Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 7, 2016 6:30 P.M. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3. A. Regular meeting minutes of June 16, 2016 Approve the regular meeting minutes of June 16, 2016, as presented. 4. PUBLIC FORUM 5. NEW BUSINESS 5. A. Special Use Request for Fire Station Approve a special use permit for a fire station on property to be platted as Lot 1, Block A, Bulldog Addition based on the findings of fact and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. 5. B. Final Plat of Bulldog Addition (preliminary plat reviewed as Madison & Woodlawn Addition) Approve the final plat of Bulldog Addition subject to staff comments and authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final plat. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT 1 Planning Commission Meeting 3.A. Meeting Date: 07/07/2016 Submitted By: Cody Bird, City Planner Subject: Regular meeting minutes of June 16, 2016 Recommend a Motion to: Approve the regular meeting minutes of June 16, 2016, as presented. Attachments Meeting minutes of June 16, 2016 2  CITY OF DERBY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2016 6:30 P.M. MEETING MINUTES 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Mitch Adams Pat Baer Larry Gould Dennis Poteete Jessica Rhein Edward Sheldon Mark Tillison Van Willis 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3. A. Meeting minutes of a workshop session held May 19, 2016 Recommend a Motion to: Approve the meeting minutes of the May 19, 2016 workshop session, as presented. Moved by Mark Tillison, seconded by Mitch Adams to approve the meeting minutes of the May 19, 2016 workshop session, as presented. Vote: 4 - 0 Other: Pat Baer (ABSTAIN) Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) Gary Renberger (ABSENT) Jessica Rhein (ABSTAIN) Edward Sheldon (ABSTAIN) Van Willis (ABSTAIN) 3. B. Regular meeting minutes of June 2, 2016 3 3. B. Regular meeting minutes of June 2, 2016 Recommend a Motion to: Approve the regular meeting minutes of June 2, 2016, as presented. Moved by Pat Baer, seconded by Jessica Rhein to approve the regular meeting minutes of June 2, 2016, with corrections. Vote: 7 - 0 Other: Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) Gary Renberger (ABSENT) Van Willis (ABSTAIN) 4. PUBLIC FORUM Mike Henesey, 616 N Bel Rue St. stated that the sidewalk built south of his property created flooding in his back yard. He explained that the sidewalk dammed up the water flow, which drains two houses west and three houses north of his property, creating a pond. He said he spoke to the city engineer several years ago and was told that he created his own problem because he built a retaining wall that diverted the water to a low spot in his yard eight feet from his property line. The water used to drain into a ditch, however the ditch no longer exists. He asked if the City would consider installing a drain to properly drain the water flow. He emphasized that a drain may be needed if the new development elevation is higher than the adjacent properties. Commissioner Rhein asked if there is a current road project planned for Madison Ave. and asked whether this request could be evaluated as part of the project. Cody Bird, City Planner answered there is a road project planned for reconstruction of Madison Ave. He said he will bring the concern to the attention of the City Engineer. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5. A. Zone Change: North of Madison Ave., 500 ft. East of Bel Arbor St. General Location: North of Madison Ave., approximately 500 feet east of Bel Arbor St. Applicant/Agent: Applicant: Warren Brothers Quality Homes, LLC - Dan Warren Agent: Baughman Company, P.A. - Russ Ewy Reason for Request: To allow a condominium development 4 Background Information: The owner of property generally located north of Madison Ave. and east of Bel Arbor St. has requested that the property be rezoned from R-1 "Single-family Residential" to R-3 "Multiple-family Residential." The property proposed to be rezoned is an undeveloped 18.7 acre tract. The property is not part of any previously recorded plat. Zone change requests require a public hearing: Notice of the public hearing was published in the Derby Informer on May 25, 2016. Notices were mailed to neighboring property owners as prescribed by state law. A sign advertising the public hearing was placed on the subject property 14 days in advance of the public hearing. The official notification area ownership list is on file at City Hall. At the time of this writing, City staff has received several inquiries about the rezone request. Questions and city staff's responses are included in the findings of fact section of this report. To date, individuals that have contacted city staff have expressed neither support nor opposition for the proposed rezone, although some have expressed concern about the potential impact to the value of their property. Staff Comments: Subsection 1100.C of the zoning regulations provides guidelines for matters which may be considered when approving or disapproving a rezoning request. The Planning Commission may find that not all factors will be relevant to this zone change request. Matters that are determined by the Planning Commission to be important will be the basis for the Planning Commission's recommendation. In order to properly make a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make specific and substantiated findings supporting its recommendation. FINDINGS OF FACT The following are the rezoning factors the Planning Commission must consider, a brief explanation of each factor, and staff's opinion of findings for each factor: 1. CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: (Factual description of the application area and surrounding property as to general nature, condition, age of structures, etc.) The subject property is an undeveloped 18.7 acre tract located north of Madison Ave. and east of Bel Arbor St. The site is adjacent and has direct access to Madison Ave., an arterial street. Surrounding residential properties to the west and north were developed as urban city lots, approximately 1/4 acre in size. Most residential properties to the north and west were constructed between 2002 and 2009, and are generally well maintained. 5  Development of adjoining properties has left the site generally disconnected from the surrounding neighborhoods. Residential properties to the west and north generally "back-up" to the property. Most abutting residences have fenced rear yards which creates a strong and visible edge to the property. When the adjoining residential properties were developed, there were no streets or points of access provided that would connect the proposed rezone site to surrounding developments. The property borders High Park on the east, a large city park with ball fields, walking paths, fishing pond, playgrounds, shelters and other recreational amenities. Most of the east side of the property is bordered by a row of mature trees which clearly defines the east edge of the property, and screens the property from the adjacent High Park and two large lot residential properties. Properties south of Madison Ave. were developed in unincorporated Sedgwick County and are primarily large lot suburban residences. Most homes to the south were built in the 1950s or 1970s, but a few older homes have been in place since late 1920s or early 1930s. Residences south of the property proposed to be rezoned are generally well maintained. 2. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTIES NEARBY: (Factual description of surrounding property as to existing zoning and land uses.) Existing zoning and land uses adjacent to the proposed rezoning area are as follows: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses Direction Zoning Land Use North R-1 "Single-family - Single-family homes Residential" East R-1 "Single-family - Single-family homes (large Residential" lots) - Public park (High Park) South RR "Rural Residential" - Single-family homes (large (county zoning) lots) West R-1 "Single-family - Single-family homes Residential" 3. 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 there uses suitable given surrounding zoning and site criteria? Are the current allowed uses the only ones that might be appropriate for this property?) The property is presently zoned R-1 "Single-family Residential" which is the city's most restrictive zoning district and is limited to single-family homes and accessory uses. 6  All surrounding properties within the city are also zoned R-1 "Single-family residential. County properties to the south are zoned RR "Rural Residential" which is most compatible with the city's R-1 zoning designation. The City's R-1 zoning allows the construction of single-family homes similar to those that have developed around the property. Developed residential uses are generally situated such that they "back-up" to the site proposed for rezoning. Existing rear yard fences and vegetation provide screening between adjacent properties and the site. Uses permitted within the requested R-3 zoning district are suitable for the subject site. Surrounding zoning and land uses are compatible with the uses proposed. 4. 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 [for example, allowed uses, minimum lot size, height, setbacks, traffic generation, landscaping and screening, use limitations, etc.]) The requested R-3 zoning allows multiple-family residential dwellings which may include apartment buildings, condominiums, row houses, townhomes and other attached dwelling units. Uses permitted within the R-1 and R-3 zoning districts have generally been found to be compatible where such districts are adjacent elsewhere in the city. Building massing and scale of uses allowed within the proposed R-3 zoning are generally compatible with those of uses permitted within the surrounding R-1 zoning. Building heights for both the existing R-1 and the proposed R-3 zoning districts are restricted to a maximum 35 ft. Front yard setback requirements for the requested R-3 zoning is the same as the adjoining R-1 zoned properties. Required rear yard setbacks of the R-1 and R-3 zoning districts are 25 ft. and 20 ft., respectively, and are thus compatible. Landscape screening and buffering is required between multiple-family developments and adjacent single-family or two-family residences. Rear yard fences of adjacent single-family residences provide screening along a majority of the north and south property lines. Existing mature trees provide screening along the east property line. Requirements for additional screening or buffering may be considered at the time of site plan review. The property is located with good access to Madison Ave., an arterial street intended for higher traffic volumes. Traffic generated as a result of the proposed rezoning should not have a significant impact on adjoining properties since the site's only access is onto the arterial street. 