Planning Commission

AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting 6:30 PM - Thursday, March 7, 2024 Council Room Page 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3.1. Adoption of Minutes 3-5 Recommended Motion: Approve the regular meeting minutes of February 15, 2024, as presented. February 15, 2024 Meeting Minutes 4. PUBLIC FORUM 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1. Site Plan Review: Pandora Pavilion 7 - 30 Recommended Motion: Approve the site plans for Lot 2, Block A, Hendricks Addition, subject to staff comments, Planning Commission discussion, and the approval of an Administrative Adjustment to reduce required parking. Agenda Item Report - AIR-24-013 - Pdf 5.2. Revised Master Sign Plan: Panther Business Center 31 - 36 Recommended Motion: Approve the revised Master Sign Plan for Hendricks Addition. Agenda Item Report - AIR-24-017 - Pdf 5.3. Zoning and Subdivision Regulation Amendments 37 - 44 Recommended Motion: Provide feedback on the recommended amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations to the steering committee, set a public hearing for April 4, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. for formal consideration of the recommended amendments, and direct the secretary to publish the attached notice of public hearing in the official city newspaper at least 20 days prior to the hearing. Agenda Item Report - AIR-24-053 - Pdf 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 44 Page 2 of 44  February 15, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting 6:30 PM - Thursday, February 15, 2024 Council Room The Planning Commission of the City of Derby was called to order on Thursday, February 15, 2024, at 6:30 PM, in the Council Room, with the following members present: PRESENT: Jessica Rhein Mitch Adams Gary Renberger Chris Voth Dana Quigley Weston Heflin Bruce Heseltine ABSENT: Dale Wells Jamie Werbin Michael Emond 1 CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2 ROLL CALL 3 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3.1 Adoption of Minutes Gary Renberger moved, seconded by Dana Quigley, to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 4, 2024, as presented. RESULT: Carried MOVER: Gary Renberger SECONDER: Dana Quigley AYES: Mitch Adams, Gary Renberger, Chris Voth, Dana Quigley, Weston Heflin, and Bruce Heseltine ABSTAINED: Jessica Rhein ABSENT: Dale Wells, Jamie Werbin, and Michael Emond 4 PUBLIC FORUM 5 NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Workshop Session BACKGROUND: Article III, Section 5 of the Planning Commission By-Laws authorizes the Page 1 of 3 Page 3 of 44  February 15, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission to meet at a regular or special meeting in a workshop session for a general discussion on one or more topics or for a training session. The Kansas Open Meetings Act applies and no binding action may be taken. Regular minutes are not required but a record of attendance and a brief summary of the subjects discussed will be made. Earlier this year, the City Manager arranged for a training session for new City Council members regarding planning and zoning. The training was well received, and the Chair of the Planning Commission requested that the training be provided to the Planning Commission in a workshop session. The attached presentation contains the training material, which will be presented and discussed at the workshop session. RECOMMENDED MOTION Conduct the workshop. No binding action may be taken. Scott Knebel, City Planner, gave a presentation over the role of the Planning Commission and the different case types the Commission reviews. Commissioner Adams asked how long Knebel has been a planner. Knebel answered he has been a planner for 29 years. Adams stated that the Planning staff provides a wealth of education, insight, and experience that are incorporated into staff reports and documents. While the Commission does not have to agree with staff's recommendation, the Commission should take heed of staff's recommendations based on staff's experience. What staff provides to the Commission should be important to the Commission. Knebel stated that while staff does have the experience, staff does this work full-time. The Commission is composed of volunteers who make decisions. Staff reports often take many hours to draft. Adams appreciates staff's expertise and the time and effort spent on the reports. When making a decision, the Commission should respect staff's expertise and recommendations. Adams asked if a modification or expansion of a nonconforming structure is permitted by the regulations. Knebel answered that modifications/additions to a nonconforming structure are not permitted if they increase the degree of nonconformity. A structure can only be modified if it brings it closer to conformity. You cannot increase the degree of nonconformity. Commissioner Renberger asked if a building exceeds the maximum permitted building height, such as the proposed rock climbing facility, does that require an Exception or Variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Knebel answered that would require an Exception from the BZA. Prior to the creation of Exceptions, it would of required a Variance. Adams asked if the rock climbing facility project has been canceled. Knebel answered that the facility will not be constructed on the originally planned site but is still proposed within the STAR Bond district. Adams asked staff to provide a summary of the zoning districts, as a reference tool. Staff indicated they would create a summary and provide to the Commission. Page 2 of 3 Page 4 of 44  February 15, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Adams asked for announcements from the Commission. NOne were provided. Adams announced that the next meeting is March 7 and asked if any agenda items had bee submitted. Scott Knebel, City Planner, answered there are three agenda items on the March 7 agenda: review of the proposed Zoning and Subdivision amendments where the Commission will also set the public hearing, a site plan review, and a master sign plan review. Adams asked how the Zoning and Subdivision committee meetings are proceeding. Knebel answered that the meetings are going well and very productive. Adams asked if any Commissioners anticipated being absent from the March 7 meeting. No Commissioners indicated they would be absent. 