[0:01] I'd like to call the order, the meeting of November 7th, the Planning Commission.

[0:08] If I could ask you to go ahead and do a roll call, motion.

[0:16] Miss Chathams.

[0:18] Josh Kippenberger.

[0:19] Here.

[0:21] Gunter Hanson.

[0:22] Yeah.

[0:23] Doug Chambers.

[0:25] Kathy Willes.

[0:26] Here.

[0:27] Pat Bear.

[0:28] Here.

[0:30] Jack Hezlet.

[0:31] Here.

[0:32] Sean Riley.

[0:34] Herman Hicks.

[0:37] Dennis Patty here.

[0:42] Thank you. With that I'd like to go ahead and proceed with

[0:45] consideration of the minutes for the September 19th. Did anybody have any

[0:50] comments or fatigue? I was absent so I have nothing to mention.

[0:57] I'd like to move

[0:57] with the minutes you're accepted. Okay. Okay. I'll have a motion to approve the

[1:03] minutes by Mitch and seconded by Jack. If I could have a show of hands for

[1:12] As you can see, actually I need that abstain, so passes, passes with an eight to zero.

[1:23] With that two,

[1:32] let's paper up here tonight.

[1:34] Let's excuse me, I got fun of my agenda again.

[1:40] Thank you.

[1:41] Okay.

[1:42] With that, we can proceed to the public forum.

[1:48] This public form is a general public form, we will have a time for everybody speaking about certain issues.

[1:54] We do have several items up for discussion tonight.

[1:59] So I think it'd be prudent if you had a particular agenda item that you wanted to discuss to address that at this time.

[2:05] But with that, I will go ahead and open up the public form.

[2:12] And with that, I have somebody who has lined out their name, a Richard Moon, is that something

[2:20] that...

[2:21] Yeah, well, we'll speak on one of those things.

[2:25] Alright, thank you very much.

[2:27] With that, you have a Max Patrick.

[2:33] Okay.

[2:35] Okay.

[2:36] With that, I'll see if there's anybody else who would like to...

[2:39] Speaking the general public form, we have that, we'll go ahead and close the public form and we'll proceed on to our first agenda item.

[2:51] Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[2:53] The first item on the agenda is a vacation case.

[2:58] For those of you who are here for the rezoning public hearings, if you will, just give us your patience this evening.

[3:04] We want to cover this from the first. It was submitted long before the reason I request

[3:10] to earn. So we deal with things in order they received. So we're going to take care of this from the first.

[3:17] The vacation request is for a portion of a utility easement on the address 1308 J. Court.

[3:26] A brief history on this area. The large backyards, amongst all these houses here,

[3:33] was originally plated as an open area as one large lot, and over the years that was broken

[3:40] up into giving portions of that back to the adjacent property owners, and then another

[3:48] vacation case, the drainage portion of that larger area was vacated, so all that remains

[3:54] as a utility easement blanket utility easement over this area.

[3:58] And now at this time, the current property owner of J-Cort is a 13-08 J-Cort, is requesting

[4:06] a vacated portion of that utility easement, and he wishes to do so to allow room for construction

[4:13] of a detached garage.

[4:16] We have worked staff has worked with the owner to coordinate an acceptable, at least in the

[4:27] variable area in the backyard. To do that, we basically recommend that he vacates all except

[4:35] for the normally required portions of easement that are standard for the subdivision

[4:40] regulations, which includes a 20 foot utility easement along the back property line. In

[4:45] this case, we ask that 10 feet be remained and the other 10 feet would be on the adjacent property

[4:51] on our side should they choose to vacate their utility easement as well.

[4:57] We also required five feet along the side property line.

[5:01] The other five feet would be on the adjacent property.

[5:03] And that is to accommodate a street light utility.

[5:06] And then we also, there's an existing west star line through the middle of the lot.

[5:10] And so we required 10 feet to accommodate the existing west star line.

[5:17] When west star energy was sent this vacation request,

[5:21] they responded saying that the proposed arrangement was okay with them, the existing lines

[5:29] are accommodated by the utility easements that would be retained and so they didn't object

[5:34] to the vacation, but they just want to remind the property owner that should the existing

[5:39] line be exposed in a location that it's not shown on the plans that the property owner would

[5:44] be responsible for the cost of relocating that line.

[5:51] I don't think the staff has any additional comments on that.

[5:56] Of course, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission might have,

[6:00] and I'll be the property owner's here as well and can respond to any questions.

[6:05] Yeah.

[6:09] Is this going to be a regular garage with the driveway and everything?

[6:12] Where is he going to enter it from?

[6:15] Good question.

[6:18] The driveway, the existing driveway, I'm not sure the area here is clear enough.

[6:23] But the drive will just be extended around the north side of the house to access that garage.

[6:31] If you'd like specific plans, I mean, obviously we have an approved the garage permit,

[6:36] yet it has not been submitted because this case is pending.

[6:39] But if you'd like more specific, simply the property, and I would probably address those questions.

[6:44] I don't think it's important as long as there is access to it that would be suitable to you.

[6:51] Josh, did you feel there was a sufficient space along the north side of the Hellename?

[7:03] Thank you.

[7:05] Yeah, so there's about eight feet between the property line and the landscaping that we have.

[7:12] So there's actually probably closer to nine to nine half feet between that in the house.

[7:18] So there it's tight, but it's manageable.

