Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY ________________________________________________________________ MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 1, 2014 6:30 PM ________________________________________________________________ CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 2014. PUBLIC FORUM AGENDA ITEMS 1. Zone Change Request – Courtyards at The Oaks RPUD, Final General location: SW corner of Tall Tree Road and Triple Creek Drive 2. Final Plat – Courtyards at The Oaks Addition General location: SW corner of Tall Tree Road and Triple Creek Drive 3. Preliminary Plat – The Oaks Commercial 2nd Addition General location: SW corner of Tall Tree Road and Rock Road 4. Election of Officers ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURN NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPRESENTATIVES: May 13 Shawn Riley May 27 Larry Gould June 10 Mitch Adams June 24 Kathy Wills July 8 Gunter Hansen  CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 1, 2014, 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Rhein, Gunter Hansen, Herman Hicks, Larry Gould, Pat Baer, Jack Hezlep, Dennis Poteete, Kathy Wills MEMBERS ABSENT: Mitch Adams, Shawn Riley CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner; Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 2014. Commissioner Hicks – Noted a correction to the April 17, 2014 minutes on page 15. He clarified that he had asked the agent to display material samples that showed the different surface and textures of the building exterior. MOTION: Hezlep SECOND: Rhein VOTE: 7-0-1; Hansen abstained AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Request (Public Hearing) R-1 Single-Family Residential to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) GENERAL LOCATION: Southwest corner of Tall Tree Road and Triple Creek Drive APPLICANT: Lusk Communities, Inc. CONTRACT PURCHASER: Perfection Signature Properties, LLC AGENT: MKEC Engineering REASON FOR REQUEST: Allow increased density to allow patio homes development and ancillary on-site amenities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  The applicant has requested to change the zoning district classification for the subject site from R-1 “Single-Family Residential” to RPUD “Residential Planned Unit Development.” DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 23   The RPUD request proposes to subdivide existing platted lots into narrower lots in order to accommodate a unique building arrangement and create private courtyards between residences. The RPUD also proposes a clubhouse, pool and other neighborhood amenities.  The application area is comprised of 54 platted lots in The Oaks Third Addition, totaling approximately 20.2 acres. A complete legal description of the application area is on file at City Hall.  The area is presently zoned and platted for R-1 “Single-Family Residential” use and is currently undeveloped.  In accordance with Derby Zoning Ordinance, the approval process for RPUD’s requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission for both the Preliminary RPUD, and the Final RPUD.  The Preliminary RPUD request was heard and approved by the Planning Commission at the required public hearing held March 20, 2014. o The public hearing was conducted in accordance with Section 1100(I) of the Zoning Ordinance. o The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary RPUD subject to staff comments which included the following:  Minimum 50 ft. street right-of-way widths;  A 6 ft. utility easement adjacent to street right-of-way;  Minimum 20 ft. front yard setbacks to allow for vehicle parking;  Minimum 15 ft. rear yard setback;  Sidewalks on both sides of streets;  On-site detention of additional runoff resulting from increased development density;  Platting of the site within one year of subsequent approval by the City Council;  Guarantees for construction of Triple Creek Dr. and the 12-inch waterline in Triple Creek Dr.  The applicant has since modified the RPUD document to address items 1-6 above. A final plat for the subject property is being considered concurrently with this zone change request, which addresses comment 7 above.  Resolutions for financing construction of Triple Creek Dr. and the 12-inch waterline in Triple Creek Dr. were adopted by the City Council at the April 8, 2014 Council meeting. Therefore, the financial guarantees to satisfy comment 8 above are in place. Upon construction of the public improvements, special assessments will be spread to the benefitting property owners.  Consideration of the Final RPUD requires a public hearing. The notice of public hearing was published in the Derby Informer on April 9, 2014. Notices were also sent to neighboring property owners as prescribed by state law. The official ownership list of the notification area is on file at City Hall.  At the time of this writing, staff has not received any written public comments concerning the requested rezoning of the subject property.  A final plat of the subject property is being reviewed concurrently with this zone change request. The RPUD document and the plat are integrally tied and should be considered concurrently to ensure consistency and accuracy. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 23 Findings of Fact Section 1100(I) of the Zoning Regulations provides the guidelines for the development of Findings of Fact which act to support the Planning Commission ’s recommendation of a rezoning case. The Planning Commission may find that not all factors will be relevant to this zone change request. Factors determined to be relevant by the Commission should be given consideration relative to both positive and negative findings. In order to properly make a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make specific and substantiated Findings of Fact supporting its recommendation. The following are the factors that the Planning Commission considers during a zone change case, accompanied by a brief description of the Planning Commission ’s findings from the January 16, 2014 public hearing for the Preliminary RPUD (in italics): 1. THE ZONING, USES AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: (Factual description of the application area and surrounding property as to existing zoning, land uses, general condition, age of structures, etc.) During the March 20, 2014 public hearing for the preliminary RPUD for this site, the Planning Commission found this factor to be neutral based upon the description contained in the staff report. The report described the property as an approximately 20.2 acre site that is currently undeveloped land used primarily for agricultural purposes. The existing zoning of the site is R-1 “Single-Family Residential,” as are the surrounding properties. The described conditions have not changed since the March 20, 2014 public hearing, and therefore, the Planning Commission may find that this factor remains neutral. 2. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED: (How is the property currently zoned and what uses are allowed on the property? Are these uses suitable given surrounding zoning and site criteria? Are the current allowed uses the only ones that might be appropriate for this property?) The Planning Commission previously found this factor to be positive based upon the staff report. The subject site is presently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential District which is intended for medium density single-family dwellings and certain public facilities. R-1 zoning is the most restrictive zoning district in the city, and may not be the only zoning which is appropriate for the subject site. A modest increase in the development density on the subject site would be consistent with the manner in which the overall area, commonly referred to as The Oaks, has been planned for development. The Oaks is a mixed-use development consisting of commercial lots, multiple-family apartments, single-family residences and a golf course with related facilities. Zoning and land uses on adjacent sites has not changed since the March 20, 2014 public hearing. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 23  3. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY: (Can the uses allowed in the requested district be good neighbors to existing development? This is a subjective question. The focus should be on facts, not fears, and should be based on issues that zoning can address (e.g. allowed uses, minimum lot size, height, setbacks, traffic generation, landscaping and screening, use limitations, etc.) The Planning Commission found the above factor to be positive based upon the facts presented in the March 20, 2014 staff report. The preliminary RPUD presented at the March 20 meeting proposed 87 residential lots (4.3 DUs per acre) in order to accommodate patio homes designed to be long and narrow and clustered close together to create private courtyard areas for residents. Multiple reserves to accommodate a private clubhouse, pool, golf facilities and other amenities, as well as to provide open space for residents and landscaping to beautify the neighborhood, were also proposed. The number of residential lots proposed is within the same development density range as the existing R-1 zoning (87 dwelling units proposed). Additionally, the patio homes would be single-family residences, and thus, is an appropriate use of the subject site. The overall development concept and layout of the final RPUD is substantially the same as the approved preliminary RPUD presented at the March 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. 4. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED: (Factual information, but its importance may be somewhat subjective. A property may be vacant because the current zoning is unsuitable, but there may be other reasons not related to zoning. Some examples might be a glut of available property of the same zoning district, financing problems, land speculation, fragmented ownership, lack of available public services or other development problems). This factor was found to be positive based upon the findings of the March 20, 2014 staff report. This finding was based on evidence that there has been an existing sufficient supply of other R-1 zoned properties in Derby, limited access to the site as Triple Creek Drive has not yet been constructed, and effects of an economic recession and collapse of the housing market shortly after the property was platted. The above described situation has not changed since the March 20, 2014 public hearing, and therefore, the Planning Commission may find that consideration of this factor has not changed. 5. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AS COMPARED TO THE LOSS IN VALUE OR THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE APPLICANT: (The protection of public health, safety and welfare is the primary basis for zoning. The relationship between the property owner’s right to use and obtain value from their property and the City’s responsibility to its citizens should be weighed). During the public hearing for the preliminary RPUD, the Planning Commission found this factor to be neutral based upon the findings of the March 20, 2014 staff report. The staff report identified regulations for development densities, building setbacks and building heights as measures used to ensure adequate separation and open space between uses in order to safeguard the health, safety and welfare DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 23  of the community. Several concerns were raised pertaining to proposed and required minimum setback distances as follows:  Front yard setbacks should be adjusted to allow for a 50 ft. street right-of- way, thus reducing the front yard setback to a minimum of 20 ft.  At the meeting, the applicant proposed a “dual front yard setback” to provide adequate off-street parking of vehicles, but which would also allow homes to be constructed closer to the street in order to achieve design goals of the development.  Staff recommends approving the proposed 15 ft. front yard home setback and 20 ft. front yard garage setback.  Rear yard setback should not be reduced below a minimum of 15 ft. to ensure adequate separation.  Side yard setbacks reduced to zero ft. on one side and a minimum of 6 ft. on the other side. The applicant has agreed to construct buildings in accordance with the minimum requirements of the International Building Code. The RPUD notes language pertaining to limiting the number of openings (windows, doors, etc.) for exterior walls on zero lot line as well as materials to be used.  The applicant shall ensure that all construction is completed in accordance with all applicable building codes. The applicant has made appropriate modifications to address the above comments. Complying with modified setbacks as shown on the RPUD document should adequately ensure that the health, safety and welfare matters associated with the proposed RPUD zoning will not be significantly different than those associated with the existing R-1 zoning. The preliminary RPUD was also approved subject to a screening wall being provided in accordance with Section 502(R) of the Subdivision Regulations (for screening walls along limited access collector streets). The final RPUD document notes that a screening wall will be provided along Triple Creek Dr. and along Tall Tree Rd.; however, details are not provided. The applicant shall provide details pertaining to dimensions, materials, and openings to the screening walls at the public hearing for the final RPUD. The Planning Commission has discretion to impose requirements for screening and landscaping if determined necessary to protect views or enhance community aesthetics. 6. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE ADOPTED OR RECOGNIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: (Does the request agree with the adopted plan recommendations? If not, is the plan out-of-date or are there mitigating circumstances which speak to the nonconformity?) The Planning Commission found the above factor to be positive based on the findings of the March 20, 2014 staff report. The findings state that the proposed RPUD is consistent with Derby’s Comprehensive Plan: The subject area is identified on the Future Land Use Map as moderate density residential development, characterized by a mix of single-family detached dwellings and moderate density attached residential dwellings with a mix of housing types. Also, DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 23  the proposed development would further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to: 1. Provide new residential developments with livability and quality design. 2. Provide a balance of housing choices to meet the needs of residents of different economic levels and age groups. The Comprehensive Plan has not been modified subsequent to the March 20, 2014 public hearing for the preliminary RPUD, and therefore, the Planning Commission may find that there are no significant changes to this factor. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (Are water and sewer available for extension? How are roads impacted? Can other community facilities (e.g. police, fire, parks, libraries, and schools) handle the increased development? Should be based on factual information referencing standards used to make the determination. At the time the preliminary RPUD was considered by the Planning Commission , this factor was found to be positive based on information contained in the March 20, 2014 staff report. The findings of the staff report indicated that existing and proposed public infrastructure was adequate, or could be made adequate, to accommodate the proposed development. The preliminary RPUD was approved subject to public facilities requirements which are normally addressed during the platting process; however, because the RPUD is integrally tied to the plat, many factors were considered as part of the RPUD approval. A plat of the subject property is being considered concurrently with this zoning request, and both the plat and RPUD documents reflect the requirements which were noted at the time of preliminary RPUD approval with one exception: A sidewalk connection is required to be provided through Reserve “K” at the Cross Creek Ct. cul-de-sac to connect to the Triple Creek Dr. sidewalk. A gate through the screening wall may be necessary. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: (This is just one of the factors to be considered and by itself is not sufficient reason to approve or deny a request). During the March 20, 2014 public hearing, one resident spoke in support of the proposed development based on viewing the contract purchaser’s project in another city. The Planning Commission found this factor to be positive based on the public input. No additional public testimony has been received by City staff at the time of this writing. 9. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF: (Should be based on the preceding eight factors, adopted plans and policies, other technical reports (e.g. Capital Improvement Program, facility master plans, etc.) which speak to the topic and staff’s best professional judgment. At the public hearing for the preliminary RPUD, the Planning Commission found this factor to be positive based upon city staff’s professional judgment. City staff recommends approval of the requested zone change from R-1 Single- Family Residential to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to the below comments. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 23  The RPUD is proposed as the zoning regulations for the requested development. As such, if the RPUD is approved, the language on the RPUD document becomes the zoning regulations for development within the described land. Therefore, the “Notes” and “General Provisions” need to be outlined and presented as regulations. The following additions, corrections or adjustments shall be made to the final RPUD document:  The “Notes” section shall be consolidated into the “General Provisions” section and “General Provisions” requirements shall be numbered consecutively in the format as outlined below: o A general description of the proposed development. (Should not include regulatory information such as lot sizes, bulk regulations, or materials as these should be specifically addressed as requirements.) o Total land area o Total units proposed (also including number of units allowed under R-1 zoning) o Total gross density (also including gross density allowed under R-1 zoning – 3.52 DU/acre) o Permitted Uses o Reserve Uses o “No Special or Conditional Uses are permitted within this RPUD district.” o Lot size requirements  Minimum lot size  Minimum lot width  Minimum lot depth o Bulk Regulations  Maximum structure height  Minimum front yard setback: Houses  Minimum front yard setback: Garages  Minimum rear yard setback  Side yard setbacks: zero lot line on one side and minimum 6’ on opposite side  Maximum lot coverage  “Building setbacks which vary from the above requirements shall be as depicted on the face of the plat for properties within this RPUD development.” o “Front walls of garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line as noted in the Bulk Regulations in order to provide adequate space for vehicles to park without overhanging the street right-of-way.” o “A drainage plan has been developed as part of platting the subject property. All drainage easements and rights-of-way shall remain at established grades and unobstructed. Proposed modifications to the drainage plan shall be submitted to the City of Derby for review and approval.” DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 23  o “Easements shall be as provided on the face of the recorded plat for the subject property.” o “All utilities shall be installed underground.” o “Access control shall be as shown on the face of the recorded plat for the subject property.” o “A screening wall and landscaping shall be installed along Tall Tree Road and Triple Creek Drive in accordance with the standards of Section 502(R) of the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Derby for screening walls along limited access collector streets. The screening wall shall be owned and maintained by the Home Owners’ Association of the RPUD.” o “Permitted obstructions into required yards shall be in accordance with requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby.” o “Building materials and openings in walls shall be as required by the International Residential Code, as adopted by the City.” o “Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby, except that visitor parking spaces as defined by “parking easements” on the face of the plat shall be permitted to back into the public street rights-of-way.” o “Accessory structures shall adhere to the same bulk regulations as principal structures as noted above, except that no part of any accessory structure may be located within 10 feet of any principal structure, not including fences 6 feet in height or less.” o “Fences located between residences are required to have gates to provide egress and access for fire department and emergency personnel.” o “Home Occupation standards for the R-1 Zoning District as established by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby shall apply to this development.” o “Signage and entry monuments may be installed at entrances to this development; provided that, signs are of a monument type and do not exceed 6 feet in height nor 10 feet in length and provided further that signs and entry monuments do not obstruct or interfere with views or turning movements of vehicular traffic.” o “The transfer of title of all or any portion of land included within the RPUD (or any amendments thereto) does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land and be binding upon present owners, their successors and assigns, unless amended in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby.” o “Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. Minor items can be adjusted by staff as allowed for by the Zoning Ordinance.” o “The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the RPUD as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Any substantial deviation of the RPUD, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 23  shall constitute a violation of any building permit authorizing construction within the proposed development.”  A 15 ft. rear yard setback shall be shown along the west side of Lots 1-15, Block 3.  Parking easements, if provided, shall not be less than 19 feet in depth to be in compliance with minimum parking space dimension standards and parking spaces shall not overhang the street right-of-way. Where parking easements are proposed along public streets, sidewalks shall be provided in front of parking spaces rather than behind parked vehicles. Such sidewalks shall be contained within sidewalk easements.  