7 ADJOURNMENT Gary Renberger moved, seconded by Chris Voth, to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. RESULT: Carried MOVER: Gary Renberger SECONDER: Chris Voth AYES: Jessica Rhein, Mitch Adams, Gary Renberger, Chris Voth, Dana Quigley, Weston Heflin, and Bruce Heseltine ABSENT: Dale Wells, Jamie Werbin, and Michael Emond Everett Haynes, Recording Secretary Mitch Adams, Chair Page 3 of 3 Page 5 of 44 Page 6 of 44 New Business Item Subject: Site Plan Review: Pandora Pavilion Meeting: Planning Commission: March 7, 2024 Presented by: Everett Haynes, Assistant City Planner BACKGROUND: General Location:  Northwest corner of Windmill Rd. and Rock Rd, south of Fire Station 82 (Location Map Attached) Applicant/Agent:  Applicant: Cang Phu, Quik Invest LLC  Agents: o Parker Gehrer, KE Miller, PA o Michael Cathcart, Cathcart Architects Reason for Request:  Facilitate development of an event center and venue space. Background Information:  The property is zoned B-3 "General Business District." The Zoning Regulations classify the proposed event center as an assembly hall, which is permitted in the B-3 district.  A 20 ft. access easement was originally platted along the north property line. The applicant requested a vacation of the easement to facilitate construction of a retaining wall and parking lot within the easement area. The City Council approved vacation of the easement on January 23, 2024.  Site plan review is required for all new commercial developments. o Lots 1 and 3 of Hendricks Addition previously underwent site plan review in April 2023 and are currently under development as The Waffle Bus restaurant (Lot 1) and two strip center buildings (Lot 3). Lot 2 is the final developable lot in Hendricks Addition. o The Planning Commission approved a master sign plan for Hendricks Addition in July 2023. The original master sign plan only provided for three ground signs for the development, with one monument sign proposed along the private access drive on Lot 2. The applicant was advised at that time that if additional ground signage was desired for Lot 2, the master sign plan would need to be revised and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant now desires a monument-style ground sign along the Rock Rd. frontage of Lot 2, requiring an amendment to the master sign plan. The applicant Page 7 of 44  has submitted a revised master sign plan that is being reviewed concurrently with the site plans. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: 1. Legal Description: The legal description is Lot 2, Block A, Hendricks Addition. The legal description is properly identified on the plans. 2. Building Setbacks and Bulk Regulations: The B-3 district and the Hendricks Addition require the following building setbacks and bulk regulations: o Minimum Building Setbacks:  Front Yard (East): 35 ft. Platted Setback along Rock Rd.  Side Yards (North and South): 0 ft. but if one is provided, it shall be no less than 5 ft.  Rear Yard (West): 0 ft. but if one is provided, it shall be no less than 5 ft. The access easement along the southwest property line effectively creates a 20 ft. setback from the southwest property line.  Proposed: There are no unpermitted encroachments into the required setbacks. o Maximum Structure Height: 65 Ft.  Proposed: The height of the building differs from the east to west due to the sloping nature of the site. The building is 36 ft. from the lowest to the highest points. o Maximum Lot Coverage: 70%  Proposed:6,220 sq. ft. (6,150 sq. ft. building + 70 sq. ft. waste receptacle enclosure) / 55,700 sq. ft. lot area = 11.17% lot coverage which is permitted. 3. Easements: The following are the easements of record that encumber the property: o North Property Line:  A 20 ft. wide access easement was dedicated with the platting of Hendricks Addition in order to facilitate maintenance of the landscaped slope south of Fire Station 82. The applicant requested that the easement be vacated in order to facilitate development of the site. The City Council approved the vacation request on January 23, 2024 (Ordinance #2549). Thus, the easement no longer encumbers the property. o West Property Line:  35 ft. wide platted access, drainage, and utility easement. 20 ft. of said easement encroaches into the property along south-west property line. 4. Streets and Access: The site is adjacent to Rock Rd. and a private access drive. o Platted complete access control along Rock Rd. prohibits direct access to the site from Rock Rd. Instead, access is gained via the private access drive along the west property lines. o Two approaches are proposed from the access drive. The south approach will be shared with Waffle Bus while the north is exclusive to the site. 5. Parking: Minimum parking standards are calculated based on the proposed uses of a site. Assembly halls are required to provide one parking space per four seats. The proposed event center will not have fixed seating in order to provide flexibility for the space but the applicant has indicated that the interior space will have a maximum of 230 seats while the outdoor space will have 78 seats, equating to 77 parking stalls being required. 71 parking stalls are proposed, with seven additional stalls being required. The applicant has submitted an Administrative Adjustment to reduce the required parking from 77 to 71 (8% reduction) which is currently under review by staff. o Parking Design: Parking stalls are required to have a minimum width of 8.5 ft. and depth of 19 ft. Sheet C2.0 indicates that the stalls will be 9 ft. wide and 19 ft. deep, meeting the requirement. Page 8 of 44   Parking stall dimensions are required to be measured from the faces of curbs. A note is provided on Sheet C2.0 that references this requirement.  The parking stalls along the north and south sides of the building are adjacent to a 4.5 ft. wide sidewalks. Wheel stops are provided to prevent vehicles from encroaching over the sidewalks and blocking access.  A retaining wall is proposed along the east and north edges of the parking lot, varying in height from 1 ft. to 5 ft. Sheet SA1.1 indicates that the retaining wall will comprise of segmented concrete block, similar to the existing walls on properties further south, but grey in color, which is permitted. o Bicycle Parking: Article 501 requires parking for bicycles equal to 5% of the number of off-street vehicular parking spaces provided onsite when 25 or more parking stalls are required. Two bicycle racks are provided beneath the front canopy, providing four bicycle parking spaces, meeting the requirement. o Off-Street Loading: Article 503 requires off-street loading/unloading for commercials uses with floor areas of 5,000 sq. ft. or more. One off-street loading area is required per 25,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Each area is required to include a minimum 12 ft. by 25 ft. area for loading and unloading operations, a minimum height clearance of 14 ft., and must be marked/signed as loading/unloading only. Off-street parking areas shall not be used for off-street loading areas. An off-street loading area is provided east of the front entrance and west of the east circulation aisle, within the entry plaza. Detail D on Sheet A4.9 provides the design of the required signage, which is permitted. 6. Circulation Aisles: Two-way circulation is proposed, requiring aisles to be a minimum of 24 ft. wide. The onsite circulation aisles are 24 ft. wide or more, meeting the requirement. 