Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY ________________________________________________________________ MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 6, 2014 6:30 PM ________________________________________________________________ CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2014. PUBLIC FORUM AGENDA ITEMS 1. Site Plan Review – First Presbyterian Church 2. General Discussion Topics:  Conflicts of Interest (City Attorney)  Meeting Procedures Question & Answer ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURN NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPRESENTATIVES: March 11 Gunter Hansen March 25 Jack Hezlep April 8 Larry Gould April 22 Shawn Riley May 13 Pat Baer  CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2014, 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Mitch Adams, Gunter Hansen, Kathy Wills, Dennis Poteete, Pat Baer, Shawn Riley, Herman Hicks, Larry Gould, Jessica Rhein MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Hezlep CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner; Jacque Butler, City Attorney; Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2014. MOTION: Dennis Poteete SECOND: Mitch Adams VOTE: 8-0-1; Shawn Riley abstained PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED Chairman Baer disclosed that he is an employee of Baughman Company and will be abstaining from voting on agenda item 1. He will still serve as Chairman to direct proceedings and maintain order. He disclosed ex parte communications, indicating that the civil engineer for this site had contacted him with technical questions. Bird – presented the staff report. AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Site Plan Review – First Presbyterian Church Expansion GENERAL LOCATION: Southeast corner of Baltimore Ave. (K-15 Highway) and Emma St. APPLICANT: First Presbyterian Church of Derby AGENT: Howard and Helmer Architecture, Rod Sondergard REASON FOR REQUEST: Church addition DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 13 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  A request for site plan review has been submitted for a site located at the southeast corner of Baltimore Ave. (K-15 Highway) and Emma St.  The site is the location of the existing First Presbyterian Church of Derby.  First Presbyterian Church of Derby desires to construct building additions to expand the existing church facility.  This expansion project is subject to the site plan review requirements because the cost of the improvements exceeds 50% of the County appraised value and because the proposed modifications to the site affect the overall design relationship of the site.  Churches are a permitted use in the B-4 “Central Shopping District.”  The subject site is approximately 1.46 acres, which exceeds the minimum lot size requirements of the B-4 District.  Existing land uses adjacent to the subject site are as follows: Existing Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses Direction Zoning Land Use North B-4 “Central Shopping District” Multi-tenant retail and dining East B-4 “Central Shopping District” Single-Family residences & other church property South B-4 “Central Shopping District” Dairy Queen (land owned by 1st Presb. Church) West B-4 “Central Shopping District” Professional office and Salon STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Legal Description. The legal description was prepared by a licensed Kansas land surveyor employed by the applicant to perform a survey of the site. The legal description is sealed and signed on the second page of the submission documents. 2. Building Setbacks. The proposed addition on the south side of the existing building is shown extending across the south property line. First Presbyterian Church of Derby owns both affected lots, and therefore, is able to construct the proposed expansion. In order to do this, measures must be in place to ensure that applicable building codes and minimum setback requirements are met. The architect has stated that the south wall of the proposed addition will be a 1 hour fire-rated wall. With a 1 hour fire wall, the minimum separation required to the nearest structure is 10 feet, which can be accomplished by shifting the property line to the south. Derby Subdivision Regulations provide for such a boundary shift, or boundary line adjustment, as an exemption listed under Article 1, Section 105.B. A boundary line adjustment can be completed when adjacent property owners agree to change the property line; provided that, no additional building site is created and that the boundary shift does not result in a substandard building site. At the time of this report, the agent of the applicant has agreed to prepare the appropriate boundary line adjustment in order to ensure adequate building setbacks for the 1 hour fire-rated DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 13  wall. The applicant is advised that site plan approval is subject to completion of the boundary line adjustment. The applicant shall provide documentation of the completed boundary line adjustment to the city for records. The B-4 District does not require a building setback; however, if one is provided, it shall not be less than 5 feet. The existing building and addition to the east exceed the minimum building setback requirements. When the boundary line adjustment is completed, the minimum building setback on the south side will also be exceeded. 