[7:21] Is your neighbor okay with it?

[7:25] We've talked about it and as far as, you know, it's not going to be right up against the property of this service.

[7:32] There are some sewer things we're having to avoid.

[7:35] So we're going to have it away from their property line.

[7:38] And they seem to be okay with it.

[7:46] Is there any drainage concerns that we have with this?

[7:49] I mean, I know to utilities, but is there any issue drainage rises?

[7:53] This is going to be competing in the drainage of the city.

[7:58] Or it doesn't sound like the staff had any concerns.

[8:01] I'm sorry I'm looking at, we have Dan Squares here tonight,

[8:04] our city engineer.

[8:07] Just wanted to verify.

[8:08] I'm aware of that.

[8:09] At this time, staff doesn't have any concerns with the drainage.

[8:12] Of course, we'll take a look at that when the garage permit comes in.

[8:16] Also, we have to address some minor grading concerns with that.

[8:23] Do anything else that you want to discuss?

[8:25] I'll discuss on the phone.

[8:26] Okay.

[8:27] Thank you.

[8:30] With that, like I hear some input from our panic commission, see if anybody had any concern

[8:38] on this.

[8:44] Utility companies had no issue or concerns, is what I saw on the report?

[8:50] That's correct.

[8:50] The only utility company that responded was Wester Energy and made a dot-object.

[8:55] I want you to tell the companies do not provide me feedback.

[8:59] Thank you.

[9:02] So, yes.

[9:03] So, when he submit to the drawing for the garage,

[9:06] the location and the size, we can further do more recommendations at that time.

[9:14] Absolutely.

[9:16] The garage permit is submitted, staff will review that

[9:20] and make sure that all requirements of the zoning ordinance have been met.

[9:23] We'll not come back before the planning commission.

[9:25] It's handled administratively by staff, right?

[9:31] Yeah, this is our only chance to discuss this, but this was a concern.

[9:35] There is no normal association in that area that could have to approve these changes.

[9:45] Any restrictions or confidence by the Homeowners Association is there responsibility to enforce

[9:50] not the cities or the planning commissions?

[9:52] To answer your question, I believe that the property under

[9:55] can probably respond by that I can't have a record of the H.

[9:58] H.O.A. is.

[9:59] Okay.

[10:04] Did anybody else have a concern about that?

[10:08] I'm thinking, please tell me from wrong, but I don't think that neighbor

[10:11] had as an association does it at their time.

[10:13] Thank you.

[10:17] How does anybody have a recommendation or a motion to please?

[10:22] I am in a commotion that we approve the recommending of the government body, the city of

[10:29] Derby Grant, a request for a vacation for a portion of the plated utilities and a

[10:34] lot of 50A, we plowed a part of Block A Derby Hills edition, Derby Kansas.

[10:42] I'm sorry, second.

[10:44] I'm sorry.

[10:45] Okay, with that, just to reiterate to everybody, please show your sign of approval on the adoption.

[10:53] So I'm Mr. Chair, if I may interrupt, the motion would be to adopt a resolution recommending approval

[11:01] to be forwarded to the City Council.

[11:03] To the City Council.

[11:04] Thank you for that clarification.

[11:07] So, okay, I am ended that.

[11:10] Do you amend that?

[11:11] So, we have an amended resolution for the recommendation of the approval to be moved to be

[11:17] motioned onto the sake of council.

[11:18] So, you can invite Ms. Chambers if everybody could show a motion of approval with their right

[11:23] hand.

[11:27] And I pass as unanimously, nine to zero.

[11:33] Thank you.

[11:36] Thank you very much.

[11:41] With that, we can move on to a item number two.

[11:44] And

[11:51] with that, I would like to make an announcement to the meeting and everyone who is here that with this meeting, I am planning to abstain from the vote on this selection and my reasons are that although I do not have a relationship or work with the applicant,

[12:18] the company that I worked for has been involved with this project in the past.

[12:26] And I do not like the image or perceived conflict of interest while I do not work for the client.

[12:33] And I'm on salary and so justly I don't have any financial interest in it.

[12:41] I am going to go ahead and abstain from this, but I do in an attempt to be able to maintain

[12:50] an objective point, I am going to sit back and chair this meeting and make sure that we

[12:57] follow our Roberts rules and that we get everybody a chance to say what they have to

[13:03] say, listen to everything, listen to the staff and make a recommendation.

[13:07] So with that I'd like to proceed with that and go ahead and ask Cody to go ahead and proceed with, oh, I'm sorry, I don't need to go ahead and open for the public hearing first.

[13:22] Okay, with that I would go ahead and request for the public hearing for item number two, which is the zone change request from an R1 single family to residential planning unit development.

[13:40] for less communities. With that could I go ahead and could you first establish that there's

[13:47] a column for the public hearing? Oh sure. With that and maybe stepping away to be dead

[13:53] staying from that, I see here that we do have eight people, honor upon the commission and

[14:00] we need six to provide a quorum. So with that we still do have a quorum. So with that I'd

[14:07] like to go ahead and proceed with public hearing. Thank you Mr. Chairman, full record public

[14:13] notice was provided as according to law. The owners of property within 200 feet of the area

[14:21] subject to be resound were mailed individual notices 20 days or minimum 20 days in advance of

[14:27] public hearing, and it was also published in the official city newspaper of the Derby

[14:31] Informer on October 16. In addition to that city staff also placed signs on the property

[14:37] to be resowned and notified of this public meeting.