7. ADA: ADA Standards for Accessible Design require accessible parking spaces based upon the total number of spaces provided. When 51 to 75 parking spaces are provided, three accessible parking spaces are required. Three accessible parking stalls are proposed, meeting the requirement. o A minimum of one of the ADA stalls must also be van accessible. Van accessible stalls are required to have a minimum width of 11 ft. with a 5 ft. wide accessible aisle. Two of the ADA stalls are proposed to be van accessible. o A minimum of one van accessible stall must be signed as "Van Accessible." Sheet SA1.1 identifies the locations of the signage, and Sheet A4.9 provides the design detail of the signage, which meets requirements. o Staff Recommendation: i. The applicant or their designated agent shall ensure that all accessible parking spaces and routes meet the requirements of ADA standards, including locations, widths, aisles, slopes, signage, and pavement markings. Final inspection of accessible parking spaces and accessible routes shall be coordinated with the Building Trades Official. 8. Pedestrian Access: All new developments are required to provide pedestrian connections from the building to adjacent sidewalks. Pedestrian connections are required to be ADA accessible. Pedestrian access to the site was originally contemplated with the site plan review of Lots 1 (Waffle Bus) and 3 (Strip Centers). o A direct pedestrian connection to Rock Rd. is not feasible due to the steep topography of the site. Instead access is proposed from Windmill Rd. through Lot 1 near the southeast corner of the site with a striped crosswalk through the parking lot. o Access to Sunset Dr. is proposed via Lot 3 to the west, as originally contemplated with the site plan review of Lot 3. The sidewalk along the north side of the building lacks a curb in order to ease transport of wheeled trash receptacles from thefacility to the waste receptacle enclosure. Bollards are instead proposed to provide separation and protection between the vehicular circulation aisle and the sidewalk. o Staff Recommendation: Page 9 of 44  i. The applicant is responsible for repairing and/or replacing public sidewalks that may be damaged during site development. 9. Signage: o Ground/Monument Sign: Two monument-style ground signs are proposed. The first is proposed to be located along the Rock Rd. frontage between the hike and bike path and the east parking lot, The second is proposed near the southwest corner of the building along the private access drive. A revised master sign plan is being reviewed concurrently with the site plans to amend the master sign plan previously approved in July 2023 and allow the additional ground sign along Rock Rd. o Wall Signage: Wall signs in the B-3 district are restricted to 30% of the wall area upon which they are installed or a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft., whichever is less. No individual sign may exceed 400 sq. ft. The following are the calculations for maximum allotted wall signage for each elevation followed by the sizes proposed.  South Elevation: 4,096 sq. ft. wall area x 0.3 = 1,229 sq. ft.; therefore, 1,200 sq. ft. of wall signage permitted. 16 sq. ft. of wall signage is proposed, which is permissible.  East Elevation (Faces Rock Rd.): 1,712 sq. ft. wall area x 0.3 = 514 sq. ft. of wall signage permitted. 8 sq. ft. of wall signage is proposed, which is permissible.  West Elevation: 1,960 sq. ft. wall area x 0.3 = 588 sq. ft. of wall signage permitted. No wall signage is currently proposed.  North Elevation: 4,048 sq. ft. wall area x 0.3 = 1,214 sq. ft.; therefore, 1,200 sq. ft. of wall signage permitted. 19.6 sq. ft. of wall signage is proposed, which is permissible. o Directional/Informational Signage: Cannot exceed 6 sq. ft. in size. Directional signs are not proposed.  Pole signs are not permitted. If directional signs are proposed, the supports must be enclosed. o Staff Recommendations: i. All signage requires separate permitting. 10. Site Lighting: The photometric plan (Sheet SE1.0) identifies pole-mounted lights as the method of site illumination. o The regulations restrict light from encroaching offsite. The light intensities are not zero at the property lines; However, considering the location of the property, being nonadjacent to a residential property and instead adjacent to a fire station, a future restaurant, and future strip centers, staff recommends allowing the offsite light encroachment. o The City's design criteria restrict pole-mounted lights to 25 ft. in total height. The light fixture schedule indicates that 20 ft. poles atop 3 ft. bases are proposed, for a total height of 23 ft., which is permitted. 11. Landscaping/Screening and Buffering: Article 304 of the Zoning Regulations requires landscaped street yards and other screening. The regulations specify that lots with a depth between 251 and 400 ft. are required to provide a minimum 15 ft. wide landscaped street yard. The required street yard shall be located between the lot's public and/or private street right-of- way lines and any building. Sheets LP1 - LP2 provide the proposed landscape plan and details. o Landscaped Street Yards: Within the landscaped street yard, one shade tree is required for every 500 sq. ft. of the required yard. Ornamental trees or shrubs may be used to meet the shade tree requirement at a rate of two ornamental trees per one shade tree or 10 shrubs per one shade tree. Furthermore, shrubs may be substituted for up to one- third of the required shade trees. The minimum number of shade trees required for the landscaped street yards is based upon the following calculations: Page 10 of 44   Rock Rd.: 181 ft. street frontage x 15 ft. = 2,715 sq. ft. / 500 = six shade trees required. Six shade trees are proposed, satisfying the requirement.  West Private Drive:152 ft. street frontage x 15 ft. = 2,280 sq. ft. / 500 = five shade trees required. Five shade trees are proposed, satisfying the requirement. o Parking Lot Screening/Landscaping: Article 304.K requires solid visual screening to screen parking areas along street frontages. Shrubs that reach a minimum height of 3 ft. within the third year after planting may be used to satisfy this requirement.  Rock Rd..: A continuous row of shrubs are proposed atop the retaining wall to provide the required screening.  West Private Drive: A combination of shrubs, evergreens, trees, and the waste receptacle enclosure are proposed to provide screening along the west private access drive.  Interior Landscaping: Parking lots with 50 or more parking spaces are required to provide one shade tree or two ornamental trees for each 25 vehicular parking spaces. Three shade trees are required within the parking lot interior. Trees within the landscaped street yards cannot be counted towards the requirement. Seven shade trees are provided, exceeding the requirement. o Waste Receptacle and Ground-Level Equipment Screening: Article 304.I requires screening to conceal from ground level and street level view all roof-mounted and ground-mounted mechanical equipment, loading docks, waste receptacles, and similar uses.  