3. Easements. There is a 20-foot public utility easement located on the subject site, east of the existing church facility. The easement was retained when the north/south alley was vacated in 2006. There are currently existing utilities within this easement which will require relocation in order to allow the church expansion to the east. In addition to relocating the utilities, the easement will need to be vacated. The applicant has submitted a request to vacate the utility easement. The public hearing for the vacation is scheduled to be held at the March 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. All parties with an interest in the utility easement are being notified and will have an opportunity to respond. Following the March 20, 2014 Planning Commission hearing, the request and the Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. The applicant is advised that site plan approval is subject to approval and recording of the vacation ordinance. No additional easements are shown on the site plans. The applicant or their agent shall verify that there are no encroachments onto existing easements of record. 4. Access. The subject lot currently has one opening each to Emma St., Georgie Ave. and Main St. The existing drives provide good access to the site, and no new access points are proposed. Notes indicate that the Emma St. entrance is to be reconstructed with 8-inch concrete and it appears that this entrance will also be widened to 27 feet. There does not appear to be modifications proposed for the other existing approaches. 5. Streets. The site has frontage to public streets on all 4 sides: The site abuts Baltimore Ave. (K-15 Highway), Emma St., Georgie Ave. and Main St. The existing street system adequately serves the site and is sufficient to accommodate the proposed additions to the church. No improvements to the streets are required. 6. Parking. Properties located within the B-4 District are not required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces. The parking regulations for churches and places of worship in other zoning districts require 1 parking space per 4 seats in the sanctuary. The site plan shows that there are 68 off-street parking spaces, and 9 on- street parking spaces on Emma St. Working backwards, the available parking spaces would normally equate to 308 seats in the sanctuary. Although there is not a minimum number of parking spaces required, the applicant is asked to consider the number of sanctuary seats and verify that the number of parking spaces available is adequate to meet the church’s needs. Dimensions of parking spaces are shown to be 9 feet by 19 feet which meets the minimum requirements. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 13  Notes on Sheet C1.0 indicate that the existing north parking lot will be removed and reconstructed with 6-inch medium duty asphalt paving over 8-inch treated subgrade. This is a good pavement section for a parking lot. The parking lot is required to have 6-inch concrete perimeter curbing in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. In order to prevent water from ponding along the curb on the east side of the parking lot, curb cuts should be provided to allow water to drain to the area between the parking lot and Georgie Ave. Staff recommends that the path that will be utilized by trash trucks (parking lot path from Georgie Ave. to the trash enclosure area) be upgraded to 8-inch concrete in order to withstand the heavier vehicles. 7. Circulation Aisles. The north/south drive aisles are shown to be 24 feet, which meets the minimum requirement. However, the east/west drive aisle separating the north and south parking lots is 13.5 to 20 feet wide and does not meet the 24 feet required for two-way circulation. This width would meet the requirements for one-way vehicular circulation: The applicant shall be prepared to discuss if this drive is intended for one-way traffic, and if so, what signage will be provided to mark it as such. 8. ADA. The current edition of ADA Standards for Accessible Design requires accessible parking spaces based on the total number of spaces provided for the facility. With the 68 parking spaces shown on the site plans, 3 accessible spaces are required. There are 4 accessible spaces shown, meeting the requirement. A minimum of one space must be van accessible. All 4 accessible spaces are shown to be 9 feet wide with a shared 9-foot wide accessible aisle, thus meeting the requirement. Note #8 on the Site Plan sheet specifies that appropriate signage will be provided in accordance with ADA guidelines. The plans propose two new accessible ramps to entrances on the east side of the building. Spot elevations shown on the grading plan show a proposed 6-inch rise over the width of what measures to be a 5-foot sidewalk: This equates to a slope of 1:10. The maximum allowable slope tolerance for accessible ramps is 1:12, except that for existing buildings, ramps are permitted to be 1:10 where such slopes are necessary due to space limitations. As the proposed ramps are to be constructed to serve the new building addition, and because there is sufficient space, the accessible ramps are required to meet the 1:12 maximum slope requirement as specified in detail 15 on Sheet C3.0. Notes on Sheet C1.0 and C3.0 indicate that there is a 1.5-foot elevation change to access the playground area, which would require three 6-inch steps. Staff recommends a ramp at this location in lieu of steps to provide greater accessibility to the playground. A handrail is required for the 1.5-foot rise, regardless of whether steps or a ramp is provided. The applicant or their agent shall coordinate handrail specifications with the Derby Building Trades Official. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 13  The applicant or their designated agent is responsible for ensuring that all accessible parking spaces meet the requirements of the ADA standards, including locations, widths, aisles, slopes, signage and pavement markings. Final inspection of accessible parking spaces and accessible routes shall be coordinated with the Derby Building Trades Official. A note shall be added on the revised 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. The Design Criteria of the Zoning Ordinance requires a sidewalk connection from the site to adjacent public sidewalks or public rights-of-way. The west door to the church has direct access to the public sidewalk along Baltimore Ave. (K-15 Highway). In addition, there is an existing 3-foot wide sidewalk along Emma St. which connects the sidewalk on Baltimore Ave. to the entrance on the east side of the building. These sidewalks meet the requirement for providing pedestrian access. Due to the adjacent on-street parking spaces, vehicles parked here may overhang and block a portion of the connecting sidewalk. This, in addition to the lack of ramps from the on-street parking to the connecting sidewalk makes this section of sidewalk difficult for ADA accessibility. Staff does not suggest that any changes to the sidewalk should be required; however, the applicant should be aware of these challenges. 10. Signage. There does not appear to be any new signage proposed. Existing signage and locations are identified on the Landscape Plan sheet. The existing sign on the south wall of the building will be relocated to the south wall of the new addition. All existing signage and the proposed relocation of the south sign are in compliance with Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. If additional signage is desired, now or in the future, the applicant is advised that all signs will require a separate permit be obtained prior to installation. 11. Site Lighting. The lighting plan shows that a combination of light poles and wall mounted lighting will remain or will be provided. Existing light poles in the parking lots will remain unchanged. Two existing parapet lights on the east side are shown to be relocated to the east wall of the new addition. The photometric plan shows minimal or no light spillage onto adjacent properties and street rights-of-way. Existing site lighting and the proposed modifications are acceptable. The revised site plans shall include a note stating that lighting is required to be screened or shielded to prevent intrusion of light or glare onto adjoining properties and streets. 12. Landscape/Screening and Buffering. Landscaped Street Yard. A landscaped street yard is not required for properties located within the B-4 District. Existing trees along street frontages and on the site should be protected as much as possible during construction. Screening/Buffering. Screening in the B-4 District is only required along rear and side lot lines between non-residential uses and adjacent residential zoning districts. All DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 13  properties surrounding the subject site are also zoned B-4, and thus, this site does not require any screening along rear or side lot lines. Parking Lot Screening/Landscaping. Parking lots with greater than 50 parking spaces are normally required to provide parking lot islands with 1 shade tree per 50 parking spaces. In order to preserve as much parking as possible, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the existing trees and proposed shrubs in the planters to be sufficient to meet this requirement. Article 3, Section 304.K. of the Zoning Ordinance requires all vehicular parking areas to be screened along public street frontages. No parking lot screening is currently provided or shown on the Landscape Plan. The Planning Commission may, at its discretion, decrease or waive the requirement for parking lot screening if the Commission finds that adjacent properties or uses and the general public will not benefit from the requirement, or if the Commission determines that the installation of required landscaping is impractical. If the Planning Commission determines that the parking lot screening should be required, in accordance with Section 304.L.10., properties within the B-4 District may provide screening within the public street right- of-way if first approved by the Director of Public Works. Maintenance of the screening would be the responsibility of the applicant. 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 6-foot high cedar fence is proposed to meet the screening requirement for the trash enclosure. A detail is provided on the Landscape Plan sheet. The new electrical transformer is required to be screened from public view from Baltimore Ave. on the west side. Staff recommends screening be achieved through the use of shrubs or ornamental grasses. Locations are not shown for other mechanical equipment, such as rooftop equipment for the kitchen facility and air conditioning units. The applicant shall be prepared to describe where mechanical equipment will be located and how screening will be provided. Required screening shall be included on the revised site plans. Miscellaneous Landscaping Notes Note #3 at the southwest corner of the south addition should be labeled Note #4. 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 flow overland to the southeast corner of the site. Stormwater currently exits the site and flows in the gutter along Georgie Ave. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 13  The proposed building additions are in a location that is already paved, and thus, is not expected to result in increased runoff or to significantly impact area drainage. As mentioned in the parking section, perimeter curbing is required around the reconstructed parking lot. Curb cuts should be provided to allow runoff to drain to the area between the parking lot and Georgie Ave. Necessary precautions should be taken to prevent erosion. 14. Utilities. Fire Protection. The Fire Department has reviewed the submitted plans and has provided the following comments:  The canopy on the east side is shown to have a vertical clearance height of 13 feet 4 inches above finished floor elevation, which is sufficient clearance for fire apparatus access.  The proposed site plan appears to provide adequate fire apparatus access to all portions of the building.  