[14:42] Thank you. And with that, I will move on to the staff recommendations and the staff report.

[14:51] But this overall area, actually let me, let me take a step back if I can and kind of temper this with an explanation.

[15:00] And the broader area. Well, we've got three different zone change requests on the agenda for tonight, all in close proximity to the others.

[15:10] So although the merits of each location need to be considered individually, it's impossible to completely avoid looking at the overall impact of several zone changes which will allow increased densities.

[15:23] So just for the Planning Commission's benefit and for those of you in the audience at home,

[15:30] we are looking at three different areas here in the Oaks,

[15:33] which if you refer to this map, are highlighted in the colors here on the bottom and are labeled.

[15:40] The piece that we're looking at first is for the residential planning and development.

[15:45] And that is the area that is kind of shaded over with the hash marks and it's labeled as location A.

[15:55] So I do want to just kind of give you a brief background on a residential planning and development.

[16:01] It is not one of our standard baseline zoning districts.

[16:04] It's actually a conditional use zoning district.

[16:08] And the way that works is the owner of the property or the agent of the prospective buyers, in this case,

[16:15] have a development plan which they choose to implement with appropriate approvals and with that plan,

[16:24] they've submitted their documents showing exactly what they want to do with this property.

[16:31] What they had originally proposed didn't fit one of our baseline zoning districts,

[16:35] and which is why they've requested the PUD, which is planning an development.

[16:38] But the advantages of a PUD, it allows some flexibility in development, especially in cases

[16:46] where the normal requirements of the baseline zoning districts aren't necessarily needed

[16:52] or if additional restrictions are needed to appropriately reflect the goals of the zoning

[16:57] ordinance.

[16:59] And in this case, I think both are relevant.

[17:01] The applicant wishes to increase some densities and do a few things that are a little bit unique

[17:07] that would not normally be permitted under our normal R3 zoning,

[17:11] which is multi-family.

[17:13] And also there are some concerns from staff and neighbors

[17:18] for a need for some additional landscaping controls.

[17:22] And so through the plan you've developed,

[17:24] we're able to address all of those needs.

[17:30] So with that, this request is looking at approximately 23.924-acre

[17:38] site, for which the applicant is proposing, I'm sorry, the contract purchase series is proposing

[17:46] to build a 444 unit apartment complex. They propose to do so through a mix of two

[17:54] story and three story buildings.

[17:58] Within the normal main signs are industry, the 45 foot,

[18:03] are the 35-foot height requirement for R3 would not permit a three-story building and that's one of the

[18:09] exceptions that they're looking to achieve through the use of the plan unit development.

[18:14] In addition to that, the zoning, the density that's allowed by the R3 zoning is 18-0 units per acre

[18:22] and they've increased their request to approximately 20-0 units per acre. So that's an additional

[18:29] exception to our baseline district without getting into the all of the findings of

[18:38] fact which the planning commission will consider momentarily I don't think that

[18:45] there's anything additionally that I need to add that's not going to be covered

[18:48] later in this report that was really kind of our overview so with the chairs permission

[18:53] I'd like to offer the applicant a chance to state their case to make a brief presentation

[19:01] Sorry, does anybody have any simple questions for Cody before he delves into this that we should ask now before we go ahead and ask for the applicant to inform us.

[19:16] Anybody?

[19:17] Okay.

[19:18] With this, I'd go ahead and do a request that the applicant come up.

[19:22] Thank you.

[19:28] Mr. Chair.

[19:31] I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.

[19:34] We are excited to be back here at Derby to begin another process here.

[19:40] It was about 10 years, I guess, that we were here the first time to develop our first

[19:44] days of the properties and Derby has been very good for us, to us, and we want to be a good

[19:51] neighbor and be good to Derby as well.

[19:53] We're not here to try and pose ourselves on you or tell you how to run things or on these

[19:58] people here tonight, but we do feel like that there's been a fit in the Lindsey Company

[20:04] but also Derby is a community for this development.

[20:09] I have working at an IQ jet with the Lindsey Company, earning peers with peers at a

[20:14] associate's at traffic engineer and George DuCain who is a civil engineer with women associates.

[20:20] They're here to answer any questions that we might have during the process tonight.

[20:26] Back in the summer, we met with the neighbors, some of the neighbors, as we could get information

[20:33] out to them, and met to go over an initial plan that we had for this property, and quite

[20:40] a few showed up, and we were able to have good debate about that, and listen to some

[20:44] of their concerns, and we find that typically the concerns of traffic and drainage

[20:53] schools, property values, crime, our typical issues that we run across frequently in our development

[21:03] process.

[21:08] This, we do have, Lindsey Company does have a long history.

[21:14] I've been working with Mr. Lindsey for over 25 years and the Lindsey Company has over 36,000

[21:19] apartment units in eight different states.

[21:21] So this is our first rodeo, so to speak, but we have done this before and feel like that

[21:29] we could address the concerns of the city and the neighbors and still have a viable product

[21:34] at the end of the day.

[21:36] Mr. Lansing regrets that he can be at an ID took a fall last week and is recuperating

[21:42] from that.

[21:43] I'm sure he would rather be here than where he is this evening, but with that we will address

[21:50] So those issues in concerns as we go on tonight.