Waste Receptacle: The waste receptacle enclosure is proposed near the northern private access drive entrance. Sheet A4.8 provides the design details of the enclosure, with black stucco-coated exterior walls and a black metal panel gate. The design and color is consistent with the design theme of the building.  Ground-Level Mechanical Equipment:  A transformer is proposed north of the north circulation aisle. Shrubs are proposed to provide the required screening. o Evergy has specific clearance requirements between transformers and obstacles. Screening must meet the requirements of Evergy's Electric Service Standards.  Additional ground-mounted mechanical equipment are not identified on the plans If additional ground-mounted mechanical equipment is proposed or present during site inspection, adequate screening is required. o Miscellaneous Landscaping Notes:  A permanent water supply is required to provide for the perpetual maintenance of landscape materials. The General Notes on Sheet LP! indicate that an automatic irrigation system is proposed.  The applicant has indicated that a separate water meter is desired for the irrigation system (Note 3 under Automatic Irrigation System Notes on Sheet LP2). The applicant shall coordinate with the water department when applying for permits and connecting to the water main.  The irrigation system is required to be equipped with an automatic rain sensing device. Note 10 on Sheet LP2 indicates that the system will be equipped with the required rain sensor.  The applicant is advised that non-paved areas within street right-of-ways are required to be planted with grass and maintained by the property owner.  The applicant is required to maintain landscaping in good condition, including replacement of dead or diseased plants and trees, in accordance with the approved landscape plan. Page 11 of 44   The applicant is advised that final acceptance of the landscaping and screening is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Acceptance will be based upon the landscape plan as approved at site plan review.  Any alterations to the landscape plan subsequent to site plan approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. Substantial changes to the plan require further review and approval by the Planning Commission. o Staff Recommendations: i. The site plans shall be revised to provide the required screening for the electrical transformer located north of the north access aisle. ii. All ground-mounted mechanical units and equipment are required to be screened from ground and street-level views. If additional ground-mounted mechanical units are later proposed or noted during site inspection, screening shall be required and may delay issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. Drainage: Drainage was originally contemplated with the platting on Hendricks Addition, with runoff flowing southwest to a detention basin currently under construction. Additional onsite drainage improvements are proposed, as identified on Sheets C1.0 and C3.0. o The majority of onsite runoff is proposed to be directed to drop inlets and a curb inlet that will convey stormwater through an underground stormwater pipe system through Lots1 and 3 before emptying into the detention basin at Sunset Dr. and Windmill Rd. The northwest portion of the site will sheet flow through the private access drive and into a drop inlet in Lot 3. 13. Utilities: Sheet C3.0 provides the utility plan for the site. o Fire Protection: Derby Fire & Rescue has reviewed and approved the site plans. o Water: A 1 in. water service connection is proposed to connect to an 8 in. main within the west utility easement. The 8 in. water main is currently under construction. o Sanitary Sewer: A 4 in. sanitary sewer service connection is proposed to be extended from the 8 in. sanitary sewer main from a manhole within the private access drive. The 8 in. sanitary sewer main is currently under construction. o Others: The applicant is responsible for coordinating with private companies to ensure that all utilities are installed underground. As a courtesy, the City sends site plans to private utility agencies for reviews and comments to prevent future conflicts and issues that may arise. The following are responses received from private utility agencies with regard to the subject project:  Evergy: Evergy has reviewed the plans and has indicated that Whitney Rusk will be the contact for this project. Evergy also provided the general comment that any relocation or removal of existing facilities made necessary by site improvements will be at the applicant's expense.  Kansas Gas Service: Kansas Gas Service has indicated there are no conflicts with lines or equipment.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline: Southern Star has indicated that their pipeline runs along the east side of Rock Rd. and is clear of the proposed project. 14. Design Standards: Sheet ELEV'S provide the building elevations and materials of the building. Colorized hard copies are not provided. o Rooftop Screening: All rooftop mechanical units and equipment are required to be screened from ground-level and street-level view.  Sheet SA1.1 identifies rooftop mechanical units atop the upper portion of the building. Sheet ELEV'S indicates that a parapet wall is proposed to screen the units from ground-level and street level views. The east portion of building pad site sits approximately 9 ft. below the surface of Rock Rd. while the building is 32 ft. high. The building thus has a prominence of 23 ft. above Rock Rd. Assuming Page 12 of 44  that a motorist is elevated an additional ~6 ft. when commuting in a vehicle, the top of the building will still be 17 ft. above visual level. Staff believes that the rooftop screening design provides adequate screening that will not be visible along Rock Rd., despite the elevation differences.  The applicant is advised that if units are visible at the time of inspection, additional rooftop screening will be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This is appropriately noted on Sheet ELEV's. o Exterior Materials: The Design Criteria identifies brick, architectural concrete, glass, stucco, synthetic stucco, stone, and decorative block as acceptable exterior finishes. The design criteria also permit the use of wood and metal materials if appropriately integrated into the overall building design.  The primary exterior materials include stucco, ceramic tile, glass tile, fiber cement paneling, and concrete masonry unit (CMU) breeze blocks, which meet requirements.  