Labels for “Open Space Amenity Area” are not needed: All areas identified for open space are reserves and the uses for which shall be identified as “Reserve Uses” under the “General Provisions” as noted above. Areas reserved for private clubhouses, sidewalks, open space, etc. shall be described as such.  Labels in multiple locations are obscuring other labels: All labels shall be checked to ensure no labels or figures are obscured. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the RPUD, the applicant shall submit a PUD certificate as outlined in Section 415.D.5.e. of the Zoning Ordinance.  The certificate shall specify that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District has been approved for the subject property. Such certificate shall contain the following information: o A legal description of the property. o A statement that copies of the PUD Site Development Plan and its written provisions are on file with the City of Derby. o A statement that development restrictions imposed by the PUD District and the responsibility for continuing maintenance and compliance with the PUD Site Development Plan and its written provisions shall be binding upon all successors and assigns, unless the PUD District is amended in conformance with the procedures set forth by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby. Pending timely submission of all required materials, the Planning Commission’s recommendation for this zone change request will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the May 27, 2014 Council meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the final Planned Unit Development request to change the zoning district classification from R-1 “Single-Family Residential” to RPUD “Residential Planned Unit Development” based on the facts stated in the staff report and direct staff to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Attachments: RPUD Development Plan, Final DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 23 DISCUSSION: City Planner Cody Bird – informed the Planning Commission that the agent indicated they wanted to defer agenda items #1 and #2. Bird invited the agent representing the contract purchaser, Jason Gish, to the podium to discuss the deferment. Jason Gish, MKEC Engineering – indicated that they submitted items late and omitted details that staff requested. He mentioned that there were differences of opinion regarding a few items, including the right-of-way and parking angles. He requested the deferment to allow time for additional discussion with City staff. Commissioner Baer – asked for clarification on deferring the item. Bird – explained that because agenda item #1 is a public hearing item and state statute requires the Commission to set a specific date, time and location to continue the public hearing. He asked Gish if he wanted to request a specific date. Gish – answered that they preferred the next available Planning Commission meeting date. Baer – asked when the City Council could review the items if tabled to June 5, 2014. Bird – said that agenda item #1 and #2 could be separated for Planning Commission review and submitted at the same time to the City Council meeting. Bird – offered a suggestion to defer the public hearing for the Final RPUD to the May 15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, and defer the Final Plat to the June 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Both could go to the City Council meeting June 24, 2014. Gish – asked if that would schedule would require new notices for the public hearing. Bird – answered that they would not be required to send additional notices. The public hearing could remain open until the deferred meeting date. Deferring the public hearing will require a separate motion indicating the date, time and location of the public hearing. Baer – moved to table agenda item #1 Zone Change request from R-1 Single-Family Residential to Residential Planned Unit Development to the May 15, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting held at 6:30pm in the Council Room at Derby City Hall. MOTION: Baer SECOND: Hezlep VOTE: 8-0 AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 DESCRIPTION: Final Plat – Courtyards at The Oaks Addition GENERAL LOCATION: Southwest corner of Tall Tree Road and Triple Creek Drive CONTRACT PURCHASER: Perfection Signature Properties, LLC AGENT: MKEC Engineering REASON FOR REQUEST: Replat existing single-family lots to allow development of patio homes and related on-site amenities. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 23 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  The area proposed for platting is a replat of The Oaks 3 rd Addition consisting of 54 platted single-family lots.  The subject property is approximately 20.2 acres in size and is located at the southwest corner of Tall Tree Rd. and Triple Creek Dr.  The property is presently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, however, the property owner has submitted a zone change request for a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) that is being considered concurrently with this plat. The plat should accurately reflect the site plan as proposed for the RPUD request, and conversely, the RPUD should also reflect the requirements of the plat.  The applicant desires to replat the current configuration in order to increase the number of lots and to make them narrower to accommodate a unique housing development.  Platting of the property pursuant to Derby Subdivision Regulations is required whenever land is proposed to be divided or further divided into more than two lots.  The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the preliminary plat for the subject property at the March 20, 2014 meeting.  The preliminary plat was approved subject to comments contained in the March 20, 2014 staff report as well as ensuring that comments from the RPUD zone change request being considered concurrently for the same property were also addressed. o Several documents were noted in the staff report of the preliminary plat as being requirements for final plat consideration. Some of these documents were not provided, and need to be submitted for review prior to City Council’s consideration of the final plat. Required documents are noted later in this report. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Plat Name – The name of the plat is “Courtyards at The Oaks” which is acceptable. 2. Legal Description – A legal description of the property is provided on the face of the plat. 3. Lots – The applicant is proposing 87 lots for development of patio homes. The lot sizes are proposed to be reduced to allow a particular unique arrangement of single- family residences. As this plat is being considered concurrently with a zone change request for a RPUD, the minimum lot sizes shown on the plat are required to correspond to the minimum lot sizes approved with the RPUD (currently proposed at 5,200 sq. ft.). Minimum width and depth dimensions are also proposed to vary from the baseline R- 1 zoning requirements, and shall correspond to minimum dimensions of the RPUD. 4. Blocks – 3 blocks are shown and are labeled with appropriate block numbers. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 of 23 5. Setbacks – Front building setback lines as proposed by the RPUD are shown to be a minimum of 15 ft. for residential dwellings, with an increased 20 ft. minimum setback for garages to ensure adequate space for vehicles to park. A number of lots adjacent to Reserve islands within the street right-of-way have front yard setbacks of 20 ft. for both dwelling and garage, which is acceptable. Rear yard setbacks are shown to be 15 ft. in accordance with requirements for the RPUD. A 15 ft. rear yard setback line is needed along the west side of Lots 1-15, Block 3. A label on Lot 9, Block 1 is shown as a 20 ft. house setback, but believe it should be a 15 ft. house setback. A label on Lot 12, Block 3 for a 20 ft. garage setback has the arrow pointing to the 15 ft. house setback line. 6. Reserves – Numerous reserves of various sizes and intended uses are proposed for this development. The plattor’s text in the “Owner’s Certificate” shall clearly delineate the intended purposes for each reserve area. If structures are proposed to be located in reserves, the specific types of features shall be included in the reserve language. All reserves, “A” through “R” shall be specifically identified in the plattor’s text. 7. Easements – 20 ft. utility easement is shown to be dedicated along rear lot lines, meeting the requirement. Lots in Block 1 only have a 10 ft. utility easement along the rear property line because there is also an adjacent 10 ft. utility easement on the properties immediately to the south. Westar Energy responded to the notice of preliminary plat requesting a 10 ft. utility easement along the west edge of Reserves “E” and “I”. The requested easements are shown on the final plat. The preliminary RPUD zoning requested for the subject property was approved subject to a 6 ft. utility easement along both sides of a 50 ft. street right-of-way. These easements are shown on the plat A 20 ft. easement along the north edge of the property is proposed to be dedicated for “wall, utilities and drainage.” The wall easement shall be completely separate from the utility and drainage easement. A minimum 5 ft. wall easement shall be dedicated in addition to the 20 ft. drainage and utility easement. A minimum 5 ft. wall easement is also required along Triple Creek Dr. to contain the required screening wall. Multiple locations along public street rights-of-way are proposed for parking easements. Parking easements, if provided, shall not be less than 19 feet in depth to be in compliance with minimum parking space dimension standards and parking spaces shall not overhang the street right-of-way. Where parking easements are proposed along public streets, sidewalks shall be provided in front of parking spaces. Such sidewalks shall be contained within sidewalk easements. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 of 23 8. Streets and Access – The site gains access to Triple Creek Dr. via two local residential streets. Development of this site will trigger construction of Triple Creek Dr. from the traffic circle south to Meadowlark Blvd. Triple Creek Dr. will be a collector street which will be able to accommodate the expected traffic from the proposed development. A platted reserve to the north of the subject site prevents access to Tall Tree Rd. Similarly reserves on the east also restrict individual lots access to Triple Creek Dr. Public streets proposed to be dedicated to serve the interior of the development are shown with a 50 ft. minimum right-of-way, as required for approval of the preliminary RPUD and preliminary plat. Clearlake and Twisted Oak streets, where divided to go around median islands, are reduced to 23 ft. which was recommended for approval as part of the RPUD. The reduced width is acceptable since the through side of the street retains the full 50 ft. right-of-way width. The cul-de-sac turnaround for Cross Creek Pl. has been designed to provide adequate width to allow fire apparatus to maneuver around the proposed median island. Fire Department staff has reviewed the cul-de-sac configuration and found the design to be acceptable. A turnaround is required at the south end of Cross Creek where the street ends at the edge of the development. Temporary turnarounds may be permitted only with Fire Department approval. 9. Drainage – A drainage plan was submitted at the time the preliminary plat was considered. The applicant was advised that revisions to the drainage plan were necessary in order to detain stormwater runoff on site to a level that does not exceed the level originally designed for the area. A new drainage plan was submitted which states that the incremental increase in runoff would be detained on site; however, there is not sufficient information in the drainage plan to clearly identify how this will be accomplished. In addition, the drainage plan submitted indicates existing stormwater sewers intended to be utilized can accommodate a 2-year storm while Derby’s Stormwater Management Criteria requires the stormwater system to be designed for a 10-year storm. Revisions are needed to the drainage plan. A revised drainage plan designed to accommodate a 10-year storm and which provides sufficient details to demonstrate how detention is achieved shall be submitted for review by city staff. 10. Public Improvements – Streets – The plat appears to keep the same general street circulation layout as the previous plat. Streets will be standard 31-foot local residential streets built to City standards. Development of this site will also necessitate the construction of Triple Creek Dr. from the traffic circle at Tall Tree Rd. south to Meadowlark Blvd. Resolutions for financing this improvement were recently approved by the City Council and upon construction of the street, special assessments will be spread to the benefitting properties. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 of 23  Sanitary Sewer – Sanitary sewer is available along the south property line of the site. Additional lines are proposed to be extended to provide service to the development. A utility plan is needed for city staff review. Water and Fire Protection – A 12-inch water line will be installed along Triple Creek Dr. to serve this development and adjacent areas. Installation of the 12-inch waterline is a condition of approval for development of the site. 8-inch lines can then be extended west from the main line to serve the development. The applicant will need to identify the proposed locations of water lines on the required utility plan. Sidewalks – Sidewalks are shown to be provided on both sides of the streets, as required. Most sidewalks are shown to be located within the street right-of-way at the edge of the property line. Where sidewalks are not able to be located within the street right-of-way, easements shall be dedicated for public sidewalks as part of this plat. A sidewalk connection through the reserve at the end of the Cross Creek Pl. cul-de- sac was required at the time of preliminary plat review: “Public sidewalks” shall be included in the reserve language for Reserve “K” or a public sidewalk easement shall be platted to fulfill this requirement. A gate through the required screening wall may be necessary. Guarantee for Installation of Public Improvements – Financial guarantees were required for this site when it was originally platted, and thus guarantees for public improvements are in place. Existing special assessments for public improvements shall be respread to reflect the new lots. A respread agreement shall be submitted to the city for review. A final approved and signed respread agreement is required prior to the final plat being considered by the City Council. 11. Plat Binder – A plat binder addressing property interests and encumbrances was not submitted along with the plat. The applicant shall submit the plat binder for City staff review. 12. Developer’s Agreement – An executed developer’s agreement meeting the approval of the City is required before final plat consideration by the City Council. A draft developer’s agreement shall be submitted for City review. 