[21:54] Now, when we met back this summer with the neighbors, and we took notes and reference

[22:00] to their concerns about the issues that I've listed earlier, at that time we had proposed

[22:06] 540 dwelling units on the 23-acre site, and because of the feedback that we received

[22:14] at that time. We went back and not only looked at the site plan, but also looked at our financial

[22:23] situation. Our performance is to what will allow us to proceed with the project from a financial

[22:28] standpoint. And so we were able to cut about about a hundred units off of the initial 540 number

[22:35] that we proposed and bring that down to a 444 number is what we proposed tonight. And

[22:44] I would like to say that we could be more flexible with that number, but unfortunately the numbers just don't work from a profit loss standpoint for us to go beneath that.

[22:58] So we have, I think as far as we can, there, not to say that there are hopefully there are other issues that we may be able to find common ground with.

[23:10] These are the eight states that we're involved in right now.

[23:16] This is a typical golf course in a clubhouse location.

[23:22] This property will be in the middle of the golf course.

[23:26] Here at Derby that there's a company owns now and operates in main tanks.

[23:31] So it is an extension of that.

[23:32] And I think one thing that hopefully people would consider in the Disney question that although

[23:41] the, the Disney that we're asking for now actually works out to be about 18.6 units per

[23:45] acre, which is about half a unit over what the R3 density would allow, that I think if we took

[23:54] all of the apartment units that are under the Lindsey umbrella here, including these,

[24:02] and

[24:02] the golf course that would find those visities are much lower than that 18-uncorrected number.

[24:13] As Cody said, this is the subject property there north of metal art, and you see that the

[24:21] lensy golf course completely wraps the property 360 degrees.

[24:27] This is the proposed site plan

[24:30] landscape plan, and it shows the buildings dispersed here, and you'll see that I guess we need to show it this way for you guys that.

[24:43] From metal art to the first, the darker buildings are a three story building.

[24:50] The lighter shaded buildings are two story buildings, and the distance at metal art from metal art to the first three story building

[24:59] It's over 600 feet.

[25:02] So we're 200 football or I'm sorry, two football fields from Manelark to that first three story building.

[25:09] So it's, you know, or another way to look at it's two city blocks there.

[25:14] Also on this side with the neighbors at Newbury,

[25:19] from the closest house to the closest three story buildings is over 900 feet to those locations, free football fields.

[25:27] So we feel like the distances between these three story buildings or the apartment buildings

[25:36] and the existing single family residential is quite substantial and worth noting.

[25:43] We have also from a topographical standpoint.

[25:49] We'll be back back up.

[25:51] This, the way the topography works right in this area, there's a power line that runs right through here.

[25:58] And right in this area, the elevation is about 35 feet.

[26:03] The elevation back in here is 20 to 25 feet, and then our base elevation here is about 28.

[26:10] So basically, you have a 15-foot grade gradient rise in this area here between this location

[26:16] and the houses, and so by the time we get to the apartment units, basically you're looking

[26:21] over a crest, two of those units, and my point is that you're not looking straight up

[26:29] to the three-story building. There's quite a distance removed, and the topography has an

[26:33] impact on that as well.

[26:37] This is the site plane, and a little easier to read in the three

[26:44] numbers here, and once again, you've got two-story buildings on the fringes here, on the

[26:49] and then we go into the three-store buildings. We have also, there's a little finger of land here

[26:55] that we are proposing to be single family homes. And this would act as a buffer between the existing

[27:03] single family and the multi-family that we have now. Also, we have agreed to continue look out

[27:11] straight here, and that street will eventually tie into the plated subdivision to the north

[27:20] there. We will have an emergency access point right here onto look out, but we have agreed

[27:29] to put a security gate at that point that would be operable by the first responders

[27:36] with a Knoxbox situation where they will have access to that, but our traffic or the traffic

[27:41] the internal traffic from the multifamily development will not use that, that access point right there and traffic will not travel through

[27:52] newberry to the north. So all of our traffic will flow out onto Melark and not onto look out or newberry at all.

[28:03] Also on the site plane you notice that the all of the parking is internal to the property.

[28:08] So all of our neighbors are buffered first of all by a minimum of 300, 300 to 400 feet of green space in the golf course.

[28:18] These are the multifamily buildings around the perimeter and then the parking internal to that.

[28:24] Reason to bring that up is so that it's understood that we won't be looking at a big box store type parking lot with the big lights there.

[28:35] will be the buildings will screen or shelter those parking areas.

[28:41] And then in the very center of the complex there,

[28:44] we'll have free-story buildings surrounding a resort like

[28:46] Swimpool and the Clubhouse here about a center of $50,000

[28:51] in our Clubhouse with fitness centers, management offices,

[28:57] tanning beds, of course the pool, and business centers are

[29:01] okay therefore the tenants themselves. We have proposed a full of our type

[29:08] entry off of mental art that will align with raw hide their across the street.

[29:16] 70% of the buildings will all be 70% break 70% or more so they're very similar in

[29:23] design to the to the buildings that are in place now. They've evolved a little bit

[29:28] over the years since we've started this, hopefully gotten better and a little more quality

[29:34] in the terms of the materials that we use,

[29:48] we'll get into the density and many of these

[29:50] here a little bit, I'm going to let you take over with that and discuss the occupancy rates.