Existing fire hydrants are sufficient to provide required fire flow and no additional hydrants are required.  Any significant changes to the site plan will require re-submission for approval by the Fire Department. Water. An existing water service line enters the existing facility on the west side. The note on the Utility Plan sheet states that the existing service line is to be removed and replaced with a new 2.5-inch water service line. The applicant or their agent will need to contact El Paso Water Co. to coordinate water meter installation. Sanitary Sewer. An existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line is located within the utility easement which was retained when the north/south alley was vacated. A recent project was completed to relocate the line further east to allow for construction of the new east addition. Sanitary sewer service for the east building addition is proposed to be provided by extending an existing 4-inch service line to the newly relocated 8-inch public line. The Utility Plan also notes that two new4-inch service lines will be installed at the south addition to connect to the public main. When the public sanitary sewer line was relocated, the contractor did not install connection points for the three service lines. The applicant or their agent will need to coordinate with Derby Utilities to tap the public line. Cleanouts are shown along the private sanitary sewer service lines. Cleanout locations shall be provided in accordance with applicable building codes or as required by the Building Trades Official. Others. Various plan sheets identify locations of existing gas lines, overhead and underground electric lines, and communication lines. A note on the Utility Plan indicates that these lines are to be removed and replaced. The applicant shall provide an update as to the status of these relocations. As noted previously under the easements section, all existing utilities currently within the easement retained when the north/south alley was vacated will need to be relocated in order to vacate the easement. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 13 15. Design Standards. Elevations for the proposed building addition are shown, including proposed materials. Colored renderings have been provided to show the proposed colors. All rooftop mechanical equipment is required to be screened using materials that are compatible with the principal structure. Detail 6 on Exterior Elevations sheet 1 notes that roof-mounted mechanical units will be screened by a mechanical screen wall. It is not clear where other roof-mounted mechanical equipment may be located, or if appropriate screening is provided. The applicant or their agent shall be prepared to discuss locations of rooftop equipment and how screening is provided. 16. No Smoking. City ordinance prohibits smoking in public places and places of employment and requires “No Smoking” signs to be posted to establish a 20-foot smoke free zone at all entrances to the facility. First Presbyterian Church of Derby may have more stringent requirements than City ordinance requires, in which case, the more stringent requirements govern. The applicant should be prepared to discuss their plans for limiting smoking or prohibiting smoking and for installation of required signs. CORRECTED PLANS: Following Planning Commission approval, the applicant will need to revise the Site Plan documents to incorporate all corrections or comments and submit 3 revised copies to the City. Changes on the site plan sheets shall be clouded, and a list of all changes shall be provided, noting which comment each is addressing. The applicant is advised that building plans will not be reviewed until revised site plans are approved by the City. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the site plan for First Presbyterian Church of Derby, subject to staff comments and discussion; completion of a boundary line adjustment for the south property line; and approval and recording of the requested utility easement vacation. DISCUSSION Adams – asked if the boundary setback requirement changed from what was indicated in the staff report regarding the south side one-hour rated fire wall. Bird – said the architect communicated with the Building Trades Official and reported that they planned to do a 1-hour rated fire wall; however, the applicant was currently discussing it with the Church. He indicated that either plan would meet the requirements as long as the property line is adjusted to match the setback requirement. He mentioned that there was a transformer located south of the addition and said the property line would be set to satisfy the setback requirements and placement of the transformer. Riley – asked why the easement vacation request was not being considered during this meeting. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 13 Bird – said that when the applicant submitted the site plan review, staff notified the applicant that they would be required to vacate the easement. The timing of the submissions did not allow for the minimum legal notification period to hold both on the same meeting night. Rather than delay the site plan review and bidding of the projects, staff suggested that the plans could be approved subject to approval of the vacation request. Hicks – asked how the project would be affected if the easement is not approved. Bird – said that staff is recommending approval of the easement vacation, unless one of the public utility providers needs to retain access to the easement. If the easement vacation were not approved, the church would not be able to build the addition on the east side. Baer – asked the agent to step forward with comments. Rod Sondergard, Howard & Helmer Architecture – addressed questions and concerns in the staff report. For item number 6, he indicated that the maximum church service size totaled 209, which would require 50 parking stalls. The average service size