Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 20, 2014, 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Gould, Kathy Wills, Jessica Rhein, Mitch Adams, Pat Baer, Dennis Poteete, Jack Hezlep, Herman Hicks, Gunter Hansen MEMBERS ABSENT: Shawn Riley CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner; Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: MOTION: Larry Gould SECOND: Herman Hicks VOTE: 8-0-1; Mitch Adams abstained PUBLIC FORUM OPENED Clark Sholts, 5776 107th St – stated that he opposed the tower and provided a handout outlining the reasons for opposition. He indicated that the tower location would conflict with the current single-family homes and stick out like a sore thumb. He stated that he felt the tower would affect the area home property values and pointed out that the property owner that agreed to the tower being located on his property does not live in the area. He asked the Commission to not approve the tower. Russell Borst, 10629 E 55th St. South – lives directly across from the proposed tower location between 103rd and 107th streets. He said that if the Commission were to look at an aerial of the land, they would see pasture all over. He indicated that is why he moved to the area because it is a rural, urban setting that is quiet and has nice scenery. He felt the tower would affect the value of his home and his piece of mind. He asked the Commission to turn down the proposal. Kelly Hanrahan, 11021 E 55th St. South – said he lives across the street from the proposed tower site and is concerned about how it will affect the value of his property. He indicated that he understood progress, but did not have any AT&T cell phone difficulties. He said that he was asked to have the tower located on his property but turned it down. He stated a concern for health-related effects due to cell phone tower emissions. He also stated his concern for possible liability issues such as vandalism and theft. He urged the Commission to reject the proposal. PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 26 AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 CASE NUMBER: CON2014-0007 DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use for a wireless communication facility GENERAL LOCATION: Generally located west of Greenwich Road on the north side of 55th Street South APPLICANT: Wehrman Ranch LP, c/o John Wehrman (owner) AT&T Mobility/SSC, c/o Justin Anderson (applicant-agent) REASON FOR REQUEST: A 155-foot wireless, galvanized steel, monopole cell tower and equipment CURRENT ZONING: RR Rural Residential SITE SIZE: 100-foot x 100-foot leased site located within approximately 157.41-acres BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, AT&T Mobility, is seeking a Conditional Use to permit the construction of a 155-foot tall, wireless, galvanized steel, monopole tower within a 100-foot (x) 100-foot leased site on RR Rural Residential zoned property. The site is located approximately DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 26 820 feet west of Greenwich Road and 1,000 feet north of 55th Street South. Per the amended Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance (adopted by the WCC 4-08-08 & the BoCC 4-9-08), new wireless communication facilities over 120 feet in height in the RR zoning district may be considered as a Conditional Use on a site by site analysis. The Sedgwick County site and the surrounding area are zoned RR and are developed with a mix of farmland and high density (for the County) single-family residences. There are approximately 100 single-family homes built (1960-2009) on large tracts, located east - southeast, across Greenwich Road, and south - southwest, across 55th Street South, from the site. The owner’s farmland and Greenwich Road provides approximately 960 feet of physical buffer from the nearest home located east of the site. The owner’s farmland and 55th Street South provides approximately 250 feet of physical buffer from the nearest home located south of the site. The owner’s farmland also provides approximately 1,860 feet of physical buffer from the nearest homes located west of the site and 2,350 feet of physical buffer from the nearest homes located north (the Quail Creek Estates Addition) of the site. There is significant drainage located west of the site that is called out in the Derby Comprehensive Plan as a future trail that may buffer western, future residential development from the tower. The applicant’s RF Engineer has stated that the proposed facility is needed to provide the future 4th Generation Long Term Evolution (4G LTE) capacity needs of AT&T’s customers. The 4G LTE technology is the fourth generation of mobile communication technology and is touted as an upgrade to the currently and still widely used 3G technology. Most tower sites will continue to support the 3G networks for many years. In the meantime the 4G LTE technology allows the users of the tower sites to migrate from simple voice communication to high-speed data for sending pictures and video from their more sophisticated smartphones. However as the network evolves from 3G to 4G LTE technology and beyond, more tower sites are required because 4G coverage areas tend to be geographically smaller and many of Wichita’s and Sedgwick County’s the existing towers’ capacity is maxed out as they continue to supply the current 3G technology . The move towards 4G LTE technology could lead to more contentious public forums in regards to Conditional Use applications for wireless communication facility with cell towers, as cell towers move into areas where residential development is dominate. The applicant has provided current coverage and projected coverage maps showing the impact of the site in providing 4G LTE service to the area. The applicant has not provided the current coverage/capacity provided by any facilities in the area that use the current 3G technology. The RF Engineer states that there are no facilities in the area of the proposed site that would allow co-location opportunities and provide the desired coverage/capacity. The agent has stated that the nearest co-location opportunity is located 1.69-miles from the site and does not meet the coverage/capacity that the subject site does. The site’s proximity to the McConnell Air Force Base places the site in Area D of the Airport Hazard Zone. Area D has a 300-foot maximum height restriction, which the proposed 155-foot tall tower does not exceed. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 26 The proposed tower and associated communication frequencies and wattages must meet standards determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to insure it poses no hazard to air navigation or interferes with other radio/communication frequencies. The applicant has not provided an analysis of airspace in the area, which must be provided to staff prior to building permits being issued. Tower lighting must meet the FAA requirements for aircraft warning. The proposed galvanized surface of the tower will blend into the sky more readily than a red or white paint, which meets the intent of the “Design Guidelines” of the “Wireless Communication Master Plan.” The proposed 155- foot tower must allow co-location for at least three (3) other providers. The proposed tower is shown with an antenna array (“top hat”) that protrudes from the top of the monopole. CASE HISTORY: The RR zoning district was essentially established with county-wide zoning in 1985; R Rural Residential (R) became RR Rural Residential in 1996, with the adoption of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code (UZC). ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: RR Farmland, large lot single-family residences SOUTH: RR Large tract single-family residences, farmland EAST: RR Large tract single-family residences, farmland WEST: RR Farmland, large tract single-family residences PUBLIC SERVICES: No municipally supplied public services are required. The applicant will extend electrical service to the site. The site has a proposed access easement to 55 th Street South, a sand and gravel Gypsum Township Road. 55th is also a section line road with 50-foot of right-of-way. The proposed wireless communication facility and its 155-foot tall tower will generate less traffic onto 55th than the area’s single-family residences. Greenwich Road is the closest (820 feet east of the site) arterial road to the site. Greenwich is a paved, two-lane County Highway/Section Line Road at this location. Greenwich is paved its entire length in Sedgwick County, from Harvey to Sumner Counties. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The “Wichita and Small Cities 2030 Urban Growth Areas Map” depicts this site as being inside of the City of Wichita’s 2030 urban growth area, which means that there is potential for urban development to occur in the near future on land so designated. The proposed wireless communication facility with its 155-foot tall tower is supposed to provide the future 4G LTE capacity needs of AT&T’s customers in this part of Sedgwick County. The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide Map” identifies the site as being in the “urban development mix.” The urban development mix category encompasses land that is likely to be developed in the next 30-years with uses predominately found in the “urban residential use” category. However there is likelihood that concentrations or pockets of “major industrial uses,” “local commercial uses” and “park and open space uses” may also be developed in this area. Generally speaking, the urban development mix category is an area waiting for development trends. However as noted the area has high density (for the County) of single-family residences The UZC considers a wireless communication facility a commercial type of use. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 26 The Wireless Communication Master Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan that outlines the guidelines for locating wireless communication facilities. It states that all towers comply with the compatibility setback standards. The applicant’s site plan shows the tower meeting the compatibility setback standards, as it is located entirely within the owner’s 157.41-acre property. The Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new facilities should: 1) preserve the pre-existing character of the area as much as possible. The proposed 155-foot monopole tower is the first tower in the area and as such is not in character with this area’s predominate mix of farmland and large tract/lot single-family residential development. However, as more of the general population continues to use the services provided by these facilities, the location of wireless facilities in closer proximity to residential areas is anticipated; 2) Minimize the height, mass, or proportion. Making the tower shorter may lead to more shorter towers to provide the desired coverage; 3) Minimize the silhouette. Monopoles and certain lattice type structures (think City microwave towers) are recommended for up to 150-feet, with antennas mounted flush to the support structure over triangular “top hat” antenna arrays. Top hat antenna arrays tend to provide better coverage; 4) Use colors, textures, and materials that blend in with the existing environment. The monopole will have a galvanized surface, which will blend into the sky more readily than red or white paint; 5) Be concealed or disguised as a flagpole, clock tower, or church steeple. The area presents no opportunities for disguising the proposed tower as a clock tower or church steeple. It is hard to see any softening of the monopole’s presences in attempting to disguise it as a 155-foot tall flag pole; 6) Be placed in areas where trees and/or buildings obscure some or all of the facility. The applicant proposes planting 21 junipers around the facility. There are no buildings in the immediate or general area that would help obscure the tower. There are not a lot of trees on the owner’s farmland that would help screen the site, except those following a creek located approximately 2,100 feet west of the site; 7) Be placed on walls or roofs of buildings. The opportunity is not present; 8) Be screened through landscaping, walls, and/or fencing. As stated, the applicant is proposing to plant 21 junipers around the facility. The proposed junipers will be spaced 15 feet apart, center to center of each juniper. This spacing will provide solid screening when the junipers mature and with proper care provide a more attractive and efficient screening than a 6-8-foot tall wooden privacy fence; and 9) Painting towers red and white instead of using strobe lighting. The applicant has stated that there will be no strobes and that it will be a galvanized steel finish. NOTE: Since the time the Wireless Communication Master Plan was first adopted, the FAA changed their regulations to require daytime strobe lighting; whereas, when the plan was adopted, the FAA allowed painted towers red and white instead of using strobe lighting. The site is located within the City of Derby’s Area of Zoning Influence and as such the Derby Planning Commission will consider CON2014-00007 at their February 20, 2014, meeting; UZC, Article V., Section V-B.4.d. If the Derby Planning Commission recommends denial before the March 6, 2014, MAPC meeting and the MAPC recommends approval, CON2014-00007 will proceed to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC/Governing Body) for final action; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.6. It takes a unanimous vote all of the BoCC members to overturn the small city’s recommendation of denial; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.9. The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map” shows the site’s future use to be “rural agricultural.” The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Growth Area Map” shows the DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 26 site projected as being in a “long-term growth area.” The proposed wireless communication facility with its 155-foot tall tower would not seem to be in conflict with the City of Derby’s long range plans for the area the site is located in. The density of the single-family residential development in the area would seem to reflect the residential development patterns along Greenwich Road, which may be the only north-south arterial that is paved for its entire length in Sedgwick County, from Harvey to Sumner Counties. RECOMMENDATION: The primary consideration in this request is the relatively high number of single-family residences in this portion of the County. The area’s residence will weigh the touted benefits of the proposed wireless communication facility and its 155-foot tall monopole tower with its 4G LTE technology against the site’s visual impact. Based upon this factor and the information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: A. This request must have the approval by the FAA in determining the proposed wireless communication facility with its 155-foot tall monopole tower carrying AT&T’s 4G LTE pose no hazard to air navigation or interferes with other radio/communication frequencies. The applicant shall submit a current copy of FAA approval to the MAPD and the Code Enforcement Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. All requirements of Art. III Sec. III.D.6.g. of the Unified Zoning Code shall be met. C. The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the wireless communication facility, and the wireless communication facility shall be erected within one year of approval of the Conditional Use by the MAPC or governing body, as applicable. D. The support structure shall be a monopole design, as shown on the elevation and that generally conforms to the approved site elevation and that is silver or gray or a similar unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare. E. The support structure shall not exceed 155 feet in height and shall be designed and constructed to accommodate communication equipment for at least two (3) wireless service providers. F. The tower site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved revised site and a landscape plan. These plans must show the type and size of fencing around the site, parking, all light poles, lights, power poles, cabinets, equipment or buildings within the fenced in site or in the immediate area if it is to be used by the site. The plan must identify existing and/or proposed trees and shrubs, give their total numbers and their general size to determine if it meets screening requirements of the Unified Zoning Code (UZC) Art. IV, Sec. IV-B.3.b.1. If evergreens are planted they must be a minimum size of 5-foot at the time of their planting (but be taller than 5-foot when mature) and planted on 15-foot centers. The site plan must identify the all utility and or access easements. If it is proposed it must be recorded. If a surface is needed for the drive/access easement, it must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. All improvements and construction of the facility/tower shall be completed within a year and before the facility becomes operational. G. The site shall be developed and operated in compliance with all federal, state, and local rules and regulations. Provide the Stormwater Engineer with any required plans for review and approval of the site. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 26 H. If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to enforcing the other remedies set forth in Article VIII of the Unified Zoning Code, may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare that the Conditional Use is null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The Sedgwick County site and the surrounding area are zoned RR and are developed with a mix of farmland and high density (for the County) single-family residences. There are approximately 100 single-family homes built (1960-2009) on large tracts, located east - southeast, across Greenwich Road, and south - southwest, across 55th Street South, from the site. The owner’s farmland and Greenwich Road provides approximately 960 feet of physical buffer from the nearest home located east of the site. The owner’s farmland and 55th Street South provides approximately 250 feet of physical buffer from the nearest home located south of the site. The owner’s farmland also provides approximately 1,860 feet of physical buffer from the nearest homes located west of the site and 2,350 feet of physical buffer from the nearest homes located north (the Quail Creek Estates Addition) of the site. There is significant drainage located west of the site that is called out in the Derby Comprehensive Plan as a future trail that may buffer western, future residential development from the tower. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned RR and is currently used as farmland. The site could continue to be used as farmland by right or developed as single-family residential with a minimum lot size of two-aces if served by a septic system or 4.5-acres if served by a lagoon, depending on perc test on the soil. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed 155-foot tall, wireless, galvanized steel, monopole would be the first in the area. Its visual impact is undeniable; however the conditions of approval will add landscaping around the site, to help minimize the eye level visual impact. The area’s residence will weigh the touted benefits of the proposed wireless communication facility and its 155-foot tall monopole tower with its 4G LTE technology against the site’s visual impact. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The “Wichita and Small Cities 2030 Urban Growth Areas Map” depicts this site as being inside of the City of Wichita’s 2030 urban growth area, which means that there is potential for urban development to occur in the near future on land so designated. The proposed wireless communication facility with its 155-foot tall tower is supposed to provide the future 4G LTE capacity needs of AT&T’s customers in this part of Sedgwick County. The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide Map” identifies the site as being in the “urban development mix.” The urban development mix category encompasses land that is likely to be developed in the next 30-years with uses predominately found in the “urban residential use” category. However there is likelihood that DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 26  concentrations or pockets of “major industrial uses,” “local commercial uses” and “park and open space uses” may also be developed in this area. Generally speaking, the urban development mix category is an area waiting for development trends. However as noted the area has high density (for the County) of single- family residences The UZC considers a wireless communication facility a commercial type of use. The Wireless Communication Master Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan that outlines the guidelines for locating wireless communication facilities. It states that all towers comply with the compatibility setback standards. The applicant’s site plan shows the tower meeting the compatibility setback standards, as it is located entirely within the owner’s 157.41-acre property. The Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new facilities should: 1) preserve the pre-existing character of the area as much as possible. The proposed 155-foot monopole tower is the first tower in the area and as such is not in character with this area’s predominate mix of farmland and large tract/lot single-family residential development. However, as more of the general population continues to use the services provided by these facilities, the location of wireless facilities in closer proximity to residential areas is anticipated;2) Minimize the height, mass, or proportion. Making the tower shorter may lead to more shorter towers to provide the desired coverage; 3) Minimize the silhouette. Monopoles and certain lattice type structures (think City microwave towers) are recommended for up to 150-feet, with antennas mounted flush to the support structure over triangular “top hat” antenna arrays. Top hat antenna arrays tend to provide better coverage; 4) Use colors, textures, and materials that blend in with the existing environment. The monopole will have a galvanized surface, which will blend into the sky more readily than red or white paint; 5) Be concealed or disguised as a flagpole, clock tower, or church steeple. The area presents no opportunities for disguising the proposed tower as a clock tower or church steeple. It is hard to see any softening of the monopole’s presences in attempting to disguise it as a 155-foot tall flag pole; 6) Be placed in areas where trees and/or buildings obscure some or all of the facility. The applicant proposes planting 21 junipers around the facility. There are no buildings in the immediate or general area that would help obscure the tower. There are not a lot of trees on the owner’s farmland that would help screen the site, except those following a creek located approximately 2,100 feet west of the site; 7) Be placed on walls or roofs of buildings. The opportunity is not present; 8) Be screened through landscaping, walls, and/or fencing. As stated, the applicant is proposing to plant 21 junipers around the facility. The proposed junipers will be spaced 15 feet apart, center to center of each juniper. This spacing will provide solid screening when the junipers mature and with proper care provide a more attractive and efficient screening than a 6-8-foot tall wooden privacy fence; and 9) Painting towers red and white instead of using strobe lighting. The applicant has stated that there will be no strobes and that it will be a galvanized steel finish. NOTE: Since the time the Wireless Communication Master Plan was first adopted, the FAA changed their regulations to require daytime strobe lighting; whereas, when the plan was adopted, the FAA allowed painted towers red and white instead of using strobe lighting. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 26  The site is located within the City of Derby’s Area of Zoning Influence and as such the Derby Planning Commission will consider CON2014-00007 at their February 20, 2014, meeting; UZC, Article V., Section V-B.4.d. If the Derby Planning Commission recommends denial before the March 6, 2014, MAPC meeting and the MAPC recommends approval, CON2014-00007 will proceed to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC/Governing Body) for final action; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.6. It takes a unanimous vote all of the BoCC members to overturn the small city’s recommendation of denial; UZC, Article V., Section V-D.9. The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map” shows the site’s future use to be “rural agricultural.” The “Derby Comprehensive Plan’s Growth Area Map” shows the site projected as being in a “long-term growth area.” The proposed wireless communication facility with its 155-foot tall tower would not seem to be in conflict with the City of Derby’s long range plans for the area the site is located in. The density of the single-family residential development in the area would seem to reflect the residential development patterns along Greenwich Road, which may be the only north-south arterial that is paved for its entire length in Sedgwick County, from Harvey to Sumner Counties. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: FAA and Beechcraft approval should ensure that the proposed tower is not a hazard to air navigation (including the need or not for lighting) and that the tower does not interfere with other radio/communication frequencies. DISCUSSION: Dale Miller, Wichita Sedgwick County Planning Dept. - presented the staff report. He noted that there was a typo on page 5, under recommendation (E). The “two” should be a “three” because the county requirement is that the tower provide space for up to three carriers. Hezlep – asked if other carriers would use the tower. Miller – said that the applicant’s representative would need to answer that question. He said the code requires that the tower must have a carrier in order to file an application, and to minimize the number of towers, it should be able to handle two additional carriers. He said he did not know whether AT&T currently had other carriers for the tower. Wills – asked if the tower would create any noise to be concerned about. Miller – answered that the AT&T representative could answer that question. Rhein – asked about the 1,000-foot radius if the tower was only 155 foot. Miller – said the radius shown is the required notification area, as county law dictates that they must notify property owners within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the application area. Rhein – asked for further information on how AT&T arrived at this site. Justin Anderson, Representative for AT&T – provided the monopole description, location and carrier information. The site is set over 450 foot from 55th street and farther from the nearest house, with access from 55th Street South. He said they will have two additional carriers on the tower. He indicated that with the landscaping and distance from property owners, there would not be any noise. He mentioned that a generator would run if there DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 26 was an electrical outage. He explained that the location was determined by radio frequency engineer’s use of a search ring which allows sites to be built on an as-needed basis, via customer surveys, responses and feedback. Testing the site resulted in only a 2-bar distance capacity, which would be unacceptable for service. AT&T also wanted to be able to provide “4G” coverage and a new tower was required to support the newer technology. He indicated that Derby only has 5 towers to co-locate, but no existing towers were within their coverage area. He mentioned that these sites were also hubs for emergency frequencies and management services. Gould – noted that on page 2, the 4th sentence indicates the site is located approximately 820 feet west of Greenwich Road and 1,000 feet north of 55th Street; but recalled Miller saying it was 400 feet. Anderson – answered that there may be a typo; he said the actual pole is 300 feet from the road and 400 feet from the nearest house, and that there was a natural line of trees that would provide some screening. He said that AT&T notified more than the 3-4 people mentioned and that it was a 25 year lease. He said there is a right of first refusal, which means if the property owner moves, AT&T can buy the property. He also added that this case was in line with other projects that have come before the Commission previously. Adams – asked if the additional carriers would be added to the top spire, adding levels to the pole. Anderson – responded yes and said they call them antenna center lines or RAD centers. He said every level is a different carrier. Hansen – asked for clarification on the post diameter. Anderson – answered that it was 48 inches in diameter. He said the base will not be visible. He addressed a prior concern about theft and safety, and said the area is secured with three rows of barbed wire on a 20-foot tall fence. He stated that he was not aware of any other instances that incurred theft issues. Hansen – asked why the tower wasn’t located further north to 103rd street where no houses are located. Baer – noted that three homes were located nearby. Wills – noted that there was not a road there. Anderson – confirmed that there was not a road located along the area in question. He listed the criteria in which they could site property for a tower, including having a willing landlord, being financially feasible, and presenting to regulatory zoning administrators. He continued saying that the site was chosen because there were no houses located on the property itself. He said Mr. Sholts would not see the site and was located 5 parcels south of the site, with multiple houses and acreage in between. He said future development of the property lies with the property owner. It is a limited partnership farming ranch and the owners have agreed to the location because it was felt that it was the least detrimental to their property. He said some people build nicer homes around towers so the closer technology can accommodate them. Wills – referenced the color map that was included in the Planning Commission packet and asked about the area it covered. Anderson – said the map shows the extended metro area. Hicks – asked for clarification on how the property owners would not see the tower due to the height of it. Anderson – said it will be located on the horizon and 155 feet diminishes greatly over 1,000 feet as you view it through trees and landscaping. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 26 Hicks – asked for procedural clarification and asked why the Commission hears opposition from the public forum before hearing from the agent, and asked if those individuals should have a chance to speak after the agent. Bird – responded by saying that the public hearing is conducted to hear public input and not to debate it. MOTION: Larry Gould SECOND: Jack Hezlep VOTE: 6-3, Jessica Rhein, Gunter Hansen, Herman Hicks opposed Bird – presented the staff report for agenda item number 2. AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Request Returned by City Council Walnut Grove NRPUD GENERAL LOCATION: North of Walnut Grove Road between Pin Oak Court and Rock Road APPLICANT: Ronjays Associates, LLC (Owner) CONTRACT PURCHASER: Timothy & Karen Dugger AGENT: Poe & Associates, Inc., Tim Austin REASON FOR RETURN: Consider additional uses proposed by applicant after initial Planning Commission approval BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  A zone change request to change the zoning of a ½ acre site at the northwest corner of Rock Road and Walnut Grove Road from I-1 “Institutional District” to NRPUD “Non-Residential Planned Unit Development” was previously considered by the Planning Commission.  The required public hearings for the NRPUD zone change request were held at the November 21, 2013 and January 2, 2014 Planning Commission meetings.  Following the hearing at the January 2, 2014 meeting, the Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council, subject to a prescribed list of permitted uses.  After approval by the Planning Commission, the applicant requested that 52 additional uses be allowed (letter and list are attached). DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 26   At the January 28, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council voted to return the rezoning request to the Planning Commission for consideration of the additional uses proposed by the applicant.  The Planning Commission, after considering the additional uses proposed, may resubmit its original recommendation giving the reasons therefore or submit a new or amended recommendation. STAFF COMMENTS:  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.  The uses approved by the Planning Commission at the January 2, 2014 meeting are as follows: 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 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  Staff has compiled a comparison of the uses recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at the January 2, 2014 meeting and the additional uses requested by the applicant. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 of 26  o The comparison includes staff comments for uses which are covered by other use categories or an explanation of factors considered. o Based upon the attached comparison, staff recommends the following additions/modifications to the recommended uses (added uses are in bold and modified uses are in italics): New and Modified Uses Proposed Appliance and Household Goods Repair Shops Automotive Supply Store, but not including parts installation, tire mounting or repair services Business, Professional and Public Offices Clothing, Wearing and Shoe Sales Shops, including repairs and alterations Financial Institutions (without drive-thru facilities) Gift, Antique and Collectable Shops Health and Fitness Stores, including equipment sales and incidental nutrition supplements sales Medical Services, limited to single-day out-patient services Music Stores, including incidental musical instrument rental and instruction Novelty Stores, including costume and apparel rental Office Supply Stores, including printing and copying services Pet Supply Stores, but not including inventory of pets or services which require pets to be transported to or from store Variety Stores o The recommended additions/modifications allow 47 of the additional 52 uses requested.  The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration at the March 11, 2014 Council meeting.  