5. LENGTH OF TIME THE 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 7  problems.) The subject property is currently undeveloped. The property was originally rezoned to the current R-1 "Single-family Residential District" when it was annexed into the City in May 2002 (Ord. No. 1763). The land has remained undeveloped since being zoned R-1 (14 years). The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned is likely because the previous owner of the property (Praise Assembly of God) planned to use the land for a future church facility. The church has since sold the land to the current owner. 6. GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE POSSIBLE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED: (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.) Rezoning of the property from R-1 "Single-family Residential" to R-3 "Multiple-family Residential" should not be expected to have a detrimental impact to the health, safety or welfare of the public. Uses permitted within the R-3 zoning district are generally compatible with neighboring uses when applicable zoning requirements are provided. Zoning requirements of the requested R-3 zoning district specifically require a landscape buffer and/or screening to help mitigate potential adverse impacts upon existing developed properties. Public infrastructure needed to serve the property is available nearby and can readily be extended to the property. No adverse impacts to community resources is anticipated. Multiple-family dwellings benefit the public by allowing varied housing options that may appeal to residents seeking affordable or accessible living arrangements. The R-3 zoning, if approved, would allow for a greater financial return for the property owner since R-3 allows a higher density of dwelling units per acre; however, the restrictions of the existing R-1 zoning do not remove all value from the land as the owner may still develop the property for single-family residences. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (Are water and sewer available for extension? How are roads impacted? Can other community facilities [for example, police, fire, parks, libraries, and schools] handle the increased development? Should be based on factual information referencing standards used to make the determination.) Municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure near the property are available to serve the site and are capable of supporting multiple-family uses. Extensions of main lines and service lines are anticipated and can be addressed as part of the platting process. Madison Ave. provides convenient access to the site and can support traffic generation expected from the proposed use. Madison Ave. is an arterial street intended to carry a high volume of 8  traffic. A project is currently underway to reconstruct Madison Ave. at this location. The project will add a new center/left turn lane that will facilitate access to the property. The proposed rezone is not anticipated to impact the planned improvements to Madison Ave. If the rezone is approved, development of the site for multiple-family use is not expected to result in additional public roadway improvements in the near future. Municipal services such as police and fire protection are already provided to serve the site and no additional burden is anticipated that cannot be accommodated with existing resources. Parks and the library may experience a slight increase in use as a result of new multiple-family zoning at the proposed location, but impacts are not expected to be significant. The condominium development that is currently proposed is not likely to attract young families with school-aged children; however, schools may experience a slight increase in enrollment. The R-3 zoning also allows apartments which could result in a greater impact on schools as apartments are generally more likely to attract families with children. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: (Neighborhood support or opposition is just one of the factors to be considered in a decision to approve or deny a zoning request. Other applicable factors should also be considered.) At the time of this writing, city staff has had communications with three individuals inquiring about the proposed rezoning. Questions and city staff's responses are as follows: One individual asked for an explanation of the differences between R-1 and R-3 zoning. Staff explained that R-1 is intended for single-family homes and R-3 may allow apartments, condominiums, townhomes and other multiple-family developments. Multiple individuals asked if the requested R-3 zoning allows apartments and other multiple-family housing types. One also asked if the rezoning is approved, does the developer have to construct the type of housing that is presented to the city and neighborhood at this time, or could the plans change? City staff responded by explaining that R-3 zoning allows many forms of multiple-family development. If the rezoning is approved, the developer, or a future developer, may proceed with construction of any multiple-family housing type that is permitted within the district. One individual asked questions about how traffic flow and stormwater drainage would be handled. Staff responded that these were matters which would be addressed at the time of platting, if the zone change is approved. The individual also expressed concerns about the size and appearance of the proposed development. Staff responded that the R-3 zoning has the same height restriction as the adjacent R-1 zoning. The appearance of buildings would be considered during site plan review if the proposed rezone is approved. It was asked if development plans are required and if those were available. Staff responded that detailed site or development plans are not 9  a requirement for the rezoning hearing. If the rezoning is approved, the Planning Commission will review detailed site plans at a later date. Individuals did not expressly support or oppose the proposed zoning amendment, but did note the above concerns and indicated they planned to attend the public hearing. Any additional communications received by city staff prior to the public hearing will be reported during the hearing. The Planning Commission will also need to consider any testimony presented during the public hearing for this zone change request. 9. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE CITY'S MASTER OR 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 Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that are intended to guide decisions regarding land use and development. Goals and policies pertaining to residential developments include: Provide new residential developments with livability and quality design. Encourage a balance of housing types intermixed throughout the community, and discourage the development of large "complexes" or segregated areas of a single-type housing product. Provide multi-family developments through site design and building design features that form a sense of "quality" and ensure compatibility with surrounding developments. Provide a balance of housing choices to meet the needs of residents of different economic levels and age groups. Integrate differing housing types together through appropriate architectural design, site layout, and landscape/buffering. The Future Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as "Moderate Density Residential," characterized as a mix of single-family detached dwellings and moderate density attached residential dwellings with a mix of housing types. The Comprehensive Plan also includes recommended design guidelines for multiple-family developments. Although detailed site plans are not required as part of the proposed zone change, if the requested rezone is approved, the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to consider the design guidelines at the time of site plan review. The applicant is encouraged to review Chapter 6.1 of the Comprehensive Plan when preparing materials for the required site plan review. 10. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL PLANNING STAFF: (Should be based on the preceding factors, adopted plans and policies, other technical reports [such as, Capital Improvement Plan, facility master plans, etc.] which speak to the topic and staff's best professional judgment.) City staff is supportive of the proposed zone change from R-1 "Single-family Residential" to R-3 "Multiple-family Residential" based upon the preceding factors, and in particular: Finding 1: The property is generally disconnected from surrounding developments with no connecting streets that would integrate the proposed uses into the existing neighborhood. The strong edge created 10  by existing rear yard fences and vegetation provides a good buffer and transition between single-family and multiple-family uses. Finding 4: R-1 and R-3 zoning districts have generally been found to be compatible neighbors due to similarities in building height and setbacks. R-3 zoning also includes minimum landscape buffer and screening requirements when adjacent to R-1 districts in order to provide adequate open space and visual appeal in the transition area between uses. Existing screening on the property already begins to meet this requirement. Finding 7: Existing public infrastructure has sufficient capacity to accommodate development of multiple-family uses at the proposed location. Madison Ave. adjacent to the site is an arterial street capable of handling traffic generated from the site. A street reconstruction project for Madison Ave. is already planned and will provide a center/left turn lane that will facilitate traffic movements to and from the site. Finding 9: The proposed zoning use is consistent with the land uses proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Multiple housing goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan can be achieved by allowing multiple-family residential at the proposed location. Additional policies and design guidelines recommended in the Comprehensive Plan can also be achieved during subsequent review processes for platting and site plan review. Recommend a Motion to: Approve the request to change the zoning district classification of the described property from R-1 "Single-family Residential" to R-3 "Multiple-family Residential" based on the findings of fact and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Commissioner Adams opened the public hearing and determined that a quorum was present. Cody Bird, City Planner announced that proper notice had been given in accordance with State law. Commissioner Adams asked commissioners to report any ex parte communications. There were no ex parte communications reported. Bird presented the staff report. Russ Ewy, Baughman Company, agent representing the applicant stated that he was in agreement with staff's comments and remarked that there was a need for a mix of housing types with higher density residential closer to public infrastructure and amenities such as High Park and Derby High School. He added that the development being considered is planned for an appropriate location. He welcomed questions and concerns from residents. 11 Adams asked Commissioners for any general questions. Commissioner Poteete asked what the timeline is for the Madison Ave. expansion project. Bird replied that the Madison Ave. project is not related to the proposed rezoning request being considered. The Madison Ave. project was planned before the zone change request was filed with the City. The project is currently being designed and the bidding process will likely begin soon. Construction is expected to begin this year, but we do not have specific dates determined for the project at this time. Adams proceeded with the public hearing and called the first speaker to the podium. Elvin Leedy, 706 N. Bel Arbor thanked the Planning Commission for allowing him to speak. Mr. Leedy asked if a fence will be constructed on the west side of the development and whether it would be concrete or a wood fence. He was concerned about deterioration over time. He also stated his concern about flooding in the area, citing a recent closing of Madison Ave. Mr. Leedy asked how the multi-family housing will impact High Park, the Derby High School and surrounding areas. He stated that he felt the public should have received more time to review the proposal. He asked the distance between the proposed housing units and the existing single-family houses adjacent to the development and asked which direction the units will face. Mr. Leedy questioned whether an HOA would exist for the multi-housing development. He referenced the recent multi-family development at Hamilton Estates and remarked that the roof was poorly constructed and hoped for better construction with the proposed development. Mr. Leedy stated his objection to the close proximity of units to the property line and referred to the appearance as similar to an industrial housing project. He felt that this type of development was for financial gain . Mr. Leedy asked for additional time to conclude his statements. Moved by Larry Gould, seconded by Dennis Poteete to approve the time extension. Vote: 8 - 0 Leedy asked if the pipeline easement would be relocated. In closing, he stated he would like to know the timeframe for construction of the project. Kim Johnson, 712 Bel Arbor stated that her property backs up to the proposed development and asked what will happen to the pipeline located between the properties. She asked if anything else could be developed other than the multi-family dwellings, such as apartments. She indicated that she had not received information about the type of development proposed and questioned what the price range will be and what the development will do to her home value. Mike Henesey, 616 Bel Rue St. stated he was also concerned about the pipeline and the plans for the pipeline easement. He expressed concern regarding the zone change and whether the R-3 zoning would allow future property owners to alter development plans differing from the applicant's proposed plans. Mr. Henesey remarked that the City and Planning Commission has done a great job planning city projects. He concurred with Mr. Leedy's concern regarding the fence between the two additions. Zach Dunn, 2413 E Timber Creek said he is located on the north side of the proposed 12 Zach Dunn, 2413 E Timber Creek said he is located on the north side of the proposed development. He indicated that he has seen the conceptual sketch and estimated that the distance between the proposed units and his property line to be 25 feet and that there appeared to be four quadplexes side by side within eye site of the 25 feet of separation. He noted that his property elevation appeared higher than the new development and was disconcerted about the number of units that would be in his view. Mr. Dunn asked what will be done to separate the development from existing properties and suggested moving the proposed pond to the north to provide that separation. He also proposed fencing or the use of berms to separate the properties. He stated he had the same concern as others regarding how the development would affect the value of their homes. James Sharp, 724 N Bel Arbor said he is located on the west side of the proposed development. He indicated that he served on the Goddard Planning Commission for 20 years. Mr. Sharp stated his concerns including density, traffic and drainage. He said he moved to Derby 12 years ago and enjoyed the proximity to the city while having an open area looking over High Park. He said he has seen the construction project to the north and that it is acceptable for the area. He stated that they are not opposed to the project but asked that all the concerns be addressed in regard to engineering and site coordination. Kelly Powers, 2401 E Timber Creek St. said they are located near the northwest corner of the proposed rezoning site. He stated that his biggest concern is the gas pipeline that runs through the easement in his yard. He said he has a thousand dollars tied up in an irrigation system there. He asked how the pipeline and drainage would be rerouted and the impact it would have on his property. Nancy Powers, 2401 E Timber Creek St. stated she had the same concerns as the other property owners and felt like they were in the dark. Other than a rendering provided to another neighbor, she said the applicant did not communicate with her and felt undermined by their plan. She voiced that she did not blame the Planning Commission, but that it was impacting her and said they would feel the same in her shoes. Mrs. Powers said the applicant met with the Home Owners Association, but she was not invited. She asked what would be so great about looking out past her deck to see rooftops. She asked what the applicant plans to do about the drainage. She asked if this was all for money and stated that they will make a lot of money. She said she looked at existing development within Hamilton Estates and did not like it. She said the housing is too close to the street, too close together and the construction does not look superior. She reemphasized that she felt the applicant had undermined them and has not communicated with them. She asked if they planned to remove all their trees and asked where their respect is for the land. She said Derby looks like it is getting greedy and the developer just wants to make their millions. She said this looks like it's already a done deal and the meeting is just a formality. Rich Trease, 9121 E 79th St. So. said he is not within the city limits but located south of the proposed rezone area. He said when he bought his home 20 years ago, the area was country-side and High Park and Bel Arbor were not there. He bought the land for the peace and quiet. He stated that the order of the public hearing should be reversed so the applicant could speak first and the public could have the chance to digest the 13 information better and then respond with questions. He said he was able to see the applicants concept renderings and indicated that his concerns and questions mirrored that of the other property owners. Russ Ewy, Baughman Company said that after years of developing property he has not seen anything to definitively state that developments have any detrimental impact on property owners in single-family residential areas. He said he has not worked for anyone in 27 years that hasn't tried to make money, adding that cities grow based on the real estate market. He said the developer of Bel Arbor developed it to make money. He said smaller communities that focused on growing single-family homes ran into property tax problems. He emphasized that cities should be cognizant of mixed land use within a city so there is a healthy mix of all the land uses. He said the market has seen a dramatic shift away from the typical market throughout the 1990's and 2000's and there has been a reduction in the desire to own single-family homes. The rental real estate markets, the condominium markets and the zero-maintenance homes have skyrocketed over the last several years and this is a trend we have been seeing. He felt this model will work successfully in Derby. Mr. Ewy addressed some of the site characteristic questions posed by the speakers. He said the pipeline easement exists on the applicant's property and dead ends at the northwest corner of the property. They have proposed extending it along the west property line and to the south property line where it will tie in and go southeast. There is not an additional easement required on Mr. & Mrs. Powers' property. The easement is also proposed to be