is 140, therefore, they felt the current 68 off-street parking spaces would be adequate to meet church capacity. He concurred with staff regarding an upgrade to 8-inch concrete for the trash truck pathway if they were utilizing dumpster trash companies; however, the church uses residential trash carts that are picked up by residential trash trucks once a week. They did not feel the upgrade would be necessary. Regarding item number 7, he said the circulation lanes will be one way and will be marked as such. Referencing item number 8, he said they will make adjustments to the ramps as recommended by staff to be ADA compliant. He also said they would provide handrails located where there is a 1.5 foot elevation change to the playground area. Regarding ramp access to the playground area, he proposed a curb cut on the east end of the parking lot where the grading is more level sidewalks could provide access into the playground area. For item number 13, he said drainage flow and soil erosion would be controlled by curb and gutter flumes similar to those on the south side of the property. Regarding easement vacation in item number 14, he said they have a cost proposal from AT&T to relocate their lines; Cox Communications has already relocated their line; and they are waiting on a cost proposal from Westar. AT&T is coordinating with Westar on buried and overhead lines. Sondergard - provided a graphic of the new and existing roof plan, showing the 64-inch parapet on the east and south sides that will screen the mechanical units. He indicated that item number 16 has been addressed with current no-smoking signs located on the site. Rhein – asked how many handicap stalls were required for their site. Sondergard – answered that they have 4 stalls and that 3 are required. Rhein – asked if the church anticipates always having their trash picked up by a residential trash business, and asked where the trash truck path was located. Sondergard – answered yes; he said the trash truck enters the parking lot from the north, under the canopy and will turn east to circle back to the north entrance. Rhein – asked if the staircase previously mentioned is currently located in the playground area. Sondergard – answered yes and indicated they would need to rework it when they put new curb and gutter along the south side. Rhein – asked how they would handle drainage from the building and where the flumes would be located. Sondergard – said they would use downspouts and flumes to drain the water away from the building. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 13 Trevor Wooten, Baughman – indicated that they will need to fine tune locations on the plan, and will probably be located north of the drive, exiting out to Georgie Street in the south end of the north parking lot. Rhein – asked if they would have to re-grade the parking lot. Wooten – answered that significant grading was not necessary since it is already draining correctly to the south with curb and guttering, as opposed to sheet draining. Rhein – asked if the top of the curb would be ground level. Wooten – said it will be a little higher and will have to do some minor grading in the right- of-way. He indicated that the first 10 feet of the right-of-way is flat and as it moves east, drop in elevation. They were able to grade in the right-of-way without any problems. Rhein – asked where the utilities would be located. Wooten – said the utilities would be routed around the block to Georgie Avenue and then south. They have already done that with sanitary sewer and are currently working with the private utilities. Rhein – asked if the current power pole located in the middle would remain in place. Wooten – thought it would remain, however, they were waiting on Westar’s final design. Rhein – asked if there will be any conflict with the trees. Wooten – said he did not anticipate any conflict. Poteete – asked if there will be screening for the trash enclosure area and also stated his concern for the possibility of pot holes forming from the trash trucks setting in one spot for collection. Sondergard – answered yes they would provide screening. Bird – interjected to say that the upgrade to 8-inch concrete for the trash truck path was a suggestion made by staff for long term viability rather than a requirement. It is at the church’s discretion to upgrade. Baer – asked if the alley was vacated and whether it would be petitioned to rebuild. Sondergard – confirmed the alley had been vacated and said they were using private funding to repave that area. Poteete – asked if they met screening requirements for the electric transformer. Sondergard – said screening would be provided. Bird – added that the B-4 district is generally the older part of town that does not have a lot of parking lot screening; the parking lot screening requirements are still applicable; however, the Planning Commission has the discretion to waive that requirement. Wills – asked what additional screening would be needed under the current zoning requirements. Bird – said the parking lot screening requirement calls for a 36-inch high solid visual screening, which is typically met by planting shrubs. Rhein – asked if the surrounding home owners needed to be notified regarding the church’s plans. Bird – answered no, a notification process is not required for site plan reviews. Baer – asked if there were any more questions for the applicant. Seeing no more questions, Baer summarized the Planning Commission’s discussion. Wills – asked if the parking lot screening waiver needed to be voted on in a separate motion. Bird – said the waiver could be made with the final motion. Poteete – moved to approve the site plan for First Presbyterian Church of Derby subject to staff comments and discussion pertaining to the parking, the curbing, the signage, not including the 8-inch concrete upgrade for the trash receptacle, hand