[30:05] Thank you. My name is huge, you're at work for the Lindsey Company, and I was going to go through a few of the numbers. On our, the density we're looking at here is 18.58 units to slightly above the R3 zoning. On site, which kiln touched on, we have onsite management at all of our properties and this one would be the same. Our managers actually live above that clubhouse. So, basically you have the person man in the store that lives there.

[30:35] on site. Mr. Windsi has developed a very intensive management practice. What I mean about

[30:45] that is, we screen our applicants very, our residents very well. If you have a felony, you

[30:51] cannot live with us. If you have a violent misdemeanor, you cannot live with us. People,

[30:58] they're certain credit scores that are set. If you have extremely low credit, you cannot

[31:03] live with us. Through this process, we have been very effective in keeping our developments

[31:10] in a desirable place to live. I say that the five-year average object you can see as a

[31:15] separate of the 828 units that are currently north. That's the grains in the fairways. Over

[31:21] a five-year period, the average object you can see is 99.87%. So there is a huge need in the city

[31:30] Derby for this type of housing there's it's you know you don't get to 99.87 percent

[31:35] I can see without providing a product that people like and the city of Derby has been

[31:40] very good to Mr. Lindsey and the Lindsey company and we hope that we've been a good

[31:44] neighbor while we've been here. During the this process Cody had sent me a letter that the police

[31:52] chief had provided to the city manager and you can't really see that really but the highlight

[31:59] had you all seen though to the memo that was provided to the city manager from the police chief.

[32:04] Then if you have and I'll apologize, but that highlighted the highlighted portion basically

[32:11] states that

[32:17] says in conclusion I believe the data supports the facts that the fairways

[32:21] and greens, those are the vintage developments, apartment complexes which have proactive security

[32:26] measures are no more prone to crime than single family homes in the same geographic area.

[32:32] In fact, the fairways and the grains have less crime per unit than the single family homes in the Oaks and broadmore hills.

[32:40] This is the memo from the WACG, and it has some more numbers.

[32:47] But in fact, the per unit, crime rate in the grains and the fairways is lower than the neighborhoods to the south and the neighborhoods that surround us in the golf course.

[32:57] And that a lot of that has to do with we have a courtesy officer program where we allow off duty

[33:04] Long force officers to live with us. So we

[33:07] Mr. Lindsay has taken a very

[33:09] conscious effort to try to keep a very safe, stable and desirable place

[33:15] for people to live

[33:18] the

[33:19] The next

[33:20] If I could if I could interrupt you for just one second. Yeah, I apologize to the plane commission that we didn't get that memo in your packets

[33:27] But if you have questions when Mr. Jared is completed with his presentation, Derby's police chief Lee is here and he can answer any questions that you might have regarding that report.

[33:37] Okay. Thank you.

[33:38] Thank you.

[33:39] The...

[33:40] This is the...

[33:41] A lot about traffic that Mr. Peters is going to speak to,

[33:45] Mom and Terrily, and also this is a picture of a golf course upon that we have another property.

[33:50] The drainage was mentioned at the earlier meeting that we had with the neighbors.

[33:57] And we will work out a drainage solution with the city.

[34:01] George can speak to it if there are any specific questions.

[34:05] That will ensure that the drainage is approved by the city manager

[34:10] and will not become an issue off-site.

[34:14] One thing that, you know, Kim mentioned that there's really misconception about apartment

[34:20] developments about the crime issues, which I think the fact really, in this case, point

[34:26] to the crime issues at the Greens and the fairways are lower than the surrounding areas.

[34:30] So that issue is really kind of a non-issue.

[34:33] We also find that in our apartments, we have one in two bedroom apartments only.

[34:38] There aren't any three bedroom apartments in our developments.

[34:41] So, as a result, we have 0.1 school-age children per apartment complex.

[34:49] There might be some places that it's hard in that, some places that it's lower, but

[34:53] across the 36,000 units if you average it, it's about 0.1 school-age children per apartment.

[34:59] So we have a, compared to the property taxes that we pay, we have relatively low impact

[35:04] on schools, just because of, you know, as children get older, they need to, more veterans

[35:10] generally. So we have 0.1 school-ites children in part unit. So they're for a low impact on schools generally.

[35:18] And also another issue that we encounter is that apartments, lower property values. Well,

[35:26] that there is no hard evidence that anyone has presented that proves that. In fact,

[35:32] Roger Weiss, who's a local real estate man here, did some checking for us, and the per

[35:39] square foot home prices in the Oaks are higher than the surrounding neighborhoods.

[35:46] All of the homes built in the Oaks were built after the grains.

[35:50] So the grains are first multi-family development predated all of the homes that were built

[35:55] in the Oaks, or were contemporaneous, the construction on the grains started first.

[35:59] So the homes in the oats, which have a higher selling value than the homes in the other areas were built with the multi-family in place prior to that.

[36:13] If you have any questions, I think I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Paters to discuss the traffic issues.

[36:18] If you have any questions, be happy to answer.

[36:31] Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's, my name is Ernie Peters, I'm with Paters and Associates Engineers.

[36:36] We have been asked to do a traffic study related to this proposed development.

[36:45] At the time, we undertook this study.

[36:49] We understood that the proposed number of units was 486, our calculations have been

[36:55] based on that.

[36:56] as Mr. Pugat has indicated to you the proper number total count I now is 444.