utilized for a hike and bike trail developed by the applicant. On the east side of the hike and bike trail, berms and landscaped screening are proposed. The buildings are intended to be oriented east to west and property owners on the west side of the property will see the side of all the units. The north property line complies with the same standard zoning setbacks as the single-family homes to the north. Property owners would share a 25 foot rear yard setback. The developer plans to install a privacy fence for each unit and will offset it from the rear of the buildings to allow green space for the property owners to the north. Ewy addressed the questions regarding what would happen if the applicant sells the property. He said if the property sells in the future and the new owner desires a radical departure from the current plan, that would likely require another zone change request and review by the Planning Commission. He added that the next steps for this proposed project would require platting and site plan review where the Planning Commission will consider the development amenities such as lake location, street layout, the dwelling unit layout, drainage, pipeline dedications, screening and architecture plans. Ewy said there are review processes for each phase and the meeting tonight is to consider the appropriate type of land use. He said the staff report details that information to validate the zone change approval. Bird provided closing comments for the City. He reiterated that there are subsequent review processes in place to address many of the concerns raised by the neighbors. After the Planning Commission considers the zone change request, the City Council will make a determination on the zoning. He reiterated that the zoning process is to consider the use of the land and what uses are appropriate given the site and its surrounding characteristics. The details about landscaping, drainage and building heights will be discussed in future meetings. He suggested that the Planning Commission not dwell on those specific details from tonight's discussion, but to focus on the bigger picture of 14 whether the R-3 zoning is appropriate for this site. Bird noted, in response to residents' questions about whether the developer is tied to the specific plan prepared, that R-3 zoning allows a mix of multi-family uses, including, apartments, town homes, condominiums, single-family homes and two-family duplex homes. All these types of uses would be allowed if the R-3 zoning is approved. The developer is not bound to the plan concept as a result of the zone change. Commissioner Rhein asked the difference in density requirements between R-1 "Single-Family Residential" and R-3 "Multi-Family Residential" zoning. Bird answered that the R-1 density allows approximately 6.3 dwelling units per acre based on the minimum lot size requirements. The R-3 density allows up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. The number of dwelling units anticipated as part of the proposed project is well below the 14.5 dwelling units per acre. However; if the development plans were to change after a rezone to R-3 is approved, 14.5 would be the maximum number of dwelling units per acre allowed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Adams asked staff to present the Findings of Fact. Bird presented the Findings of Fact provided in the written staff report. 1. CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: The Commission agreed with the written findings of the staff report. 2. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTIES NEARBY: The Commission agreed with the written findings of the staff report. Commissioner Tillison asked if there was a reason why the land has not been used for R-1 zoning. Bird suggested that question would best be deferred to discussion of finding number five, which adresses the length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned. Tillison agreed. 3. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED: The Commission agreed with the written findings of the staff report. 4. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY: Commissioner Poteete asked if the applicant would be required to maintain the existing screening, Bird replied that the existing screening is on private property and is maintained by the adjacent property owners, not the developer. The developer will be responsible for maintaining anynew screening installed on the proposed site. 5. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED 15 Bird addressed this finding in response to Commissioner Tillison's earlier question regarding why the land was not being used for R-1 zoning. He said the property was rezoned to R-1 when it was annexed into the City in 2002. Prior to annexation, the property was owned by Praise Assembly of God church which anticipated using the site for a future church facility. The church later decided to offer the property for sale. The property was likely not developed because it was being held by an owner that ultimately changed its long-term plans. 6. GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE POSSIBLE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED. Tillison asked if the community would gain anything other than the variety of housing options and generational benefits that would improve general welfare. Bird responded that staff does not address financing such as tax and property values since it is a subjective measure. Staff looked at the benefit to the community and didn't see a significant gain, but also found no significant detriment to public health and safety. Staff weighs the benefit versus the detrimental impact. Staff found the net gain in this situation to be almost insignificant. He posed the question if the net gain of zero would be enough to outweigh the hardship to the applicant if the zoning change is denied. Commissioner Willis asked what the detriment would be to the developer if denied. Bird answered it would likely be financial impacts since the applicant purchased the land with the intent to develop it with certain plans in mind. Applicants typically have a pro forma they use to make a certain amount of money from their expected development. Willis said it was his understanding that when you run a business you take a risk anytime you put money on the table. He said he felt as though he was being compelled to approve the request based on a risk the applicant took. He added that it is not the Planning Commission's responsibility to secure financial risk. Bird stated that the Planning Commission should not feel compelled to approve the zone change request based on one finding of fact. The Planning Commission should consider each objective, weigh them and then determine overall whether the use of the land is appropriate. Commissioner Gould stated that in reviewing the Findings of Facts in the past, the Planning Commission has sometimes found items to be neutral. This finding may be one of those instances when the finding is neutral. Bird said staff make sure the minutes reflect all of the points that were considered. The Planning Commission does not have to weigh each finding equally. If there is any one overriding factor for an individual Commissioner, and that reason is their basis for approval or denial of the request, each Commissioner's vote acts independently and the collective vote determines the action of the Commission. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: The Commission agreed with the written findings of the staff report. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: 16 Commissioner Rhein stated that she did not hear any strong opposition or support for the request, but rather heard many questions and concerns. She indicated that those questions and concerns would be addressed during subsequent platting and site plan review processes. Willis said he noted that a common concern among the public was a lack of information. He said that perhaps the minimum legal notice requirement is not enough and that maybe a policy should be established where the developer should vigorously communicate with the surrounding residents that are going to be affected. Bird said staff could review policies for future consideration. Adams stated the R-3 zone change request is one step in the overall development process. He explained that the Planning Commission's determination tonight is to consider if it is applicable to rezone the property from R-1 to R-3. Once a determination is made, the Planning Commission will review the next step in the process including elevations, drainage, screening and other factors so that the change is not detrimental to adjacent property owners. Adams acknowledged and thanked those who spoke for sharing their concerns. He indicated that although the Commission was reviewing the use of the land at this meeting, there are subsequent processes that the Commission has in order to address the other concerns. Adams said the Commissioners are a part of the community and they are tasked with reviewing what is beneficial not just to individual neighborhoods, but to the city as a whole. He assured the public that the Planning Commission will address all the concerns presented at tonight's meeting. Bird added that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation regarding the legal use of the land, and that recommendation is forwarded to the City Council to make a final determination. There will be another opportunity to voice any concerns by attending the City Council meeting when the zone change request is considered. 9. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE ADOPTED OR RECOGNIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Commission agreed with the written findings of the staff report. 10. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF Bird stated that City staff recommended approval of the requested zone change from R-1 to R-3 based on the preceding factors covered in the staff report. Tillison said he was struggling to weigh the goals of the city versus residents' concerns. He acknowledged that there is a need for different types of housing and generational trends with different desires to rent versus own homes. He explained that he was trying to find the advantage for the City to zone this property R-3, but admitted he had not gotten there yet. Tillison indicated that he wished the R-1 zoning could have been successful, which is what attracted him to Derby. He stated that he had difficulty weighing the benefits to recommend approving R-3 zoning without knowing whether R-1 zoning could have been successful. The only advantage he had seen is that multi-family dwellings are a trend, but was concerned if the city really wants to see more R-3 zoning right now. He added that the detriment to the property owner was not a significant factor in his consideration. Commissioner Baer stated that there are a lot of valid concerns that were raised during the hearing. He would have the same concerns as a home owner. He said a majority of 17  the concerns were related to how the site develops and indicated that those items would be addressed during other processes. He said that based on the past development patterns surrounding the site which separated the property from adjacent R-1 developments, and based on the city's goals, he felt the rezone was the appropriate action. Moved by Pat Baer, seconded by Larry Gould to approve the request to change the zoning district classification of the described property from R-1 "Single-family Residential" to R-3 "Multiple-family Residential" based on the findings of fact and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Vote: 5 - 3 NAY: Edward Sheldon Mark Tillison Van Willis Other: Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) Gary Renberger (ABSENT) 5. B. Preliminary Plat of Northbrook Addition General Location: Southwest corner of 55th Street South and Woodlawn Blvd. Applicant/Agent: Applicant: Stone Creek Land, LLC - Paul Kelsey Agent: Baughman Company, P.A. Reason for Request: Allow development of a new single-family residential subdivision Background Information: The applicant has requested platting of 70 acres of land located at the southeast corner of 55th Street South and Woodlawn Blvd. The platting request is to create residential lots for development of single-family homes. Platting of property is required whenever land is proposed to be divided or further divided into more than two lots. There are no previously recorded plats for any portion of the property. The land is currently within unincorporated Sedgwick County. A request for consent annexation was submitted and is being processed concurrently with the 18  proposed plat. The land is within the City’s long-term growth area as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If annexed, the land will automatically be zoned R-1 "Single-family Residential." The applicant is proposing single-family homes which is consistent with the anticipated zoning. R-1 zoning at this location is consistent with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing developed subdivisions adjacent to the south and east are single-family homes, and are not expected to be detrimentally affected by the proposed new subdivision. Staff Comments: 1. Plat Name: The title on the proposed plat is "Northbrook Addition." The name does not duplicate the names of any existing plats in Derby. 2. Legal Description: The legal description of the property is provided on the face of the plat as required. 3. Lots: All lots within the proposed development are of sufficient size to meet the minimum lot size requirements of the R-1 "Single-family Residential" zoning district (8,400 sq. ft.) and exceed the minimum lot width and depth requirements (70 ft. width, 100 ft. depth). 4. Blocks: Five blocks are proposed and are appropriately labeled as Blocks “A" through “E.” Lots within each block are numbered consecutively as required. An additional block letter “F” will be needed and lots renumbered accordingly to accommodate a street connection to 58th St., discussed in number 5 below. 5. Streets: The site is located adjacent to Woodlawn Blvd. and 55 th Street South. Both streets are paved county arterial streets with open ditches. Right-of-way widths along the arterial streets are sufficient to meet the subdivision regulations. The regulations normally require additional right-of-way to provide a taper out to150 ft. (75 ft. dedication from each adjoining property) to accommodate turn lanes at intersections of arterial streets. Existing Woodlawn Blvd. right-of-way is slightly less than is normally required (69.72 ft. instead of 75 ft.); however, since Woodlawn Blvd. is offset to the west north of 55th St. there is no practical need for the additional right-of-way on the east. All proposed interior streets meet the minimum right-of-way width requirements, including turnaround radii for cul-de-sacs. A connection to the existing 58th Street South platted in Firefly Estates Addition is required. The applicant shall reconfigure lots along the east property line to meet the requirement for connecting to existing street right-of-way. Numbered streets shown on the preliminary plat shall be updated to use street names rather than the County numbering system. Street names of “Rough Creek” and “Fairway Ln.” are proposed for the north/south streets. Although these streets are closely in line with existing streets of the same name further south, the arrangement of the existing streets 19  make it unlikely that they will connect in the future. Staff recommends that new street names are used. 6. Access: All proposed lots have adequate access to public streets. Lots 1-11, Block B and Lots 40-43, Block C back up to Woodlawn Blvd. No individual lot access should be permitted onto the arterial street. Access control should be platted, or alternatively, a reserve can be provided along the west side of these lots to achieve the same. The reserve can also accommodate required screening along arterial streets (see #8 below). 7. Building Setbacks: A front yard building setback is identified on all lots within the development. Front yard setbacks are shown to be 25 ft. along all public streets, as required. Corner lots are permitted to have one side reduced to 15 ft. Proposed setbacks on corner lots generally apply the 15 ft. reduced yard on one side as allowed. Lot 8, Block D and Lot 29, Block E are corner lots where the street curves instead of being a 90 degree corner. On these lots, there is a possibility of a house being oriented to either side, or at some angle across the lot. Staff recommends that the 25 ft. setback apply across the entire lot frontage. 8. Easements: New easements are proposed to accommodate drainage and extension of utilities. Except as noted below, the easements meet the location and width requirements of the subdivision regulations. The subdivision regulations require a 6 ft. screening wall or fence and landscaping where residential lots are adjacent to arterial streets. Proposed lots abut Woodlawn Blvd. and therefore screening and landscaping is required in accordance with Section 700.L. A minimum 5 ft. wide wall easement is required along the west side of the lots abutting Woodlawn Blvd. unless a reserve strip to accommodate such screening and landscaping is provided. The easement along the west property line is proposed to contain sanitary sewer and utilities. The concept utility plan provided proposes a 12-inch waterline along the west side of Woodlawn Blvd.; however, the City is in the process of designing a waterline extension that is proposed along the east side of Woodlawn Blvd. The easement should be increased to 30 ft. to accommodate the 10 ft. separation requirement between sanitary sewer and waterline. The label for the 30 ft. easement along the east line of the property should include drainage. At the time of this writing, the City has not received responses from any utilities or agencies that were notified of the proposed plat. Additional easement requests from utilities may need to be considered during the final plat process. 9. Reserves: The plat proposes Reserves "A" through "N," inclusive. Intended reserve uses are identified on the preliminary plat. Reserves "L," "M" and "N" as identified on the plat are primarily reserved for drainage purposes which include detention ponds. Reserves "I" and "J" adjacent to the east line of the plat are intended to facilitate conveyance of off-site stormwater and direct it to the detention ponds. Reserves “I” and “J” do not align with the drainage easements platted in 20  Firefly Estates Addition, and existing drainage swales do not appear to align with the proposed reserves. The applicant shall check the location of the reserves to ensure the reserves are adequate to accommodate drainage needs. Smaller Reserves "A" through "H" are intended primarily for entry monuments and landscaping at entrances to the subdivision. Location and placement of these reserves is generally acceptable. A label for Reserve "J" appears twice on the plat. It is believed that the Reserve "J" label adjacent to Reserve "L" is actually a part of Reserve "L." Reserves “E” and “F” do not appear to have dimensions identifying width. The west line of Reserve “M” would also benefit from a dimension label. 