13. Miscellaneous – The applicant or their agent shall ensure that all necessary certificates are included on the face of the final plat. The Planning Commission Certificate needs to be updated to delete references to Wichita and Sedgwick County MAPC and replace with City of Derby. Planning Commission Chair’s name should appear as “Patrick S. Baer.” The Governing Body Certificate should read as “…rights-of-way and other public dedications [shown hereon] are accepted by the City Council…” The Mayor’s name should read as “Dion P. Avello.” DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 of 23  The Register of Deeds’ Certificate is missing a blank space before “day” As noted previously, the Owner’s Certificate needs to clearly state all intended purposes for each reserve area. Further, the language shall state “Reserves “A” through “R”, inclusive, shall be owned and maintained by the home owners association for the addition.” The language currently shown stating “all other amenities as deemed appropriate by the home owners association” shall be deleted. The note in the Owner’s Certificate referencing FEMA FIRM Map and zones shall be deleted and replaced with “The minimum building pad elevations for the lowest opening to structures shall be as indicated on the face of the plat.” The paragraph in the Owner’s Certificate which references maintenance and access easements for adjoining property owners should be in a private covenant rather than on the plat. Additionally, there is a note which states that “dwellings with a 6 ft. side yard setback may be constructed without a fire separation…” This language should be removed and replaced with language indicating that buildings constructed with less than 10 feet of fire separation shall be constructed in accordance with the additional requirements specified for such conditions in adopted city codes. All applicable requirements made as part of the approval of the RPUD zone change shall be appropriately incorporated onto the final plat. Due to the volume and significance of changes needed to the drawing, and the documents still needed for review, staff recommends that the above comments be addressed and the required supporting documents be submitted in order for the Planning Commission to review the final version of the plat prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Require the applicant to submit required documentation, address the concerns noted in the staff report, and submit revised drawings for Planning Commission review. Attachments: Plat DISCUSSION Commissioner Baer – indicated that the agent requested agenda item #2 be tabled to the June 5, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Baer SECOND: Poteete VOTE: 8-0 DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 of 23 AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat – The Oaks Commercial 2nd Addition GENERAL LOCATION: Southwest corner of Tall Tree Road and Rock Road APPLICANT: William Lusk, Jr. Living Trust AGENT: Baughman Company, P.A. REASON FOR REQUEST: Replat one large commercial lot into 5 smaller lots for commercial development. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  The applicant has submitted a request to replat 6.5 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Tall Tree Rd. and Rock Rd. to allow the land to be developed for commercial uses.  The area proposed for platting is a replat of Lot 1, Block D, The Oaks Addition.  The site is at the corner of a major commercial arterial street and a busy residential collector street, making the site desirable for a wide range of commercial and retail uses. The site is separated from an existing single-family residential neighborhood by a drainage reserve, but otherwise, is surrounded by B-3 zoned commercial properties and an electric substation.  The property is currently zoned B-2 “Neighborhood Business;” however, rezoning of the property to B-3 “General Business” was recently considered by the Planning Commission and is scheduled to be presented to the City Council at the May 13, 2014 Council meeting.  Platting of the property is required by the City’s subdivision regulations whenever land is proposed to be divided or further divided into two or more lots. STAFF COMMENTS: 14. Plat Name – The preliminary plat indicates the development will be referred to as “The Oaks Commercial 2nd Addition.” This name is acceptable and does not duplicate the name of any existing plat. 15. Legal Description – The legal description of the property is “All of Lot 1, Block D, The Oaks, an Addition to Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas” and is shown as such on the preliminary plat. 16. Lots – The applicant is proposing to divide the existing single lot into 5 smaller lots which will be served by an interior private street to provide access to the lots. All lots within the proposed development are of sufficient size to meet the minimum lot size requirements of both the existing B-2 district (10,000 sq. ft.) and the requested B-3 district (15,000 sq. ft.). DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 of 23  All lots exceed the minimum lot width requirements of both the existing and proposed zoning districts. 17. Blocks – One block, Block A, is proposed and is appropriately labeled on the preliminary plat. 18. Streets and Access – The subject site is adjacent to Rock Rd. and Tall Tree Rd. Complete access control is platted along Rock Rd. except for one opening. Complete access control is also platted for the first 100 feet west of Rock Rd. on Tall Tree Rd. Thus, the preliminary plat submitted shows a private street to be constructed to connect Tall Tree Rd., through the development, and back to Rock Rd. The private street proposed would provide adequate access to all lots within the development. The private street is required to be platted within a reserve, which is shown. Article 6, Section 602.L. of the Subdivision Regulations requires the reserve to be the minimum width of a public street that would be necessary to serve the development, in this case 70 ft. A review of other developments including private streets reveals that this requirement has not historically been enforced during platting. A 70 ft. wide reserve on this lot would encumber a significant amount of land which would otherwise be useable for commercial development. Therefore, staff recommends reducing the reserve width to a minimum of 40 ft. to provide for a 31 ft. street built to City standards. Private streets shall also be constructed with public sidewalks on both sides, although, in this case, the sidewalks may be located in an adjacent easement for sidewalks and utilities. 19. Setbacks – Article 6, Section 602.L.2. of the Subdivision Regulations also states that private streets shall have platted building setbacks as if the lots were considered adjacent to a public street. Staff is recommending that a building setback along the private street be combined with the 20 ft. utility easements (20 ft. building setback and utility easement). Requiring 35 ft. setbacks would be excessive along a private street in a development such as the one proposed. Front yard building setback lines are shown to be 35 ft. along Rock Rd. and along Tall Tree Rd., meeting the minimum requirement. 