Corrugated metal paneling is proposed on the east façade and at the northwest and northeast corners as an accent material. In staff's opinion, the material is appropriately integrated into the design and matches the corrugated metal paneling used on the Waffle Bus and strip center buildings.  The predominant colors are white, grey, black, and red which are consistent with the color schemes of the Waffle Bus and strip center buildings and Fire Station 82. o Building Design and Theme: The design criteria require that the building's overall design theme be expressed on all exterior elevations. The criteria also require architectural interest and style by varying horizontal and vertical elements of exterior walls in height and projection.  Each elevation contains a mixture of materials that express the overall design theme of the project, with varying horizontal and vertical elements. o Staff Recommendation: i. Approve the design and materials of the building. 15. No Smoking: City Ordinance 2399 prohibits smoking in public places and places of employment. "No Smoking" signs are required to establish a 20-foot smoke free zone at all entrances to the facility. Sheet SA1.1 indicates that vinyl decal labels shall be utilized to satisfy this requirement and will be posted at all entrances to the facility. 16. Miscellaneous: The following item was noted by Engineering during their review of the site plans and shall be addressed by the applicant and their agent(s). o A table of contents is necessary on Sheet 1.0 o Staff Recommendations: i. A table of contents shall be provided on Sheet 1.0 17. Corrected Site Plans: Following Planning Commission approval, the applicant will need to revise the site plan documents to incorporate all corrections or comments and submit three revised hard copies and a digital copy to the City. Changes on the site plan sheets shall be clouded, and a list of all changes provided, noting which comment each is addressing. The applicant is advised that building plans will not be reviewed until revised site plans are approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION:  Approve the site plans for Lot 2, Block A, Hendricks Addition, subject to staff comments, Planning Commission discussion, and the approval of an Administrative Adjustment to reduce required parking. ATTACHMENTS: Page 13 of 44 Location Map Site Plans Page 14 of 44  Location Map: Pandora Pavilion Lot 2, Block A, Hendricks Addition Smith Mortuary Water Fire Station Broadmoor Tower 82 Hills SUBJECT SITE Rock Rd. Panther Business Center Site The Waffle Bus Site Windmill Rd. Page 15 of 44  1328 1328 1327 1323 1322 1321 Page 16 of 44  1327 1328 1328 1327 1323 1322 1325 1322 1322 1321 1319 Page 17 of 44 Page 18 of 44 Page 19 of 44 Page 20 of 44 Page 21 of 44 10 130 76 120 13 28 130 67 130 57 15 130 48 42 5 46 76 45 3 2 547 2 M 25 150 175 160 212 160 108 D 25 25 D 1 4 43 361 38 Page 22 of 44 Page 23 of 44 Page 24 of 44 Page 25 of 44 Page 26 of 44 Page 27 of 44 Page 28 of 44 Page 29 of 44 Page 30 of 44 New Business Item Subject: Revised Master Sign Plan: Panther Business Center Meeting: Planning Commission: March 7, 2024 Presented by: Everett Haynes, Assistant City Planner BACKGROUND: General Location:  Northwest corner of Rock Rd. and Windmill Rd. (location map attached). Applicant/Agent:  Property Owner: Cang Phu, Quik Invest, LLC  Agent: Michael Cathcart, Cathcart Architects Reason for Request:  Revise the previously approved master sign plan for Hendricks Addition to permit one additional monument-style ground sign. Background Information:  The Planning Commission approved the original master sign plan for Hendricks Addition on July 6, 2023. o Once a master sign plan has been approved, any subsequent revisions and/or additions require review and approval by the Planning Commission.  The current master sign plan permits the following signs: o A multi-tenant ground sign at the northwest corner of Rock Rd. and Windmill Rd. o Monument sign for Waffle Bus at the Windmill Rd. driveway. o Monument sign for Pandora Pavilion on Lot 2 along the private access drive. o Various directional signage.  The applicant desires to add one additional monument-style ground sign along Rock Rd. on Lot 2 for the proposed Pandora Pavilion, requiring a revision to the master sign plan. The attached revised master sign plan identified the location and design of the proposed signage. o Rock Rd. Sign: Proposed along Rock Rd., between the east edge of the parking lot and the retaining wall. The sign is identified as "B" on Sheets MSP1 and MSP2.  The design and materials of the sign is identical to the other monument signs approved with the original master sign plan.  The sign regulations for the B-3 district allow ground signs up to 25 ft. high, 15 ft. long, and 3 ft. wide.  The sign's length of 6 ft. and width of 1 ft. comply with the regulations.  Revision Note 1 indicates that the sign's concrete height will be the same height as the retaining wall plus an additional 1 ft. in order to provide proper visibility. Page 31 of 44  The retaining wall ranges from 4 ft. to 5 ft. in this area. This equates to the sign having a maximum height ranging from 12 ft. to 13 ft., which is permitted.  The sign does not encroach into any easement or vision triangle. POLICY IMPLICATIONS:  The Zoning Regulations cover signs and the development of Master Sign Plans in the following sections. o Section 706.I.1.c. states that "commercial developments under single or multiple ownerships, where signs are located within the boundaries of such development but may be considered "off-site" for a business within that development; the number of signs shall be approved by the Planning Commission after submittal of a Sign Plan.  The original master sign plan was requested to allow the development to have one tenant directory sign that is considered "off-site" signage at the northwest corner of Rock Rd. and Windmill Rd. Additional monument-style ground signage for Lots 1 and 2 were proposed as part of the original master sign plan. No additional ground signs were included in the original master sign plan. The applicant was advised that if ground signage was later proposed, it would require a revision of the master sign plan, approved by the Planning Commission. o Appendix C.4. provides the following design criteria for signs:  The use of monument, tenant directory or ground signs is encouraged.  Monument, tenant directory or ground sign structures should be provided with a base of metal, concrete, or masonry construction. The use of sign cabinets and sign faces mounted atop a base bordered by the architectural features, materials and embellishment of the entire sign is encouraged.  Signs should include the use of exterior materials, finishes, and colors in harmony with, or an upgrade to, those of the building or structures on site.  Signs should reflect distinctive elements of the general architectural style or design theme of the development in the sign structure.  