A recommendation of approval should also 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 with the recommended changes to the list of permitted uses 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: List of 52 Requested Uses Table comparing Approved and Proposed Uses NRPUD Site Plan DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 of 26 DISCUSSION Tim Austin, Poe & Associates – said he reviewed various codes and picked those uses with general intent that had minimal impact to the environment. He said he discussed it with Cody Bird, but felt the list in the staff report did not go far enough to extended uses. He sent an email to Mr. Bird to request 4 additional uses. He stated he was concerned that a future city planner may not have the same interpretation and wanted to be able to provide the most comprehensive use list. Hezlep – indicated that typical business development would normally include a business plan and asked why the applicant did not divulge any business plans; he felt the applicant’s request to continue adding to the permitted uses was becoming a wish. Tim Dugger, Applicant – responded to say that he was interested in the property as an investment and wanted the ability to have many possibilities for business uses, while at the same time, securing an economical living space. The next step in the process would be to consider what type of business they would be willing to invest in. Hezlep – felt the idea sounded open-ended and didn’t see the prospect of buying property without having a business plan. Dugger – provided an analogy of an investor buying land in the county as an investment, but not knowing what the land would be used for in the future. Baer – said he understood the perspective and acknowledged that there was potential in the future for the property to be owned by someone else. He said if the business criteria met the demand, it should be allowed. Hansen – asked Dugger if he had bought the property, and stated that he felt it was important to understand why the Commission had to consider a wish list of uses and spend more time reviewing a request when the property may or may not have been purchased. Dugger – answered no, he has not bought the property. Austin – said that was the purpose of zoning change requests and expressed that business people buy property all the time and don’t know what they plan to do with it. He did not want to go the path of asking for zoning of a specific business that would be instantly opposed, but rather have the option of uses under the zoning regulations. Rhein – said she understood the concerns, her kids go to the daycare next door; and she understood that in order to promote growth, general uses should be considered. She expressed that she agreed with the requested change. Adams – asked if staff had any comments regarding the four additional uses suggested. Bird – said he received the email at 9:00pm the night before this meeting and had not had a great deal of time to review it. He said staff didn’t originally include educational services because it was too broad; Austin provided a more specific definition and staff was agreeable to the added use. He questioned investigative services and indicated that the general use idea couldn’t convey specifics and was concerned about whether the business could be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. He emphasized that the Commission would need to base their decision on facts, not fears. He did not have a concern with personal improvement uses; however, the B-2 zoning district prohibits physical fitness centers because of the business hours and traffic. He was not concerned with financial institutions. He stated that general retail is included in the B-3 zoning district, which includes a lot of things that could be offensive and inappropriate to the site. Staff felt that listing general retail was too broad and vague. Gould – referenced the zoning regulation manual for NRPUD and stated that it was written for district uses, such as Glenn Hills and other districts where uses could be DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 of 26 considered for multiple-lot developments; however, the case the Commission was considering was for one lot. He read the purpose for NRPUD as reducing or eliminating the inflexibility that sometimes results from strict application of zoning standards that were designed primarily for individual lots. He suggested that the definition was meant for multiple-district lots. NRPUDs in their actual use and practice are tools for future development, not a work around for existing lots or buildings. He stated that this is the 3 rd time this case has been before the Commission and once before the City Council. He noted the permitted uses that were approved at the January 2nd Planning Commission meeting and sent to the City Council. He indicated that he was not comfortable with approving uses beyond those that were approved at the January meeting, and also stated he wasn’t comfortable with the single-family dwelling unit. He said he would be prepared to make a motion for the Commission to accept the original uses approved, minus the residential dwelling unit request. Hansen – agreed with Gould. He felt that the previous residential request was presented differently than it was today, as he understood, the applicant indicated they would invest in the property and possibly sell it in the future. He did not understand why the applicant would need the single-family dwelling attached to the business. Baer – said that was not his interpretation of the request. He felt that individuals could invest in property, whether it was residential or business, and make improvements as a part of that investment. Hansen – asked if the building included the dwelling. Baer – answered no. Gould – brought up the prospect of the applicant wanting a restaurant and said that it would not be allowed due to health codes that prohibit a residence inside a restaurant. He stated that he would not have considered allowing this zone change request for a NRPUD, but rather, it should have been addressed through straight line zoning. Baer – mentioned that the consideration for the NRPUD application was suggested by city staff. Austin – reminded the Commission that they were to consider the additional uses identified in the staff report and email. He said that straight line zoning did not allow residential use, which is why they requested the NRPUD zoning. He said they would withdraw the request for general retail and added that the list sent to Mr. Bird at 9:00pm were uses originally requested and reworded for better clarification. Wills – said she felt staff and the agent had come up with a plausible list. She began to make a motion. Bird – reminded the Commission that there was a current motion on the table. Hicks – asked for clarification on which uses staff was concerned about. He felt the Commission was not at liberty to reconsider the list approved January 2, 2014, but rather to consider the additional uses requested subsequent to that meeting. Gould – after reading the January 2nd meeting minutes in regard to recommending approval and sending to the City Council, he asked if the original recommendation was made at the January 2, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Bird – answered that was correct. Gould – said the Commission did not recommend the amended uses that went to the City Council at a later date; the one submitted to the council was dated January 2, 2014. Bird – said that was accurate. Uses approved on January 2nd are those contained in the staff report, and the additional list submitted by the applicant subsequent to the January 2 nd meeting is not a requirement for approval. Gould – asked if the council had acted on that list. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 of 26 Bird – said the list of 52 uses that went to the City Council was not acted on by the Planning Commission, it was returned to the Commission by the City Council to consider those additional uses. Baer – asked Gould if he was maintaining his motion. Gould – asked if he received a 2nd on the motion. Hansen – said he agreed with the motion. Baer – asked for clarification on Gould’s motion. Bird – replied that the motion on the table was to recommend approval of the January 2, 2014 list, with the exception of the single-family dwelling. Motion: Gould Second: Hansen Vote: 2-7, motion failed. Baer – felt the list before the Commission was comprehensive, he asked Bird if he had a concern regarding fitness centers and investigative services. Bird – said he only questioned it, that it was a gray area for strict land use but shouldn’t be a concern; he indicated that it could raise some flags. Baer – felt the fitness training would be hard to work with, considering the potential for traffic congestion and lack of parking. He felt the newly proposed list was acceptable. Gould – asked for clarification on novelty stores and stated he had a concern with the potential interpretation. Rhein – considered novelty store to be a costume store or Halloween store. She also understood that novelty store could be interpreted to include other undesirable uses. Dugger – addressing Mr. Gould’s concern, said that the applicant did not plan to have a sexual oriented business. Bird – said that novelty stores are not defined in the ordinance, so there may be some ambiguity. Hansen – said a sexually oriented business could not operate in this location because it was across from a school. Bird – said the site was not zoned for sexually oriented business, which are limited to the B-4 zoning district. Austin – thought he had addressed that on the NRPUD, and had not intended to remove that limitation. Baer – asked Austin if the applicant was still agreeable to that limitation. Austin – agreed. Bird – said that the base line zoning districts do not state prohibitions against sexual oriented businesses. Rather, by not listing such uses in the permitted uses section, that indicates that it would not be allowed. Baer – made a motion to approve the modified uses proposed by city staff subject to the revision of the novelty stores, including costume and apparel rental, excluding sexually oriented businesses or material, and add the additional educational services including tutoring, speech therapy, educational programming and specialized services; investigative services including credit bureaus, data information services, and collection agencies; the addition of personal improvement and care services including nail salons, tanning beds, spas, wellness; and editing the financial institutions to include mortgage services, securities brokerage, financial consulting and counseling. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 of 26 Wills – asked for clarification that items staff recommended not be included in the final list and asked that the motion exclude those items from the list. Bird – stated there was a motion on the table and asked the chairman if he wanted to amend his motion based on the comment. Baer – amended the motion to include the new modified uses noted on page 3 of the staff report, including the modification of the novelty stores to include the definition of costume and apparel rental, excluding sexually oriented materials, and add to that list educational services including tutoring, speech therapy, educational programming and specialized services; investigative services including credit bureau, data information services, and collection agencies; personal improvement and care services including nail salons, tanning beds, spas, wellness (excluding fitness facilities); and to edit the financial institutions to include mortgage services, securities brokerage, financial consulting and counseling. Gould – asked if the motion included giving authority to the zoning administrator for the option to exercise his position. Baer – answered yes, the motion was for new and modified uses. MOTION: Baer SECOND: Adams VOTE: 9-0; Poteete remained silent (silent votes carry with the majority) 8:05pm, motion to take a 5 minute recess, with the meeting reconvening no earlier than 8:10pm. MOTION TO RECESS: Baer SECOND: Rhein VOTE: 9-0 RECESS: 8:05pm RESUME: 8:10pm Bird – presented the staff report. He indicated that the owner of the property has submitted a request to split Lot 5, Block, 1, Derby Marketplace Third Addition into two parcels to accommodate this development. He noted that staff’s recommended motion was subject to the condition of final lot split approval, including petitions for water and sanitary sewer extensions. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 of 26 AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 DESCRIPTION: Site Plan Review – North half of Lot 5, Block 1, Derby Marketplace Third Addition GENERAL LOCATION: East side of Rock Rd., 1/4 north of Meadowlark Blvd. APPLICANT: Discount Tire Company AGENT: MKEC Engineering, Adam Koster REASON FOR REQUEST: Develop lot to allow a new business BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  A request for site plan review has been submitted for a site located in the Derby Marketplace 3rd Addition on the east side of Rock Rd., approximately 1/4 mile north of Meadowlark Blvd.  The subject site is described as the north 149.00 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Derby Marketplace Third Addition. o The developer of Derby Marketplace submitted an application for a lot split to divide Lot 5 into two tracts: Tract 5A (north) and Tract 5B (south). The request was submitted February 6, 2014 and is currently being reviewed. o Lot Splits are typically handled administratively and do not require action by the Planning Commission. o In conjunction with the lot split, an additional 20 ft. drainage and utility easement was dedicated adjacent to the existing 10 ft. utility easement along the east property line of Lot 5. The additional easement width will provide sufficient space for extensions of public water and sanitary sewer lines to serve Tracts 5A and 5B. o The proposed lot split provides cross-lot access easements through the proposed parking area on the west side of the site as well as at the northeast and southeast corners of the proposed Tract 5A.  The subject site is approximately 1.3 acres, which exceeds the minimum lot size requirements for the B-3 District.  The subject site and surrounding properties are zoned B-3 “General Business.” Development on adjacent sites includes a mix of retail businesses and restaurants.  The proposed tire sales and service business is a permitted use within the B-3 District. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Legal Description. The legal description is currently Lot 5, Block 1, Derby Marketplace Third Addition, an addition to Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas. If the submitted lot split is approved, the new legal description would be the north 149.00 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Derby Marketplace Third Addition, an addition to Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 of 26  The applicant shall coordinate with city staff to ensure the legal description is updated on the revised site plans as necessary. 2. Building Setbacks. The proposed building exceeds the minimum building setback requirements of the B-3 District. 3. Easements. All platted easements appear to be identified accurately on the proposed plans. In addition to platted easements, a 20 ft. drainage and utility easement has been recorded by separate instrument and is shown adjacent to the 10 ft. platted easement on the east side of the property. The proposed building addition and improvements do not encroach upon the easements. The west 15 ft. of the subject site along Rock Rd. is encumbered by a gas pipeline easement which may limit the ability to plant trees in the front yard. There is also a 50 ft. easement along the north property line to accommodate overhead electric lines which may limit the ability to plant trees on the north edge of the site. 4. Access. Complete access control is platted along Rock Rd. at this location; therefore, no entrances to Rock Rd. are proposed. Access to the proposed site will be accomplished by 2 drive entrances connecting to the private street to the east. The applicant has submitted a revised design for the northeast entrance which is included as an attachment. The revision is necessary to locate the entrance on the property line to provide access to both the subject site and the adjacent lot to the north. City staff has reviewed the proposed change and recommends approval of the new alignment. Revised site plans will need to reflect the new entrance location and will need to update landscaping, utility and lighting plans as necessary to accommodate the change. The southeast entrance also provides cross-lot access which will provide good access to both the subject site and the adjacent lot to the south. 5. Streets. The site is located on the east side of Rock Rd. Private streets extend east from Rock Rd. into the Derby Marketplace development to provide access to the subject site and adjacent lots. The existing street system adequately serves the site and is sufficient to accommodate the development. No improvements to the streets are required. 6. Parking. The parking requirement for retail stores is 1 parking space per 300 square feet of building floor area. Plan sheet A.2 notes that the building floor area is 6,947 square feet, thus the minimum parking requirement is 24 parking spaces (6,947 ÷ 300 = 23.16 = 24 required parking spaces). 47 parking spaces are shown which exceeds the minimum requirement. Due to the proposed modification to the northeast entrance, several parking spaces will be eliminated. The changes shall be shown on the revised plans and the “Parking Provisions” notes on sheet 5 will need to be updated accordingly. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 of 26  All parking spaces are shown to be 9ft. by 19ft. which meets the minimum requirements for parking space dimensions. 7. Circulation Aisles. All vehicular circulation aisles exceed the 24 ft. minimum width requirement for two-way traffic. 8. ADA. ADA Standards for Accessible Design requires accessible parking spaces based on the total number of spaces provided for the facility. When 26-50 parking spaces are provided, 2 accessible spaces are required. 