[37:07] So although we, our calculations were based on a slightly higher number of units, our results

[37:14] if anything, error on the side of being conservative in terms of the findings.

[37:19] We did traffic studies in the latter part of July after school's

[37:24] in session.

[37:26] We did those traffic counts at the intersections that are indicated on the

[37:31] traffic that's on the screen here.

[37:34] At the time there was consideration still being given to the

[37:38] possibility of having access to the development, the

[37:41] new dairy up the tall trees.

[37:44] So we counted that intersection as well as the intersection of

[37:47] rock and metal arc and also at the raw-hide intersection where the proposed main access

[37:55] scribe is located. We projected traffic volumes associated with the development as it's

[38:02] proposed and we focused our study efforts on the AM&PM peak hours, the peak time,

[38:09] so traffic generation for multi-family residential units and we then use those values to

[38:17] do capacity and level of service calculations for what ends up being the

[38:23] sole point of access to the development since the newberry connection is not

[38:30] going to be made or it's just an emergency vehicle access as Mr.

[38:34] Cubans indicated to you and for that condition we found that the intersection of

[38:43] large and raw height and the site access drive will at full build of this development continue

[38:53] to operate in an acceptable level of condition. We furthermore did traffic signal warrants

[39:01] calculations for the intersection and the results of that indicate that the intersection

[39:08] of metal arc and raw-hide access to the development comes close to meeting signal warrants

[39:16] at full build but not quite in particular we calculated that it was projected that it

[39:25] would meet six of required eight hours of the day of the threshold volumes that are needed

[39:34] to warrant a traffic signal.

[39:37] The other warrant hours, probably the easiest one to meet,

[39:42] is the peak hour warrant.

[39:44] We're only one hour, but a higher threshold value,

[39:48] needs to be met.

[39:49] We didn't meet any of those hours.

[39:52] And for the four-hour warrant, probably the second easiest

[39:55] warrant to meet, we only meet two of a required four hours

[39:59] for that threshold of volume.

[40:01] But for the traditional eight-hour warrant,

[40:03] We need six of the eight hours.

[40:05] There's certainly sufficient volume out on metal art,

[40:08] but the volume on the side street, both on raw height,

[40:11] which is a very low volume in that residential area,

[40:15] and on the side side are not quite enough to warrant a signal.

[40:19] So we've not recommended that.

[40:21] Our capacity level service calculations indicate

[40:23] that the intersection you operate

[40:26] at both during the AM to PMP hours at AMC levels of service.

[40:31] so very acceptable conditions in only utilize about 40 percent of the intersection capacity

[40:38] of that location.

[40:39] So there's room for a background growth for other development in the area as well.

[40:44] I think I'd answer any questions to try to be brief and not totally detainably.

[40:49] I can be much more detailed, but normally I lose my listeners when I get too far into it.

[40:55] So I'd be glad to answer questions if there should be any.

[40:58] Mr. Chairman?

[41:01] I have a question.

[41:02] When you're trying, you're like the traffic light on metal arc.

[41:06] I understand that you said that you did not think that it warranted a light at that intersection to the, to the apartments.

[41:13] Yes, for post.

[41:14] Yes, we determined that the minimum criteria set out in the manual and uniform traffic control devices that is the accepted standard for all cities in the United States.

[41:28] it's not quite met at full build of the building.

[41:32] Okay, thank you.

[41:39] Mr. Chairman.

[41:41] I'm going to direct this to you, Cody.

[41:42] In the event that if the war approves and is some point in the future, it was deemed that there did need to be a traffic light there.

[41:53] Would that be the responsibility of the city of Derby or would that be a responsibility of the developer?

[42:00] Typically, when signal warrants have been met, the city will require petitions for those

[42:08] signals, petitions as the financing mechanism to install them.

[42:13] We would require those to be submitted and kept on record, and then in the future, when

[42:17] the development achieves full build out, we would initiate those petitions and start assessing

[42:23] those costs to get the traffic light installed.

[42:27] I'll bring this up now.

[42:30] The city staff did ask for some additional traffic information, especially with respect to the overall area,

[42:38] and not just this one location that's being considered in this public hearing.

[42:44] But the results of that broader traffic study for the overall area, which accounted for,

[42:49] increases and densities to the other areas that you'll hear in a few minutes, those numbers

[42:56] did come back with warrants for a signal there. So at this point, we would be looking to require

[43:03] that petition, but would not be initiating it until the traffic volumes actually warranted.

[43:10] We do have some other traffic engineers here who worked on that second study and they

[43:16] I'm sure they'd be able to answer any questions you might have specifically regarding those numbers.

[43:24] In regard to that, we have no, we'll cooperate with the city fully and whatever you just determined on that.

[43:33] Just to wrap up quickly, one of the things that staff in the staff report was mentioned about this lookout extension back here that some of the

[43:42] a curvature to not meet city specs and we believe that we can work that out, we can

[43:47] re-align that to some degree and since we do have access to the golf course that we can

[43:52] maybe extend on to that to create the proper alignment there so that shouldn't be an issue.

[44:02] And then finally I want to address the screening issues or how the neighbors may look upon

[44:13] The units here now, this is a computer-generated graphic of the apartment community or the multifamily community as it would rest there as proposed.

[44:29] This shows the two story buildings, 300 plus feet off of metal art there, you see the clubhouse in the middle you see the island entry.