The use of embellishment to incorporate the primary design elements or unique architectural features of the buildings or structures is encouraged. o The signs are proposed to have concrete bases and cabinets with white painted sheet metal faces. The sides features red translucent acrylic faces with backlighting.  The proposed buildings within Hendricks Addition feature metal exteriors with white, black, and red color schemes. Sharp, square angles are also featured in the buildings' designs. The proposed signage is consistent with the design and colors of the proposed buildings. o Staff Recommendations:  Approve the proposed revision to the master sign plan to permit one additional monument sign on Lot 2, Block A, Hendricks Addition (Pandora Pavilion) along the Rock Rd. frontage.  Separate permitting is required for all signage prior to installation.  All signs require permitting and must comply with the Zoning Regulations except as expressly modified by the master sign plan. RECOMMENDED MOTION:  Approve the revised Master Sign Plan for Hendricks Addition. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Revised Master Sign Plans Page 32 of 44 Page 33 of 44  Location Map: Panther Business Center, The Waffle Bus, & The Pandora Pavilion Lots 1 - 3, Block A, Hendricks Addition Meadowlark Blvd. Smith Mortuary & Fire Station 82 Broadmoor Rock Rd. Hills SUBJECT SITE Windmill Rd. Los Cocos Goodwill Rock River Rapids Page 34 of 44 Page 35 of 44 Page 36 of 44 New Business Item Subject: Zoning and Subdivision Regulation Amendments Meeting: Planning Commission: March 7, 2024 Presented by: Scott Knebel, City Planner BACKGROUND:  On November 16, 2023, the Planning Commission initiated the process to amend the zoning and subdivision regulations after conducting the annual review of the Vision Derby 2040 Comprehensive Plan and determining that amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations are needed.  The Planning Commission appointed a steering committee to guide the process and to develop recommended amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations.  The steering committee reviewed the needed amendments identified by the Planning Commission and prepared recommended amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations, which are summarized below in the Policy Considerations section. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:  K.S.A. 12-749 and K.S.A. 12-757 require the Planning Commission to set a public hearing for the formal consideration of amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations. o The Planning Commission cannot take any action on the recommended amendments at this meeting but is asked to provide feedback to the steering committee so they can make any needed modifications to the recommended amendments for formal consideration at the public hearing. The Planning Commission can determine whether or not to allow public comment at this meeting. o After setting the public hearing, notice of the hearing must be published in the official city newspaper at least 20 days prior to the hearing. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: 1. Short-Term Rentals: The City Council established a priority to monitor the City of Wichita as it developed regulations for short-term rentals. The City of Wichita recently completed their regulations, and the steering committee reviewed their regulations to develop the following recommendations for the regulation of short-term rentals that are intended to be similar to Wichita's regulations with changes that fit Derby. o Eliminate the defined uses of bed and breakfast home and bed and breakfast inn and replace them with the following definition for short-term rental.  Short-Term Rental: A dwelling, or portion thereof, which provides sleeping accommodations for transients, with or without meals, for compensation and by pre-arrangement for a period of 28 days or less. Page 37 of 44  o Create an approval process called an "administrative permit" for short-term rentals in the R-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, and R-2 zoning districts. Permit short-term rentals by right in the multi-family, institutional, and commercial zoning districts.  The administrative permit could be granted by staff if less than 50% of the property owners within a 200-foot radius of site protest the request.  If the request has an adequate protest or the applicant wants to appeal staff's conditions of the approval, the request would be considered for a special use permit by the Planning Commission. o Create supplemental regulations for short-term rentals that establish the following development standards.  Permit short-term rentals only in a dwelling unit and not in a recreational vehicle or accessory structure.  Limit occupancy to two adults per bedroom plus two additional adults.  Limit gatherings to twice the permitted occupancy or 20 persons, whichever is less.  Require one on-site parking space per four permitted occupants.  Short-term rentals must be registered as businesses.  Require the display of a "good neighbor agreement" within the short-term rental to inform guests of the emergency contact and the operating rules.  Require liability insurance coverage for short-term rentals.  Require an emergency contact to be available 24-hours a day, 7 days a week.  Require the unit to pass an inspection prior to occupancy. 2. Permitting Carports in Front Setbacks in Certain Neighborhoods: Numerous homeowners in Derby’s more established neighborhoods have inquired about constructing carports within front setbacks. Reasons often include lack of garages and space between the house and side property lines. Several Exceptions for carports within the front setback have been previously approved. o The committee recommends permitting open unenclosed carports to encroach up to 20 feet into the front setback for single-family and two-family dwellings constructed prior to 1980. 3. Directional Signs and Order Boards: The current sign regulations do not permit exposed pole structures for any permanent signage, including directional signs and order boards for drive- throughs. Under the current code, pole bases for these types of signs are required to be enclosed with a cabinet, masonry base, or another similar enclosure. This has created challenges with permitting as the majority these types of signs, by default, have exposed pole structures. In addition, the pole-structure reveal is minimal and not causing aesthetic harm to the surrounding area, as opposed to a larger ground sign with an exposed pole structure. o The committee recommends exempting directional signs and order boards for drive- throughs from the prohibition on pole signs. 