10. Drainage: A concept drainage plan was submitted with the preliminary plat. The northwest corner of the property is within the flood plain (Zone AE). This area is proposed to be dedicated as Reserve “L” for drainage purposes, and is proposed to include a detention pond. The property also receives off-site drainage from Firefly Estates Addition to the east. Off-site drainage is proposed to be conveyed through reserves and detained in ponds on the property. Discharge from the ponds is proposed to be released to the west and south to existing culverts under Woodlawn Blvd. Proposed on-site detention will reduce post-development drainage discharge below the rate that is currently discharged from the site. Lots 1-6, Block B are partially located within the flood plain. The applicant shall be prepared to discuss potential impacts to these lots. Minimum building pad elevations shall be provided on the final plat. The City approves the proposed concept drainage plan. A final drainage plan and calculations shall be submitted with the final plat for review and approval by the City. 11. Public Improvements: Streets: Improvements to Woodlawn Blvd. and 55th Street South are not anticipated to be necessary in the immediate future. The applicant shall provide petitions for turn lanes on Woodlawn Blvd. and 55th Street South to serve the development, in the event future traffic patterns result in the need. Interior public streets will be constructed in phases as lots are developed. Sanitary Sewers: A concept utility plan was provided to illustrate how services will be extended to the development. Sanitary sewer line locations, sizes and slopes proposed on the concept utility plan appear to be acceptable. The northern extension serving Lots 1-4, Block A is shown as an 8-inch line. This line should be constructed as a 10-inch line to provide flexibility if a future extension is necessary. A capacity analysis of the City's sewer interceptors is currently being conducted to determine the capability of the interceptors to accommodate future growth. The study will determine the ability of the City's Mid-town Interceptor to handle the flow generated from the proposed development, or if the City will need to construct additional improvements to accommodate future flows. Water & Fire Protection: 21  The concept utility plan shows that water service is proposed to be provided by the City. The property is within the water service area of Rural Water District #3 (RWD3). It is the city's understanding that RWD3 desires to provide water service to this development. The applicant shall work with RWD3 and the City to ensure adequate water service will be provided. The utility concept plan will need to be updated accordingly. Derby Fire Department reviewed the proposed plat and provided a letter detailing the specific requirements that must be met for fire protection, water pressure, fire hydrant and valve spacing. The Fire Department will review the final waterline plans. 12. Guarantee for Installation of Public Improvements: Public improvements are required to be guaranteed by the developer. The applicant shall prepare draft petitions for required public improvements and submit them for review with the final plat. 13. Plat Binder: Submission of a plat binder identifying all property interests and encumbrances is required. The applicant shall submit the required plat binder along with the final plat. 14. Developer's Agreement: A draft developer's agreement was submitted with the preliminary plat. Staff is reviewing the draft agreement and will provide comments to the applicant. A final signed copy will be needed prior to City Council's consideration of the final plat. 15. Miscellaneous: A plan providing drawings and details of proposed screening and landscaping along Woodlawn Blvd. shall be submitted for review along with the final plat. Recommend a Motion to: Approve the preliminary plat of Northbrook Addition subject to staff comments and authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final plat. Cody Bird, City Planner presented the staff report. Russ Ewy, Baughman Company stated he was in agreement with the staff report with the exception of connecting 58th Street to the Firefly Estates Addition. He asked the Planning Commission to entertain the idea of eliminating the condition based on the fact that 58th Street has not been improved for approximately 1/8 of a mile in the Firefly Estates Addition. Unless the City of Derby were to improve that street, creating a benefit district would be borne by only two lot owners. He stated that the applicant did not have objections to making street connections, but said it could be either be used for one additional lot, or it could be used for street right-of-way. He asked the Commission to consider waiving the required connection. Bird commented that the City's subdivision regulations require street right-of-way connections to be made. If the Planning Commission entertained the option it would be a significant departure from the normal requirements. Although there was not an existing street constructed at this location, that does not mean that the right-of-way will not be needed at some point in the future. Generally we like to see the right-of-way be 22 connected so we have when it becomes needed. Commissioner Adams asked if the right-of-way would be retained for future development. Bird answered correct. He said long term, Firefly Estates may be considered for inclusion into the City of Derby. Providing the street connectivity would impact the ability to maintain those streets. The connectively would also provide the opportunity to loop a waterline through to Firefly estates. Adams asked if Firefly Estates is currently outside the city limits. Bird answered yes. Commissioner Rhein asked why the drainage easement on Firefly's north end, across from Reserve I was not lined up. Ewy answered the drainage flows from the northeast to the southwest. Base on the land's topography, it is intended to be lined up that way. Rhein asked for clarification regarding the space between Firefly estates and the proposed property. Bird said staff consulted with Phil Meyer, Baughman Company and Mr. Meyer said there were discrepancies when Firefly Estates was platted and there were some questions as to who the strip of land belonged to. Ewy said sometimes they encounter these discrepancies and it becomes too much from a title and surveyor standpoint. When presented with a gap, we look at whether the title company will permit us to go east enough to join up with Firefly Estates. If the title company is unsure, these types of gaps may have to be adjudicated by a judge. Bird asked for Mr. Ewy to explain if the plat that is being presented tonight is the land owned by the developer, and thereby ownership of the gap will be determined in the future. Ewy answered correct. He said they would not want to replat the entire subdivision in the future just to include that strip. He hopes the question about this gap will be rectified before the plat is recorded. The surveyor cannot legally show a different boundary than we can establish. Rhein asked how property owners will be billed for sanitary sewer if they are not getting water from the City of Derby. Bird said he was not able to answer that question tonight, but would take a look into it. He added that there are still some aspects regarding utilities and service that staff will need to coordinate. He added that the billing is not directly related to the plat. Commissioner Gould said the city usually bills the landowner directly if they are not connected to city water. Rhein said the sanitary sewer line on the south end of the property appears to be located in the Stone Creek Addition and asked if access to the line would cross the property line. Bird referred pointed out that there is a utility easement proposed to extend sanitary sewer north from an existing manhole and along the front of Lots 38 to 33. That easement is intended to allow a sanitary sewer extension without disrupting the neighbors' yards. Commissioner Poteete asked about the location of culverts along Woodlawn Blvd. and stated a concern regarding drainage in the area. Bird said that existing culvert locations are identified on the preliminary plat. He added that the concept drainage plan provided by the developer proposes ponds to detain more water than what is currently leaving the site. It is anticipated that site drainage will be improved as a result of the proposed development. Staff has reviewed the drainage plan 23  and will have more details when we receive the final plat. Moved by Edward Sheldon, seconded by Van Willis to approve the preliminary plat of Northbrook Addition subject to staff comments and authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final plat. Vote: 8 - 0 Other: Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) Gary Renberger (ABSENT) 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Adams announced the next Planning Commission meeting will be July 7, 2016. Bird announced that staff is expecting the final plat for the Bulldog Addition, the preliminary plat was previously presented as the Madison & Woodlawn Addition. He said we also will have a public hearing for a Special Use request for a fire station. Bird advised that a training opportunity was being offered by Wichita State's Hugo Wall School of Public Affairs on June 30th. A Hutchinson, Kansas planner was the presenting speaker. This is intended to be a resource for elected and appointed city officials to get the insight into interaction between planners, consultants and elected officials. Bird noted that Commissioners Tillison and Poteete plan to attend and that there was one open spot available. Commissioner Sheldon said he would attend. 7. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Dennis Poteete, seconded by Jessica Rhein to adjourn the meeting at 8:53p.m. Vote: 8 - 0 Other: Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) Gary Renberger (ABSENT) _____________________________ _____________________________ Marcia Hartman Mitchell J. Adams Recording Secretary Chairperson 24 Planning Commission Meeting 5.A. Meeting Date: 07/07/2016 Submitted By: Cody Bird, City Planner Agenda Category: New Business Subject: Special Use Request for Fire Station General Location: Southwest corner of Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. Applicant/Agent: Applicant: USD 260 Contract Purchaser: City of Derby Reason for Request: Public buildings (proposed fire station) in the R-1 "Single Family Residential District" require a special use permit Background Information: The City is considering the property at the southwest corner of Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. for construction of a new fire station. The property is currently owned by Derby Public Schools. The school district has recently demolished the former 6th Grade Center at this location, and is in the process of replatting the property to facilitate donation of land to the Derby Historical Society and for future use. A preliminary plat of the property was approved by the Planning Commission at its May 5, 2016 meeting. The final plat of the property is being considered concurrently with this request. The proposed location of the future fire station is a 2.3 acre tract identified as Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Bulldog Addition. A complete legal description is available at City Hall. The property is zoned R-1 "Single-family Residential District," in which public buildings require special use approval. Special use requests require a public hearing: Notice of the public hearing was published in the Derby Informer on June 15, 2016. Notices were mailed to neighboring property owners as prescribed by state law. A sign advertising the public hearing was placed on the property 7 days in advance of the public hearing. 