[44:40] And this is taken from a six foot eye level, the grade of the apartments is higher than the grade of the streets.

[44:49] So that's reflected in this drawing. So basically I'm saying all that to say that this drawing is technically correct.

[44:55] It's not something that's been manipulated. It would be as close to a photograph as we could generate at this point.

[45:00] Now, this is how we would look for the opposite side of the south side of the metal art with no screening and no buffering.

[45:11] This is what we would see with the screening. That is a 14-foot, 14- to 18-foot high tree there.

[45:23] We proposed sick moors and red cedars planted at distances that would be approved by the city at their requirement.

[45:31] And you can see then from the angles that the majority of the apartment buildings themselves are hidden from view from across the street.

[45:40] And I could just you can see the two of this without the screening and this would be with the screening.

[45:46] So, it doesn't take a very tall tree in the proper location, and in the proper perspective,

[45:54] to screen a lot of what may appear to, or may be located, you know, 300 plus feet away.

[46:01] So, hopefully that graph would help in that regard.

[46:05] And then finally, you know, I'd like to say that, you know, typically we, in these type meetings,

[46:13] As I said before, we have typical responses to the work that we do, and they find themselves

[46:21] in issues like traffic and density and crime and property values and that type of thing.

[46:28] But what we have found is an emotional response on most of the multifamily or apartments,

[46:35] if you will.

[46:36] We've tried to present tonight our facts, Mr. Peters, the numbers that you did are based

[46:43] on basic engineering and accepted principles for the traffic studies.

[46:48] This is not something that we would like for it to be.

[46:50] This is what it is.

[46:51] The drawings that we have proposed are actually what they are.

[46:55] We have redirected traffic based on comments that we receive.

[47:01] We have reduced densities to the degree that we can.

[47:04] We have addressed the statistically the issues about any kind of impact on the schools, whether

[47:13] in a negative way or positive way as well as the taxes, but what we find is that somewhere

[47:19] along the line that apartments have generated a stigma about somehow the people who live in apartments

[47:27] are not, let's say, of the same quality or nature of people who don't live in apartments.

[47:33] And I think that we would all disagree with that if we thought about it a little bit as a matter

[47:38] of fact I think probably if we had a show of hands here tonight we would all be able to say

[47:43] that at some point in time in our life we've lived in an apartment or some kind of multifamily

[47:47] dwelling.

[47:48] Does it mean that we're the low standard people or that we were not conscientious people,

[47:54] hardworking people or law abiding people and just meant that that particular time that was

[47:58] the what served our purposes the best.

[48:01] And so I would hope that you would take that into account this evening as we discuss these issues tonight, and we'll obviously stick around for any answering questions you may have, appreciate your time, and appreciate your consideration and answering questions.

[48:16] Thank you.

[48:17] Before you go away, can you tell us how many units right now are on the Oaks?

[48:23] In the communities that we have now?

[48:26] Yeah, no here.

[48:27] Right here the existing units there are

[48:33] so we are adding high for many

[48:38] Right right

[48:40] And anybody who drives through it has seen how incredible dense this area is with big

[48:48] Unsimely for country club buildings now you want to put

[48:54] Hi, if it's many again into it, that's what you're telling us right here.

[49:01] Thank you, Gunter.

[49:02] Anybody else have any questions for the applicant at this time?

[49:07] Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

[49:08] What was your, the reason your first reason that you was wanting to change it from R1 to RPUD housing?

[49:17] housing. What was it? Because you said that first you were you submitted a 540 unit. So you've dropped it a hundred unit

[49:25] which dropped your profits significantly. So and you said that you can maintain a profit at that.

[49:31] So what's the difference between doing this project and leaving the addition as initially?

[49:39] Zoned. Well

[49:42] If I can clarify, the existing zoning that's there today was R1, which is single family

[49:49] residential, and what Mr. Fugat and Lindsay Company presented tonight, they referred to

[49:56] what was originally proposed. They're referring to a neighborhood meeting that they had

[50:01] held back in August, I believe, where they presented what they proposed to do on this site,

[50:08] which was five hundred and forty units is a multifamily apartment complex.

[50:14] So I think that when they say they're coming back from that number it's referring to their original proposal from the summer not the existing zoning.

[50:23] Okay, so to make a change.

[50:28] So what's in it?

[50:29] What's in it? Are you really? Are you trying to fulfill a need for the community?

[50:33] With doing this, is it more readily your profit margin is initially recognized or what was what really made you change your mind on wanting to resound this area?

[50:47] Well, we don't know your point.

[50:49] We don't.

[50:49] I was going to say.

[50:50] I'm sorry, go ahead.

[50:52] We don't.

[50:53] The Lindsey County does not own the property right now, and we have a contract on the property.

[50:58] And right now, the property is owned for single-family houses.

[51:02] I believe there are 60-some lots.

[51:05] Yeah, 62 lots that are currently planted there.

[51:09] We are not single-family developers.

[51:12] Mr. Laske is and quite good at that.

[51:15] But that's not from the slides that we showed you earlier.

[51:18] Obviously, we're in the multifamily business,

[51:20] and that's what we do.

[51:22] To answer your question about who's benefit, this would be,

[51:24] hopefully, it would be for everyone's benefit.