20. Easements – Locations of existing platted easements are shown on the proposed preliminary plat. Normally, easements are provided along the back side of lots, but in this case, easements are proposed along the private street. The utility easements proposed should be sufficient to meet the utility needs of the development. To date, city staff has not received any communications from utility providers requesting additional easements. A new 20 ft. storm sewer easement is proposed to contain a private stormwater sewer line to convey site runoff and runoff from the private street west to an existing drainage easement in the northeast corner of Lot 5. The stormwater sewer easement DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 of 23  is also combined with a utility easement: The Subdivision Regulations require 30 ft. easements when stormwater and utility easements are combined. Westar Energy responded to the notice of preliminary plat and responded that Westar did not need any additional easements at this time. 21. Reserves – The preliminary plat proposes one reserve, Reserve “A” which is intended for open space, sidewalks, landscaping, parking lot islands, signs, a private access road, drainage purposes, and utilities. The reserve language on the plat shall be modified to include “public” sidewalks. Further, the final plat shall include language in the Owner’s Certificate that a private covenant is recorded which establishes that the benefiting property owners will be responsible for all maintenance, repairs and any other incidental actions involving the private street’s operations. This covenant shall provide for the City to maintain or repair the street should the private entity fail to do so and assess incurred costs to the benefitting properties. 22. Drainage – A drainage plan for the subject site has been submitted with the preliminary plat. The site was previously included in the plat of The Oaks 2 nd Addition as one commercial lot with required stormwater detention provided in the overall approved drainage plan. The proposed plan for this new plat indicates that increased runoff from development of the site is consistent with the original drainage plan. The applicant shall verify that all improvements identified to address runoff from the site in the drainage plan developed for the Oaks 2nd Addition have been constructed, or shall provide a guarantee for their construction as a condition of re-platting. The previous plat of the subject property included minimum building pad information for the site. The applicant shall verify that minimum pad and minimum low opening elevations are not needed for this development or shall include the requirements on the plat. 23. Public Improvements –  Streets – This site is adjacent to Tall Tree Rd., a 41 ft. collector street, connecting apartments, residential properties a golf course and other commercial properties to Rock Rd. The site also has access to Rock Rd., an important transportation link from Derby to major employment centers and attractions in Wichita. The developer has proposed a private street providing access to the platted lots from both Tall Tree Rd. and Rock Rd.  Sanitary Sewers – An existing 12-inch sanitary sewer line is in place along the west line of Reserve “M”, The Oaks 2nd Addition. The area proposed for platting is owned by the owner of Reserve “M” and thus the owner may dedicate a utility easement across the reserve in order to access the existing public main line. The 12-inch line has sufficient capacity to provide service for development of the subject property.  Water & Fire Protection – Water service is available to this site via an existing 12- inch water main in the south Tall Tree Rd. right-of-way. An 8-inch extension is DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 of 23  proposed to be extended south from the main line to serve Lots 1-2 and 4-5. It appears that Lot 3 is proposed to connect to the existing 24-inch line in the Rock Rd. right-of-way. When Lot 3 develops, extending service from the 24-inch line will need to be coordinated with Derby Utilities and an isolation valve will be required. The cost of tapping the 24-inch line and installing the required isolation valve will be the responsibility of the site developer. Existing lines will provide adequate water pressure and fire flow for the subject site. Existing fire hydrants are located at the north and south corners of the property along Rock Rd. One additional hydrant is proposed at the northeast corner of Lot 4. Final locations of hydrants will be evaluated by the Derby Fire Department when the property is developed. 24. Guarantee for Installation of Public Improvements –Public improvements are required to be guaranteed by the developer. Some public improvements are already installed to serve this site. Existing specials will need to be respread to the new lots. A respread agreement shall be submitted along with the final plat. The applicant has indicated that other necessary public improvements will be financed privately. In accordance with City policy, the applicant shall provide a financial guarantee for the required improvements. 25. Plat Binder – The agent has stated that a plat binder addressing property interests and encumbrances will be submitted along with the final plat. 26. Developer’s Agreement – A draft developer’s agreement was submitted along with the preliminary plat and is presently being reviewed by city staff. Staff will coordinate with the applicant to address any changes to the agreement. Following any necessary revisions, an executed developer’s agreement will be required before final plat consideration by the City Council. 27. Miscellaneous – Upon acceptance of a final plat by the City Council, the applicant shall ensure that monuments are placed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets and at intermediate points as required by the City. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the preliminary plat of The Oaks Commercial 2 nd Addition to Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas subject to staff comments and authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final plat. Attachments: Preliminary Plat Chairman Baer - disclosed that he is an employee of Baughman Company and indicated a perceived conflict of interest with agenda item #3 and would abstain from voting. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 of 23 DISCUSSION Cody Bird, City Planner – presented the staff report and also let the Planning Commission know that the agent recently presented modifications to the plat that were not included in the agenda packet available prior to the meeting. Bird – continued to say that staff had not had time to review the requested changes and informed the Planning Commission that they could either consider the item as a preliminary plat, if comfortable with the changes to be presented; or consider reviewing the item as a sketch plat, requiring the applicant to return to a future meeting date with a preliminary plat. Phil Meyer, Baughman Company, agent for applicant – distributed the revised plats to the Planning Commission. He let the Planning Commission know that they were in agreement with the staff report with the exception of the reserve proposal. The staff report required the reserve be widened to 40 feet, and suggested moving the utility easement. He said they would also like to combine lots 4 and 5 into a single lot due to the limited space on lot 4. He informed the Planning Commission that the applicant has prospective buyers under contract for 3 of the lots proposed to be platted. The applicant desires that the item be considered either as a sketch plat or that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed changes during the meeting and consider it as a preliminary plat. Meyer – explained that increasing the width of the reserve containing the private street would be problematic to the overall layout of the development. He indicated that the applicant would like to have some discussion at the meeting to address options of providing an access easement in lieu of a reserve to accommodate the private street. Bird – indicated that the Subdivision Regulations require private streets to be contained within a reserve strip the same width as if the street were a public street. Staff’s recommendation