rails divided, and recommend that the existing trees and shrubs be sufficient, with the completion of the DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 13 boundary line adjustment for the south property line and approval of the requested utility easement vacation. Bird – asked to clarify the motion, indicating that the applicant had agreed to everything in the staff report, except the concrete recommendation, which was only a recommendation. He said the recommended motion by staff would sufficiently cover all of the items discussed and that the only addition to the motion would be whether the Planning Commission is choosing to waive the screening requirement. Sondergard – returned to the podium to advise that the boundary line location was not discussed. He said it was the church’s preference to proceed with the 30-foot relocation, giving clearance between the south wall and the property line to comply with building code requirements. Bird – clarified to the Planning Commission that to build the kitchen on the south side without the 1-hour rated fire wall, the 30-foot building setback is a requirement. The property line would be adjusted to provide that minimum 30-foot separation, located on the edge of Dairy Queen’s parking lot. He pointed out that the language in the staff report was to require the minimum 10-foot setback, but that the proposed 30-foot setback would also meet the building code requirement. Poteete – withdrew his motion. Bird – asked the Planning Commission if they would like him to propose a motion. Planning Commission – agreed. Bird – the recommended motion is to approve the site plan for First Presbyterian Church of Derby, subject to staff comments and discussion, including the relocation of the south property line to provide a minimum 30-foot building set back from the south side addition and to waive the parking lot screening requirements. Approval of the site plan would be subject to approval of the easement vacation. Poteete – so moved. MOTION: Dennis Poteete SECOND: Gunter Hansen VOTE: 8-0-1; Pat Baer abstained AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 DESCRIPTION: General Discussion Topics a. Conflicts of Interest (City Attorney) b. Meeting Procedures Question & Answer Bird – introduced agenda item number 2 and invited Jacque Butler, City Attorney, to the podium to present the conflict of interest topic. a. Conflicts of Interest (City Attorney) Jacque Butler, City Attorney – presented information to clarify best practices and guidelines for perceived conflicts of interest. She explained the purpose of the Statement of Substantial Interests for Local Office form, indicating that forms completed by the Planning Commission would be filed with the Sedgwick County Election Office, providing a public disclosure that would resolve concerns about perceived conflicts of interest. She DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 13 encouraged Planning Commissioners to consider completing the form so that they could conduct their Commission duties without apprehension. She reiterated that it is not a requirement, but rather, an option to legally address any perceived conflicts of interest. Planning Commission Members – collectively asked questions regarding document submission, receiving gifts from family members, state statues and public disclosure. Butler – answered the questions from the Planning Commission. Baer – indicated that he planned to submit the form so that he could participate in voting during Planning Commission meetings when there may be a perceived conflict of interest. b. Meeting Procedures Question & Answer Bird – referred to a question from a previous meeting regarding the speaking order for public comments and of applicants. He referred Commissioners to the Planning Commission By-laws which includes a section on public hearing procedures. He reviewed the order of proceedings. Hicks – asked for clarification on when the public could speak. Bird – answered that there are two different opportunities, once during the public forum and once during the public hearing. He said there were sign in sheets for each. Hicks – indicated that he felt there may be some confusion regarding when the public can speak. Bird – said that staff could clarify this opportunity to the public prior to the start of meetings. Adams – asked for clarification regarding the 9 Findings of Fact when considering a zone change request. Bird – said the Findings of Fact come from a long history of case law, established by a Kansas Supreme court case. The 9 Findings are the basis for all zone changes throughout the state. Each one of the 9 findings does not carry an equal weight. If one is found to be irrelevant, it does not have to be 1/9 of the decision. Not every fact will apply to every zone change case, which is why the language states they do not have to be weighed equally. ANNOUNCEMENTS Bird – announced that the April 22, 2014 City Council meeting has been canceled. Therefore, Planning Commission representatives to the Council meetings would be adjusted accordingly. Bird – mentioned upcoming board member terms expiring and the option to re-apply. He also let Commissioners know that state law allows Planning Commission members to also serve on the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) at the same time. He encouraged members to consider having one Planning Commission member apply for the BZA in order to provide a better level of consistency between the two boards. Bird – reminded members of an upcoming seminar covering Planning & Zoning Basics. The seminar is Saturday, March 22, 2014 and details would be sent to those registered. Bird – notified members that the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for March 20, 2014 would have a full agenda and wanted to ensure attendance at that meeting. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 of 13