[51:26] not only for the city of Derby, and I believe that that comes about for Mr. Gerard's talk

[51:33] about our occupancy rates over the last five plus years at the existing 800 units

[51:38] that we do have, we're full. We're at 99 plus percent capacity on a steady basis for the

[51:46] last five years. That tells us that, I mean we have waiting lists. We turn people away.

[51:52] And so that tells us that obviously there is a great demand for additional, you know, apartment units, multifamily units here in Derby.

[52:03] Hopefully we've been good for Derby. Hopefully we've brought some good to it.

[52:09] We've provided housing to those people who need that type of housing.

[52:13] This particular time in life. And obviously we're in it to generate profit as well.

[52:18] we can't function without that, to answer your question about why we dropped from 540 to the 444 was that at 540 units, obviously, we could generate more profit.

[52:32] But when we went back to the 444, we basically got with our financing guys and our cost guys, all the accounts and the green shade guys, we got with them and said,

[52:41] Okay, what's the bottom number here we can do based on our land costs, based on our construction costs,

[52:46] based on our operating costs and those type things, based on the rents that we're getting now from the apartments,

[52:51] what would be the minimum number that we could build there and still show a profit at the end of the day,

[52:56] and make it worth our wild to do this on the long haul.

[52:59] And that's where the 444 number comes from.

[53:02] So that's how we arrived at it.

[53:08] Thank you.

[53:09] I'm sorry, Kathy.

[53:11] I'm not sure that I heard you answer his question though about what was the impetus to drop

[53:18] it.

[53:19] Was it the concern of the neighbors?

[53:22] Yes, ma'am.

[53:23] Yes, ma'am.

[53:26] There was concern of neighbors, and then I think the city engineering can verify this also.

[53:33] There's sewer issues in the area.

[53:35] So, capacity levels, so we had, we knew we needed to compromise with our neighbors, and there's also a sewer, a sewer capacity issue.

[53:45] So, we wanted to have a viable product before we came in, so there's the sewer issues out there too, and we met that with this number.

[53:53] I have another question. Do you have a map that shows where the other two apartment complexes are in relation to this proposed property?

[54:03] I was going to say, I think Cody may have a little bit of that to help for illustration.

[54:16] And so if you refer to the projector screen, we're getting into the south portion of the existing,

[54:24] this is actually a large portion of the greens.

[54:28] And the fairways are along a newberry street here,

[54:33] and also wrap a little for the north-off of what's shown on this map along Patriot Avenue.

[54:40] So there's what's not shown on this current view is the 15 apartment units that are along

[54:47] Patriot Avenue.

[54:53] So if we turn down your request for a zoning change that would kill your

[54:58] deal to purchase the property because you said you don't currently own it. Yes ma'am that's great.

[55:03] But you do own these other two

[55:07] Yes, ma sections. Well actually to even back up a step further I suppose we were

[55:14] It's been about a year or so ago. We were looking for additional properties in the Wichita area and we had located property in and over and and as well as ma's and

[55:24] We're doing our due diligence on those properties when we spoke with

[55:30] just kind of happenstance, Mr. Luss, representative, regarding this remnant of land, and since

[55:40] we already had an investment in the golf course, we already owned that property and the

[55:48] Derby properties had been so good for us, that's when we even began looking then at the

[55:54] Derby property and kind of took our focus off the handover and made his locations.

[55:57] Thank

[56:02] you. I think I appreciate all this information. I just have one basic question and I'd

[56:11] like to go back to Cody and have him educate us on some of the other findings from staff,

[56:19] but the occupancy rate that you noted the 18.53 is that correct? That was the density.

[56:26] the density rate. I'm still trying to figure out that math, because including the proposed

[56:36] right away, I'm still seeing a density of like 144 units across 22 acres, which is closer

[56:45] to a 20 density. And 18 and a half, 20, I don't care, but I'd hate to proceed with anything

[56:54] and not have actual numbers correct.

[57:11] Okay, but you do have proposed for it for lots, residential lots, that is taking that out.

[57:20] I'm just just being devils out of it.

[57:23] So that's very good point.

[57:25] That's a bit of a non-mortment.

[57:26] OK.

[57:27] Thank you.

[57:27] I think staff did run that number for you for your benefit.

[57:31] Based on the plans that were submitted, you can see here there's showing a lot of one, which

[57:36] would be the large lot that it contains the apartments, is approximately 21.9 acres in size.

[57:44] And with that lot size in the 444 dwelling units that are proposed, there would be a density

[57:48] for approximately 20.2 million units per acre.

[57:52] Okay.

[57:53] Thank you for that clarification.

[57:58] Okay.

[58:01] Thank you for all your due diligence and attention to answers.

[58:06] Yeah, it says it right here actually too.

[58:07] On the plot.

[58:08] Thank you.

[58:11] All right.

[58:16] Is there any other questions that commissioners?

[58:20] People down the planning commission would have?

[58:21] Well, the question was,

[58:23] and that was not answered, the question was

[58:26] what made the loose organization

[58:29] now change from single family

[58:33] plan to multifamily units?

[58:37] Because that's important to find out why.

[58:40] You know, because we don't have a whole lot of areas in the city

[58:44] where we can put single family homes on that.

[58:47] And if we put a big chunk of

[58:51] that opportunity away into rental units. I don't know if that will be beneficial for the city

[59:00] or not. Because the tax space is probably bigger from single family homes than from

[59:07] multi-family homes,

[59:11] right?

Nov 07, 2013 Planning Commission

Transcript