for the original proposed layout included a minimum width of 40 feet for the reserve. The same requirement would not be applicable for an access easement. Meyer – acknowledged that there was dissention regarding the description of a street versus a drive versus an access way and indicated that their intention was to do a private drive. He said that if they could not do a 30 foot reserve, they would need to consider access easements. Commissioner Poteete – asked staff to comment on whether the agenda item warranted consideration as a sketch plat or preliminary plat, based on current work load and other case submissions. Bird – answered that staff would recommend the modifications presented be considered as a sketch plat. The preliminary plat could be reviewed at the May 15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Hezlep – asked Bird to explain staff’s definition of a sketch plat. Bird – answered that a sketch plat is the first step of the Subdivision Regulations and normally begins with the applicant providing the concept of the proposed plan. The applicant had submitted a sketch plat to staff for review, and staff recommend the applicant proceed with submission of the preliminary plat based upon that layout. He informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had submitted all required documents with the application; however, the requested modifications to the plat warranted further review and discussion. He said staff would be more comfortable preparing a staff report to address the proposed changes and submitting to the Planning Commission for review in accordance with normal procedures. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 of 23 Hezlep – asked if the Planning Commission should continue discussion on the agenda item. Bird – said yes, discussion of the sketch plat is encouraged to provide the applicant some guidance. Hezlep – mentioned the slope on lot 4 and asked for clarification on whether it was buildable, and what could be built on the lot. Meyer – said it was a 3 to 4 foot slope and could possibly be filled a bit more. He said the ability to build on lot 4 is questionable; which is why they were requesting the change. Lot 4 could be used as a parking area to serve lot 5. Poteete – asked for clarification regarding the 45 foot access to Rock Road and 35 foot access to Tall Tree road, as to whether they provide appropriate access to those intersections. Meyer – answered that a discussion with City staff had indicated approval of the locations of the openings. The increased width at the Rock Road entrance allows for full turning movements. He indicated that the applicant would build a standard 31 ft. street (back of curb to back of curb). Derby’s Subdivision Regulation requires a minimum 35 foot easement. He requested that the Comission discuss whether the access easement needs to loop all the way through the plat to connect Tall Tree Road to Rock Road. The revised plat drawings presented show the access easement serving Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Commissioner Rhein – asked if there will be cross lot access between Lot 2 and Lot 4. Meyer – answered that the developer will have cross lot access between parcels. Rhein – indicated that she would prefer having an access easement all the way from Tall Tree Road to Rock Road. Commissioner Gould – indicated that he was comfortable with allowing City staff to work with the applicant to address lot access before the next meeting. Bird – asked Meyer if the driveway proposal still connected Tall Tree Road to Rock Road. He told the Planning Commission that staff verbally communicated with the agent regarding no-parking signs along the private drive. Meyer – said they were in agreement with staff to provide no-parking signs; however, they did have differing views on what constitutes a street or drive, and suggested that what was being proposed is an interior circulation system. Bird – added that all 4 proposed lots will need to have access from the private drive and the drive would also be utilized for emergency response vehicles. Hezlep – advised that if cross lot parking is allowed, drivers may be likely to cut through the lots. Bird – indicated that those concerns could be addressed during site plan review. Dan Squires, City Engineer – clarified that the requested change to the plat still contained a curved 30 foot street from Tall Tree Road to Rock Road regardless of whether it was being referred to as a street or private drive. He said it will not be an open parking lot. City staff would like to see the access easement run all the way through the platted area. Rhein – pointed out that the proposed access easement would be completed located on Lot 4 as shown. She asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the private drive? Meyer - said lots 1, 2, and 3 all have maintenance tied in to them. He said there will be a Lot Owner’s Association for all 4 lots and would address maintenance responsibilities. Rhein – asked to clarify if lots 1, 2, and 3 would not have access to Rock Road. Meyer – answered correct, they would not have direct access to Rock Road. Meyer – explained to the Planning Commission the building limitations for some of the lots due to power poles and transmission lines. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 of 23 Hezlep – asked if there were additional comments or questions for the agent. Gould – indicated that he was comfortable with City staff’s description of the proposed plat changes. There was general agreement from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hansen – moved to table agenda item #3. Poteete – asked if the motion was to consider item #3 as a sketch plat and table the preliminary plat for the next Planning Commission meeting. Bird – answered correct. He asked Hansen if he could restate his motion to include the May 15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting date. Hansen – restated the motion. Bird – summarized that a preliminary plat was originally presented, but due to requested changes by the applicant, a motion had been made to table the preliminary plat to the May 15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting subject to the changes discussed. MOTION: Hansen SECOND: Hicks VOTE: 4-3 AGENDA ITEM NO: 4 DESCRIPTION: Election of Officers Cody Bird, City Planner – stated that the Planning Commission By-Laws require members to nominate and elect officers at the first regular meeting in May of each year. The positions available for nomination are the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson. The position of secretary is served by City staff and is assigned to the City Planner. He said the election procedures require a nomination, acceptance of the nomination, and a vote for each position. Commissioner Hansen – nominated Pat Baer for Chairperson. Commissioner Baer – declined the nomination. Hansen – nominated Jack Hezlep for Chairperson. Hezlep – accepted the nomination. Baer – nominated Mitch Adams for Chairperson, who was absent; Baer indicated that Adams had previously offered that he would accept the nomination. Planning Commission members - voted 7-1 in favor of Jack Hezlep for Chairperson. Baer – opened the floor for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairperson. Commissioner Gould – nominated Dennis Poteete. Commissioner Poteete – accepted the nomination. Hansen – nominated Jessica Rhein. Commissioner Rhein – accepted the nomination. Planning Commission members – voting resulted in a 4-4 tie. Bird – advised the Planning Commission that they could conduct a roll-call vote to attempt to break the tie. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 of 23