4. One-Step Plats: The Subdivision Regulations provide a streamlined process that allows the preliminary and final plat review to occur in one step. The process is limited to developments of single-family and two-family dwellings with 20 or fewer lots on 10 or fewer acres and to multi- family and non-residential development with two or fewer lots on five or fewer acres. The City of Wichita offers the streamlined process for all plats, and developers have requested that the City of Derby explore expanding this option for streamlined review. o The committee recommends permitting one-step plats for single-family and two-family residential developments of no more than 20 lots regardless of size and for multi-family and non-residential developments of no more than five (5) acres regardless of the number of lots. 5. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: The committee reviewed the attached parking proposal that was submitted by a citizen. The proposal requests the elimination of minimum Page 38 of 44  off-street parking requirements. The committee reviewed the proposal and discussed it in detail with the citizen and recommends the following amendments to the zoning regulations. o Include a purpose statement indicating that the provision of too much off-street parking has the potential to create negative impacts for the community and to encourage developers to provide the minimum amount of parking necessary. o Permit the one-required off-street parking space per unit for single-family and two-family dwellings to be located within the front setback. o Streamline the land uses for which a specific parking requirement is established within the zoning regulations to include only common developments and instead establish the parking requirement for infrequent development types through the site plan review process. o Allow off-site parking locations to be located across an arterial street. o Allow the planning commission to reduce the parking requirement by up to 25% through the site plan review process. o Discourage construction of surplus parking by increasing the stormwater utility fee for parking spaces that exceed the requirement. 6. Maximum Structure Height: Some zoning districts, but not all, currently have different height restrictions for single-family and two-family dwellings and other permitted structures, such as schools and park buildings, are permitted to be taller than homes. o The committee recommends that all zoning districts limit single-family and two-family dwellings to 35 feet in height and allow other permitted structures to be at least 45 feet in height, with structures taller than 45 feet limited to commercial zoning districts. RECOMMENDED MOTION:  Provide feedback on the recommended amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations to the steering committee, set a public hearing for April 4, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. for formal consideration of the recommended amendments, and direct the secretary to publish the attached notice of public hearing in the official city newspaper at least 20 days prior to the hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Public Hearing ParkingProposal_Derby Page 39 of 44 To be published one time in the Derby Informer on Wednesday, March 13, 2024 City of Derby, Kansas NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, April 4, 2024, the Derby Planning Commission will consider amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations pertaining to short-term rentals, permitting carports in the front setbacks in certain neighborhoods, directional signs and order boards, one-step plats, off-street parking and loading standards, and maximum structure height. The Planning Commission meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Room located at Derby City Hall, 611 N. Mulberry, Suite 300, Derby, Kansas. Please forward inquiries and/or comments regarding the proposed amendments to City staff by email at scottknebel@derbyweb.com or phone at (316) 788-6632 Ext. 1236. Scott Knebel, AICP City Planner (316) 788-6632 Ext. 1236 **NOTICE** If you are in need of an auxiliary aid and/or special accommodation, please notify Everett Haynes, Ext. 1230 of this office as soon as possible so we can make arrangements to accommodate your need. Page 40 of 44 A Proposal that the City of Derby Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements Section 1: Background As in most cities, Derby’s municipal code specifies in considerable detail the requirements of off-street parking space that must be furnished on all sorts of properties. While ample motor vehicle access to the destinations of our city may be ensured by this policy, other cities – some in Kansas and many beyond – have begun to recognize and address problems that this ubiquitous practice has created. Beyond the obvious material and labor costs that accompany the parking lots of Derby, which the community’s businesses and people must bear, there are many hidden costs. These are much more significant than the trivial amounts associated with maintaining excess parking spaces. In fact, a full accounting of all the ways in which the required parking costs the people of Derby will, I hope, convince you that the harms of such requirements far outweigh the benefits, and that alleviating the community of this burden is the most reasonable course of action. Section 2: Problem Discussion Fairness and Efficiency The city’s policy is one that virtually guarantees abundant, conveniently located parking on every destination site, but which also drives up prices and thus, the cost of living. At business establishments around town, the costs of ownership and operation are forced upwards by this policy, and the costs are then passed on to consumers, who still pay for their parking indirectly. In the case that there is unused parking space when a customer visits, they must also pay for the parking of other, hypothetical customers that the city has saved parking for, but who did not show up. There is no such thing as a free parking space. Suppose that only on rare occasions does a particular parking space get used. Is it fair for the City to make regular patrons pay for the spot that is sitting empty every time they visit a business just so that it’s available for the person who may eventually use it? How frequently must a parking space be used to justify its existence? When is it worth having? Perhaps it is not the City, but the more interested parties like developers, investors, property owners & managers, etc. who are best qualified to decide their parking needs. The removal of minimum parking requirements would restore flexibility to our community, allowing property owners to optimize their productivity now, and under the evolving social trends and dynamic economic conditions of the future. City Finances The only reasonable intervention (regarding parking space) that the City should seriously consider is limiting/constraining the amount of parking space allowed. The reason for this is simple: that the city is an interested party when it comes