2 accessible spaces are provided which meets the requirement. At least 1 space must be marked “Van Accessible.” To gain access to the building from the accessible spaces, the customer must cross a traffic circulation aisle. Due to this, and because the accessible route also doubles as the pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk, city staff recommends continuing the striping of the ADA aisle across the driveway to the ramp. Spot elevations shown on the grading plan appear to be within allowable slope tolerances for ADA. Elevations are not shown for the existing sidewalk along Rock Rd. The applicant shall ensure that the sidewalk connection from the existing sidewalk to the building is compliant with ADA standards. The applicant or their designated agent shall ensure that all accessible parking spaces meet the requirements of the ADA standards, including locations, widths, aisles, slopes, signage and pavement markings. Final inspection of accessible parking spaces and accessible routes shall be coordinated with the Derby Building Trades Official. A note shall be added to the plans that states “Where discrepancies exist between the approved plans and the minimum requirements to meet ADA, the more stringent of the two will prevail, as determined by the City of Derby.” 9. Pedestrian Access. A new sidewalk is shown to connect the existing sidewalk along Rock Rd. to the building’s main entrance. The pedestrian sidewalk connection shall not exceed the slope tolerances required for ADA, as noted above. 10. Signage. Illuminated wall signs are shown on the building elevations. All wall signs require a separate permit be obtained prior to installation. An overall signage plan was approved and is on file for Derby Marketplace – Any ground or monument signs shall be in accordance with the approved sign plan. 11. Site Lighting. The lighting plan shows a number of free-standing light poles around the perimeter of the site. The pole height is not noted; however, it appears that the locations of the poles will not interfere with the overhead electric lines along the north edge of the property. The applicant is responsible for coordinating with the utility company to ensure adequate clearance from electric lines is maintained. The photometric plan shows that some degree of ambient lighting will spill over onto adjacent properties, which is acceptable considering that adjacent properties are also commercial and already provide site lighting. Lighting levels are not shown west of the parking lot. The applicant shall verify that lighting along Rock Rd. will not affect traffic. The revised site plans shall include a note stating that lighting is required to be screened or shielded to prevent intrusion of light or glare onto adjoining streets. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 of 26  The light pole at the northeast entrance may need to be relocated as a result of the modified entrance design. The pole should be positioned in a location that does not interfere with use of the adjacent fire hydrant. It appears that the two light poles in the parking lot islands are proposed to be in the same location as two proposed lacebark elm trees. The applicant should consider offsetting the light poles and the trees in a manner that will allow both to occupy the same parking lot island. Any modifications shall be reflected on the revised landscape and sight lighting plans. 12. Landscape/Screening and Buffering. Landscaped Street Yard. New developments are required to provide a landscaped street yard in accordance with Section 304.G. of the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance specifies that lots with a depth between 250 ft. and 400 ft. shall provide a minimum of a 15 ft. wide landscaped street yard. The landscaped street yard provided exceeds the requirement. Within the landscaped street yard, one shade tree is required for every 500 square feet of the required landscaped street yard. The minimum number of shade trees required for the landscaped street yard is based on the following calculations: Total Street Min. Yard 1 Tree per # of Trees Street Name Square Frontage Width 500 Sq. Ft. Required Feet Rock Rd. 149 ft. x 15 = 2,235 ÷ 500 = 4.47 Total Shade Trees Required 5 The landscape plan shows that 2 shade trees and 48 shrubs (not including required parking lot screening) are provided in the front yard. The Planning Commission may, at its discretion, decrease the street yard tree requirement if the Commission determines that the installation of required landscaping is impractical. Staff recommends reducing the required number of street yard trees due to the utility easements and overhead electric lines which limits the planting of trees. Additionally, trees and shrubs provided on other portions of the site exceed the minimum requirements and improve site aesthetics. Parking Lot Screening/Landscaping. A continuous row of shrubs is shown to be provided along the west edge of the parking lot to screen the parking from view of the Rock Rd. right-of-way. When mature, the shrubs identified on the landscape plan should be sufficient to provide a continuous visual screen to fulfill the requirement. Staff recommends that parking lot screening also be provided along the east side of the site to screen parking from the access road; which would be consistent with the continuous row of shrubs along the opposite side of the access road. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 of 26  Since fewer than 50 parking spaces are proposed, parking lot islands are not required; however, the landscaped islands contribute to meeting the front yard landscaping requirements. Equipment and Trash Receptacle Screening. Screening is required to reasonably hide from ground level view all ground-mounted mechanical equipment, loading docks, trash receptacles or similar uses. A trash enclosure is shown on the east side of the building. Notes on the building elevation pages state the trash enclosure will be split-face concrete masonry units to match the color of the building. Another note specifies gates for the enclosure will be painted steel. The gates should match the style used on other lots within the Derby Marketplace development. The proposed masonry wall and gates should sufficiently screen the trash receptacles. Mechanical equipment is located on the rooftop and is screened by a parapet wall. An electric transformer is located in the landscaped area at the east end of the building. Staff suggests that shrubs be used to screen the transformer. Miscellaneous Landscaping Notes The landscape plan needs to be updated to include modifications to the northeast entrance. The applicant should ensure that landscaping does not interfere with access to the existing fire hydrant at this location. Irrigation systems are required to be equipped with an automatic rain sensing device. A statement of this requirement shall be included on the revised site plans. The applicant should verify that the installation of landscaping near entrances, vehicle circulation aisles and public traffic ways does not create vision concerns. The applicant is advised that final acceptance of the landscaping is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Acceptance will be based on the landscape plan as submitted for approval at site plan review. The applicant is reminded that all landscaping is to be maintained in good condition and that maintenance includes replacing dead or diseased plants and trees. 13. Drainage. Drainage from the site is shown to be diverted to curb inlets at the east and west sides of the property. The curb inlet on the west side of the site is already in place; however, the inlet on the east side is proposed to be installed with this project and would connect to existing stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater conveyances within the Derby Marketplace development are privately owned and maintained. 14. Utilities. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 of 26  Fire Protection. The Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plans as submitted.  