25  The official ownership list for the notification area is on file at City Hall. At the time of this writing, City staff has received no public comments concerning this request. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will need to adopt findings of fact which will constitute the basis of the Commission's recommendation. The Commission may also recommend requirements for any special conditions necessary to meet the intent of the zoning regulations or to address site specific characteristics. Staff Comments: Special use requests are considered in the same manner as a zone change request. Subsection 1100.C of the zoning regulations provides guidelines for matters which may be considered when approving or disapproving a special use request. The Planning Commission may find that not all factors will be relevant to this special use request. Matters that are determined by the Planning Commission to be important will be the basis for the Planning Commission's recommendation. In order to properly make a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make specific and substantiated findings supporting its recommendation. FINDINGS OF FACT The following are the factors the Planning Commission must consider when reviewing a special use request, a brief explanation of each factor, and staff's opinion of findings for each factor: 1. CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: (Factual description of the application area and surrounding property as to general nature, condition, age of structures, etc.) The subject property is a 2.3 acre tract located at the southwest corner of Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. Both roadways adjoining the property are arterial streets. The proposed site and surrounding properties to the south, east and west have long been owned and operated by USD 260 Derby Public Schools. The school district's uses in the surrounding neighborhood have established the corner as a prominent public/semi-public space. The site where the special use is proposed was formerly the location of the Derby 6th Grade Center, which has since been demolished. The property and surrounding school properties are generally well maintained. Residential properties to the north are developed as urban city lots, approximately 1/4 to 1/3 acre in size. Most residential properties to the north were constructed in the early 1950's or mid-1960's. Properties are generally well maintained. 2. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTIES NEARBY: (Factual description of 26  surrounding property as to existing zoning and land uses.) Existing zoning and land uses adjacent to the proposed rezoning area are as follows: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses Direction Zoning Land Use North R-1 "Single-family - Single-family homes Residential" - Duplex homes R-2 "Two-family Residential" East R-1 "Single-family - Public school (Derby Middle Residential" School) South R-1 "Single-family - Public school facilities (operations) Residential" West R-1 "Single-family - Public school land (football field) Residential" 3. 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 there uses suitable given surrounding zoning and site criteria? Are the current allowed uses the only ones that might be appropriate for this property?) The property is presently zoned R-1 "Single-family Residential" which is the city's most restrictive zoning district and is intended for single-family homes and accessory uses. Public and private schools and related facilities are also permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district. Nearly all surrounding properties are also zoned R-1 "Single-family Residential" and are occupied primarily by public school uses. R-1 and R-2 "Two-family Residential" uses north of Madison Ave. are occupied by single-family homes and two duplex homes. The existing R-1 zoning permits public buildings if approved as a special use. Special uses, if approved, must also conform to all applicable zoning regulations of other permitted uses within the district. Surrounding zoning and land uses are generally compatible with the special use proposed. 4. 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 [for example, allowed uses, minimum lot size, height, setbacks, traffic generation, landscaping and screening, use limitations, etc.]) A special use does not remove the restrictions of the underlying zoning district. A special use allows an additional use at a specific location. If an approved special use ceases or a change in use is desired, the new use of the 27  property must comply with the established zoning district, or a new special use request must be considered. When considering a special use request, the Planning Commission may recommend special conditions of approval in order to achieve the intent of the zoning regulations or to address site specific factors. The proposed special use for the property is a fire station. Public buildings are identified as permissible special uses within the R-1 zoning district. The R-1 zoning district regulates minimum lot size, maximum building heights, minimum yard requirements and provision of landscaping/screening. Any approved special use on the property must comply with the bulk regulations of the R-1 zoning district. Bulk regulation requirements and landscaping/screening are typically considered by the Planning Commission at the time of site plan review unless a specific requirement is made as a condition of approval for a special use permit. The property is located with good access to Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. Traffic generated as a result of the proposed special use should not have a significant impact on adjoining properties. Due to approximately half of all school traffic (parents dropping off, busses and staff) being diverted to Derby North Middle School in the past year, traffic volume in this vicinity has been markedly reduced. Firefighters responding to a call also will have the ability to override the traffic signals to facilitate their response to an emergency. 5. LENGTH OF TIME THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED: (Factual information, but its importance may be somewhat subjective. A property may be vacant because the current zoning is unsuitable, but there may be other reasons not related to zoning. Some examples might be a glut of available property of the same zoning district, financing problems, land speculation, fragmented ownership, lack of available public services or other development problems.) The property is presently zoned R-1 "Single-family Residential District." The property has only recently become vacant as the Derby 6th Grade Center which formerly occupied the site has been demolished within the last year. Demolition of the 6th Grade Center and subsequent vacancy of the land is not a result of the existing R-1 zoning since public schools and related facilities are permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district. The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned may not be a substantive factor in consideration of the proposed special use request. 6. GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE POSSIBLE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED: (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.) 28  The proposed special use to allow a fire station is not expected to have any detrimental impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the public. The community-at-large will benefit from reduced response times. The proposed location is within a developed portion of the city, and is closer to the majority of fire and medical response calls. The location at the intersection of Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. allows convenient access to primary response routes. Fewer roadway obstructions are anticipated at the proposed location than at Fire Station 81 which currently experiences intermittent egress blockages resulting from the traffic impacts of the adjacent railroad. The applicant is not likely to be significantly impacted if the special use is not approved because the existing R-1 zoning of the site would still allow public school uses. The contract purchaser (City) will be detrimentally impacted and need to find a new location for Fire Station 81. Vacant land suitable for a fire station location within the city are difficult to obtain, and it is unknown where or when another suitable site will become available. 7. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (Are water and sewer available for extension? How are roads impacted? Can other community facilities [for example, police, fire, parks, libraries, and schools] handle the increased development? Should be based on factual information referencing standards used to make the determination.) Municipal water and sanitary sewer infrastructure near the property are available to serve the site and are capable of supporting the proposed special use. Extension of public sanitary sewer is anticipated and can be addressed as part of the platting process. The property has convenient access to both Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. Both streets can support the traffic generation expected from the proposed special use. The proposed fire station will have no impact on police services, city parks, libraries or the public school system. The fire department would be positively impacted as the new fire station would better facilitate current and future operations. 8. OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS: (Neighborhood support or opposition is just one of the factors to be considered in a decision to approve or deny a zoning request. Other applicable factors should also be considered.) At the time of this writing, city staff has received no written correspondence concerning the proposed special use request. Any communications received by city staff prior to the public hearing will be reported during the hearing. The Planning Commission will also need to consider any testimony presented during the public hearing. 9. CONFORMANCE OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE CITY'S MASTER OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: (Does the request agree with the 29  adopted plan recommendations? If not, is the plan out-of-date or are there mitigating circumstances which speak to the nonconformity?) The Comprehensive Plan contains a goal to "ensure all areas of the community and new growth areas are adequately served by community facilities." The Comprehensive Plan identifies a need for additional fire stations to serve the growth areas of the city; however, it also recommends discontinuing the use of Fire Station 81 if a suitable site can be obtained in a location that would maintain or improve response times in the southern portion of the city. In 2015, the West End Development Plan was adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The West End Development Plan also recommends relocation of Fire Station 81. The driveway exiting Fire Station 81 becomes blocked when vehicular traffic is stopped by passing trains. Traffic blockages at this location impact the ability to exit the station. Occasionally, southbound traffic on K-15 highway also backs up. Station 81 was originally constructed as a volunteer fire station to serve a then smaller community. The facility is now used for full-time fire staff, and the building's age and size are no longer sufficient to meet the fire service needs of the community. The Future Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as "Public/Semi-Public" which is intended to include uses such as schools, post offices, hospitals, fire stations, libraries, cemeteries and other governmental and religious institutions. The property has historically been used for public school uses, and the proposed fire station remains consistent with the identified land use. 10. RECOMMENDATION OF PROFESSIONAL PLANNING STAFF: (Should be based on the preceding factors, adopted plans and policies, other technical reports [such as, Capital Improvement Plan, facility master plans, etc.] which speak to the topic and staff's best professional judgment.) City staff recommends approval of the proposed special use for a fire station based upon the preceding factors. Recommend a Motion to: Approve a special use permit for a fire station on property to be platted as Lot 1, Block A, Bulldog Addition based on the findings of fact and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Attachments Location Map 30  Location Map Proposed Special Use Fire Station Madison Avenue Central Park Special Use Bulldog Fire Derby Field Station Middle School USD 260 Derby Central Historical Kitchen Museum 31 Planning Commission Meeting 5.B. Meeting Date: 07/07/2016 Submitted By: Cody Bird, City Planner Agenda Category: New Business Subject: Final Plat of Bulldog Addition (preliminary plat reviewed as Madison & Woodlawn Addition) General Location: Southwest corner of Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. Applicant/Agent: Applicant: Board of Education USD No. 260 Agent: Young & Associates, P.A. Reason for Request: Reconfigure platted lots to facilitate land donation and future use Background Information: The applicant has requested to replat 8.8 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Madison Ave. and Woodlawn Blvd. The platting request is to facilitate donation of a portion of the property to the Derby Historical Society as well as for future use. The plat is a replat of part of Gerteis Second Addition to El Paso (now Derby). A preliminary plat of the property (reviewed as "Madison & Woodlawn Addition") was considered by the Planning Commission on May 5, 2016. As was discussed during preliminary plat review, a recorded lot split creating the Derby Historical Museum property and a variance to reduce the building setback for the museum will become null and void as a result of replatting the property. The Commission voted to approve the preliminary plat subject to meeting comments and the written staff report. The applicant has addressed the Commission's comments and submitted the final plat for consideration. Staff Comments: 1. Plat Name: "Bulldog Addition" is acceptable and does not duplicate the name of any existing plat (The preliminary plat was presented as "Madison & Woodlawn Addition" and has since been changed to address Commission requirements). 2. Legal Description: The legal description is provided on the final plat and is 32  referenced to section corners. 3. Lots: Three lots are proposed, and all lots exceed the minimum lot size and width requirements for non-residential uses permitted within the R-1 district. 4. Blocks: One block is proposed and is appropriately labeled. 5. Streets: The area proposed to be platted is adjacent to Woodlawn Blvd., Madison Ave. and Market St. The proposed replat will dedicate additional street right-of-way to meet current subdivision regulation requirements, except along Woodlawn Blvd. Additional right-of-way dedication on Woodlawn Blvd. is reduced to 50 ft. because it is unlikely the right-of-way will be necessary in the future and the typical 60 ft. right-of-way dedication would result in existing buildings being located within the right-of-way. The normal requirement for increased right-of-way width for turn lanes at arterial street intersections was waived during preliminary plat review. The final plat depicts the Woodlawn Blvd. right-of-way as recommended. 6. Access: Points of access and access controls are consistent with those approved for the preliminary plat. Subsequent to the preliminary plat being approved, further discussions with Derby Fire Department staff identified the need for an additional driveway onto Woodlawn to serve Lot 1. The City recommends allowing one opening for emergency vehicles only within the first 250 ft. of complete access control onto Woodlawn Blvd. The access control label should read as "250.00' Complete Access Control Except for One Emergency Access Opening." The location and configuration of the "Emergency Access Opening" shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer during site plan review when Lot 1 is developed. During preliminary plat review, the applicant was asked to consider if a joint access easement is needed where the USD 260 Central Kitchen facility shares a driveway with the Derby Historical Museum. The applicant has proposed a cross lot access agreement which will accomplish the same purpose. Notes on the plat indicate that access easements will be recorded by separate instrument. City staff will coordinate with the applicant to ensure appropriate documents are recorded. 7. Building Setbacks: An appropriate 25 ft. building setback is provided along all public streets. Existing buildings located within the proposed building setback will be classified as legal non-conforming structures, and the buildings will be allowed to remain, unless the buildings are removed or substantially modified in the future. New buildings and additions to existing buildings will be required to comply with the platted building setbacks. 8. Easements: Existing easements and rights-of-way will be vacated by virtue of replatting the property, and will be rededicated as shown upon approval and recording of the final plat. A 10 ft. utility easement is provided along the west line of Lot 1 as requested by Westar Energy at the time of preliminary plat review. 33  9. Drainage: Drainage from the site is proposed to continue to surface flow primarily east to Woodlawn Blvd. and west to Westview Dr. as well as a small portion of Lot 3 flowing to Market St. Existing runoff is at or above what is expected for the property after all lots are redeveloped. The City approves the drainage plan. 10. Public Improvements: Streets: No new public street improvements are necessary as a result of the proposed replat. Sanitary Sewers: A new 8-inch public sanitary sewer line is proposed in order to extend service north to Lot 1. The existing system has capacity to accommodate the flows expected from development of Lot 1. Demolition of the 6th Grade Center will reduce the overall flows expected from the property. Water & Fire Protection: Adequate water pressure and flow to serve the development is available via a 6-inch water line located along Woodlawn Blvd. No public improvements are anticipated to be necessary as a result of the replat. Derby Fire Department reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed plat, subject to the request noted in #6 for an additional emergency access opening onto Woodlawn Blvd. 11. Guarantee for Installation of Public Improvements: Public improvements are required to be guaranteed by the developer. A draft petition for a public sanitary sewer improvement to extend service to Lot 1 was submitted and is being reviewed by staff. A final executed copy will be needed prior to City Council's consideration of the final plat. 12. Plat Binder: A plat binder was submitted and all property interests and encumbrances appear to be identified on the the final plat. 13. Developer's Agreement: A draft developer's agreement was submitted and is being reviewed by staff. A final executed copy will be needed prior to City Council's consideration of the final plat. 14. Miscellaneous: Staff has advised the applicant of a short list of text corrections regarding signature lines and certificates on the plat. Staff will review the final plat to ensure all appropriate corrections have been made. Recommend a Motion to: Approve the final plat of Bulldog Addition subject to staff comments and authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final plat. Attachments Location Map Final Plat 34  Location Map Proposed Bulldog Addition Madison Avenue Central Park Bulldog Derby Field Proposed Middle School Replat Area USD 260 Derby Central Historical Kitchen Museum 35 36