zone change discussion was a joke because the direction was headed from very valuable property toward property that is lower in value. He said they were ignoring the concerns of the neighbors and that The Oaks, which was once considered a first class area, is now going down the drain. Baer – stated he was concerned about Hansen making this type of comment regarding the Planning Commission, and was concerned that Mr. Hansen felt that way about the Commission. Gould – acknowledged that the findings of fact did not have equal weight, and that after considering the entire discussion and the recommendation from staff, he indicated that he would move to approve the requested zone change from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-2 Two-Family Residential. MOTION: Larry Gould SECOND: Dennis Poteete VOTE: 4-3; Hansen, Hezlep, Hicks opposed ANNOUNCEMENTS DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 11 Bird – announced that the zoning amendments recommended by the Planning Commission for the Convenience Cash Businesses, the Table of Comparability for Zoning Districts, the Preferred Plantings List and the ADA parking schedule were approved at the January 28, 2014 City Council meeting and will be published in the city newspaper. He also announced that the City Council voted to return a previous NRPUD request to the Commission for further consideration. The explanation was that the applicant had requested additional uses be considered for the NRPUD subsequent to the Planning Commission’s approval. Bird added that the item would be scheduled for an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Dennis Poteete SECOND: Jack Hezlep VOTE: 8-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:08pm Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 11