A Fire Department Connection (FDC) is required and shall be a 5-inch Storz type with 30 degree downward angle mounted 30 inches to 36 inches above finished grade. Water. As a requirement of the proposed lot split, the public water main will have to be extended south to serve the south half of Lot 5. A petition for the water line improvements is required as a condition of the lot split. Once the water line extension is complete, a 1-1/4 inch water service line is proposed to extend from the public water main. There appears to be a text error in the note referring to the size of the service line. The applicant or their agent shall coordinate with City of Derby water to facilitate connection to the public main. Sanitary Sewer. Similar to the water line mentioned above, an extension of the sanitary sewer line is required as a condition of the proposed lot split in order to provide service to the north half of Lot 5. Following extension of the public sanitary sewer line, sanitary sewer service for the building is proposed to be provided by connection of a new 6-inch service line to the 8 -inch main. A sand/oil separator is proposed to be installed on site. Cleanout locations are shown on the plans. Cleanout locations shall be in accordance with applicable building codes or as required by the Building Trades Official. Others. Gas, electric and telephone services are shown to extend from the existing lines along the east side of the site and enter the building on the south side. 15. Design Standards. Elevations for the proposed building addition are shown, including proposed materials. Colored renderings have been provided. All rooftop mechanical equipment is required to be screened using materials that are compatible with the principal structure. A parapet wall is used to provide screening for rooftop units. 16. No Smoking. City ordinance prohibits smoking in public places and places of employment. The applicant is required to post “No Smoking” signs to establish a 20- foot smoke free zone at all entrances to the facility. 17. Miscellaneous. To assist the City’s utility department in accurately assessing the stormwater utility fee, the applicant shall provide the total impermeable surface area of the lot. This information shall be submitted with the revised plans. All traffic control devices on site shall be in accordance with the current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 of 26 CORRECTED PLANS: Following Planning Commission approval, the applicant will need to revise the site plan documents to incorporate all corrections or comments and submit 3 revised copies to the City. Changes on the site plan sheets shall be clouded, and a list of all changes shall be provided, noting which comment each is addressing. The applicant is advised that building plans will not be reviewed until revised site plans are approved. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the site plan for Lot 5, Block 1, Derby Marketplace Third Addition subject to staff comments and approval of petitions for water and sanitary sewer extensions. Attachments: Location Map Revised Northeast Entrance Exhibit Site Plans DISCUSSION Hezlep – regarding the gas line, he asked how far on each side of the right-of-way did the utility company have for refusal of plantings and landscaping. Bird – said it is possible to plant shrubs in this area. He said there were enough buffers to plant shrubs for parking lot screening. He said there was a concern with the depth of the roots that might interfere with the underground utilities. Plantings would need to be set back from the easement, or the Planning Commission could allow a reduction of the requirements. Hezlep – asked if the trees could be located in the parking lot islands. Bird – said yes. Baer – asked if there was screening around the transformer. Adam Koster, agent, MKEC – said he noted having one tree but would have the landscape architect make some additions for screening the transformer. Bird – said there was a screening requirement for ground mounted equipment, but also a requirement for access to electrical transformers. Staff said they could work with both requirements for an effective solution. Baer – asked for clarification on the proposed exit. Koster – said the owner wanted to limit access points and provide separation between entrances. Rhein – asked how large trucks would exit the parking lot. Koster – said the trucks will need to come in the southeast entrance and leave via the northeast entrance. Discount Tire and the property owner have worked out joint-access easements for when the lot to the south is developed; there will be a joint access easement providing through access on the east side of the buildings. Rhein – suggested to Koster that the parking area where the trucks will be driving should be increased to heavy duty paving to accommodate heavier trucks in the interim. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 of 26 Koster – acknowledged that was a good suggestion. Rhein – asked what time deliveries would be made and if trucks would unload on the west side of the building. She stated a concern for using the display area as a walk through for deliveries. Koster – said the deliveries would probably be made during working hours. He said trucks will park on the north side and deliver materials using the north door; deliveries would not pass through the display area. Gould – asked about the lighting intensity and whether they were based on flat surfaces. He explained that a past lighting plan did not take into account the lower elevation of adjacent property. In that scenario, the shades that were used to restrict ambient light were not affective because of lower property elevation. He was concerned about drivers on Rock Road being affected by the lights. Koster – said Bird stated that as a concern in the staff report. The lights will be shielded to help prevent that. Similar lights and heights are being used on other sites in the area. Baer – said the site lighting level is higher along the Rock Road side and asked if this was being done to accomplish lighting for the area to the north. He said there were a lot of light poles in this area, but few on the north property line. Koster – said the overhead electric lines prevent placement of light poles on the north side and therefore, the lighting is increased in other areas to help cast light to the north side of the site. Baer – said that the candle power is similar to those located at Spangles and disclosed that he had heard complaints about the brightness, and that was a potential concern. Rhein – asked if the lighting levels accounted for lights from Rock Road lighting. Koster – said that he didn’t think it accounted for Rock Road lighting, but that it did account for lighting on the access road. Rhein – asked for clarification regarding the fire hydrant that is marked to be moved on one plan sheet, but the drawing provided in the Planning Commission packet shows the hydrant remaining rather than being moved. Koster – said when the entrance was proposed further south, the hydrant would have to be moved; however, when the entrance was moved to the north, they were able to build an island around the existing hydrant. Rhein – noted the existing inlet on the west side of the plan that has pipes connecting to another existing inlet off of Rock Road and asked if it was crossing the gas line. Koster – answered yes, there were several inlets along Rock Road that were already installed and were waiting to be hooked up. Rhein – asked if the 15-inch storm sewer pipe coming into the inlet could handle the three 8-inch storm sewer pipes connecting to it. Koster – answered correct. Rhein – asked if crosswalk locations had detectable warning strips. Koster – indicated they were on the main sidewalk. Baer – said that crosswalks on private property are no longer required to have detectable warning strips. Rhein – asked if there was an ADA requirement for a sign’s proximity to the parking stall. Koster – said they placed the signage behind the sidewalk so people would not walk into them. Bird – reemphasized the water and sewer line extensions required for the lot split approval. Bird – asked if a curb stop could be installed in the parking stall to the left of the accessible space to prevent vehicles from overhanging on the sidewalk. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 of 26 Koster – answered yes. Baer – said they had been refraining from that with sidewalk sections that are directly adjacent. With 5-foot sidewalk sections, the overhang is less than 18 inches, which leaves a 3.5-foot access path. Bird – wanted to make sure there was passing space for ADA, so if it could be accomplished without curb stops, that would be acceptable. Hezlep - mentioned that from his previous time spent living in Parker, Colorado, a Discount Tire business came into town and was a good neighbor that kept the site clean and well kept. Tires were not stored outside. Bird – let the Commission know that staff received preliminary building plans and the plans showed that there would be a large storage area for used tires. Hicks – moved to approve the site plan subject to staff comments and meeting comments, and approval of water and sanitary sewer extensions associated with the lot split. MOTION: Herman Hicks SECOND: Jack Hezlep VOTE: 9-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: Dennis Poteete SECOND: Herman Hicks VOTE: 9-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:40pm Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 26 of 26