to maintaining roads/infrastructure that Page 41 of 44 serve developments, and as such, should be obsessively diligent in ensuring that the addition and maintenance of any lane-miles and other infrastructure liabilities entailed in further city- footprint growth will be fully funded by the revenue generated from the properties in said development/expansion. Minimum parking requirements are a forcing mechanism that drive up distances between destinations in the city. Parking lots must be built around buildings instead of more buildings, (which of course, actually require parking lots of their own, too). The real features of our city – the destinations, the places that people want to go to spend their time and money – are driven farther apart. As a result, more road must be built to reach these places, which costs the city (taxpayers) money in the form of maintenance expenses that will endure forever. Not just roads, but all utility infrastructures must also be built out and then maintained in perpetuity – expenses that are ultimately borne by the people of Derby – as they traverse yawning, unproductive spaces (parking lots) to reach actual places. Low density developments that result from the policy in question are less economically productive by land area, and by mile of infrastructure, than places that can be built free from this constraint. This can be the difference between a given development producing enough tax revenue to maintain the roads that serve it, and a development failing to do so (in which case, the eventual effect may be the effective subsidization of this sprawling type of development’s roadways with funds from other places, or the deterioration of the roads serving these businesses). Removal of minimum parking requirements is a crucial first step in protecting the financial sustainability and solvency of the city for the future ahead, which could be quite bright and prosperous with additional economic activity and tax revenue coming from currently fruitless land. Public Health With needlessly long distances between places in town, dependence on motor vehicles for mobility is exacerbated. Many trips that might have been possible for pedestrians are made infeasible; and of the people who might still have been up to the task of making a trip via active/alternative transportation, many balk at the prospect of mixing with the autos that our built environment caters to. The inflated distances between places brought wide arterial roadways with loud, fast moving vehicles. As a result, we in Derby are limited in our access to moving about in a healthy way that could help to reduce lifestyle-related health problems like heart disease, diabetes, etc. With the proposed policy change, these problems may be somewhat mitigated. Improvements in public health could mean less healthcare-sector spending, lower costs of living, more discretionary spending, and ultimately longer and happier lives for the people of Derby. Removing minimum parking requirements is a critical first step in making our town one that can be explored and enjoyed by all modes, including active transportation. Cost of Living As previously mentioned, consumer prices, taxes, and healthcare are some areas in which the people of Derby could reasonably expect to see falling expenses and a lower cost of living. Other possibilities include: Page 42 of 44  ● Transportation (where theoretically, less driving may translate to less expense on fuel, lower costs on insurance, or the freedom from reliance on an automobile and its coincident costs altogether for some people) ● Housing (where more units could be developed in currently dead spaces, increasing the supply, and where the construction of less parking space could save money) ● Electricity (where urban heat island effect can be reduced, allowing air conditioners to run more efficiently and less intensively) Environment Reducing parking lot space and replacing it instead with new destinations may reduce the urban heat island effect (where blacktop absorbs heat from the sun all day), as well as tainted stormwater runoff (which can prevent otherwise feasible site plans from penciling out by adding drainage challenges and construction costs). It may also reduce car-dependency, and thereby, car trips. Reducing car trips could translate to cleaner air, less traffic noise, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Section 3: Further Considerations and Vision Two types of parking space have been saved for discussion here: residential, and public. Residential parking spaces, while relatively benign in some cases, still contribute to some (though not all) of the problems discussed. As such, they should be included in the rollback of the parking requirement. Many housing developments have included more than the required parking provisions, and so it seems improbable that the city’s policy change would create a shortage of residential parking; however, in the future, less auto-centric designs may thus be allowed to arise according to the market and Derby’s vision for the future. Public spaces – such as schools, libraries, and parks – now required to provide some specified amount of parking would no longer have to. In what manner the public sector should decide how much parking to offer at various destinations is another discussion; for this proposal, we need only remember that there would not be a prescribed amount that must be built or maintained there. The hope and intent of this proposal is to make Derby a safer, healthier, happier, more affordable and prosperous place to live. With the right policy guidance, we can reasonably expect that, in time, Derby’s empty parking spaces will one day be the infill development sites of wonderful and productive new additions to the housing, business, recreation, and other offerings of our community, and that just the right amount of parking will exist to accommodate the motorists of Derby. Please see fit to recommend to the City Council one of the following changes to code. Page 43 of 44 1) Changing present minimum requirements to maximum entitlements/allowances for new developments, as well as eliminating the former for all properties in city limits; or 2) Omitting all language that requires any sort of minimum parking provisions of/by property owners or developers; or 3) Revising all language requiring any sort of minimum parking provisions to only recommend these instead. Supporting Literature: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/05/02/eliminating-parking- minimums-liveable-cities/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837718312870 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/spaced-out-shift-away-minimum-parking- requirements#:~:text=Impacts%20of%20Eliminating%20(or%20Reducing)%20Minimum%20Par king%20Requirements&text=The%20elimination%20(or%20reduction)%20of,and%20time%20o n%20parking%20minimums. Page 44 of 44