City of Spring Hill, Kansas Minutes of City Council Regular Session A Regular Session of the City Council was held in the Spring Hill Civic Center, 401 N. Madison, Room 15, Spring Hill, Kansas on. The meeting convened at 7:04p.m. with Mayor Ellis presiding and Glenda Gerrity, City Clerk, recording. Councilmembers in attendance: Staff in attendance: Consultants in attendance: Chris Leaton Clint Gillis Floyd Koder Chad Eckert Tyler Vaughan City Administrator Jonathan Roberts Public Works Director Rory Hale Finance Director Melanie Landis arrived at 9:00p.m. Community Development Director Jim Hendershot Sgt. Lance Wipf Deputy City Clerk, Natalie Lazenby City Attorney Frank Jenkins City Engineer John Brann ROLL CALL The City Clerk called the roll of the Governing Body. With a quorum present, the meeting commenced. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The Mayor requested to delete Item 3. Settlement Agreement relating to Ridge Management v. City of Spring Hill and Spring Hill Golf Corporation. Motion by Leaton, seconded by Gillis, to approve the agenda as revised. Motion carried 5-0-0 CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Leaton, seconded by Gillis, to approve the items on the Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of Minutes: February 13, 2014 2. Appropriation Order 2014-02-27 Motion carried 5-0-0. 3. Consider motion to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Settlement Agreement relating to Ridge Management v. City of Spring Hill and Spring Hill Golf Corporation This item was deleted from the agenda. FORMAL COUNCIL ACTION 4. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-02: Rezoning Z-02-13, Request to Rezone C-2 to RP-4, including Preliminary Development Plan, SW Corner 226 th Street & Harrison Street, BlackHawk Development, LLC The Community Development Director presented Rezoning Application Z-02-13 with accompanying Preliminary Development Plan to rezone a 13.68 acre tract located at the southwest corner of 226 th and Franklin Street from C-2 (General Commercial) to RP-4 (Planned Multi-Family) for the construction of a 228 unit apartment complex. The Planning Commission held the required public hearing on February 6, 2014 and the 14-day protest period deadline was at 5:00pm, February 20, 2014. The City received 18 signed protest petitions from the residents who live within the notification Page 1 of 5
area, 47 protest petitions from residents who live outside of the notification area, and 5 letters of support. Protest Petition: The City Engineer reported that a valid protest petition was received which included 48.82% of properties within the protest boundary. Since a valid protest petition was received, a favorable vote of ¾ of all Governing Body member is required to approve the rezoning application. The City Attorney recommended to consider a motion that would formally accept the protest petition. Motion by Leaton, seconded by Gillis to accept the protest petition. Motion carried 5-0-0. The Community Development Director proceeded with giving a brief history of this site and explained that in 2003, the City denied a proposed 180 unit apartment complex. This plan was not in compliance with the 2003 Comprehensive Plan; however, the proposed project is in compliance with the City s current Comprehensive Plan, which shows this area as Mixed Use Commercial. The applicant has been unsuccessful marketing this property as commercial since 2003; therefore, staff believes that this property is not suitable for commercial uses. The Community Development Director continued the presentation that included the site layout, floor plans for the apartments and clubhouse, building elevations, and landscape plans. Traffic information was provided for the original study that was conducted in 2003. Staff required that the 2003 traffic study be updated to reflect the 228 apartment units. In summary, the City s Traffic Consultant, BHC Rhodes, concurred that the change in land use from office/commercial to apartments would decrease the anticipated impact to the surrounding street network. Additional traffic information was provided that clarified issues from the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation: In conclusion, staff recommended approval of rezoning application Z-02-13 and Preliminary Development Plan for BlackHawk Apartments. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Z-02-13 and accompanying Preliminary Development Plan. The Mayor explained that the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing for this rezoning application on February 6, 2014. The public hearing was closed on that date and according to the Attorney General opinion, there is only one public hearing. The Mayor added that tonight s meeting is not a public hearing; however, the Governing Body was interested in hearing comments from the public concerning this proposed rezoning application. The Mayor asked each individual Councilmember if they had any ex-parte communication with a third party concerning this rezoning application. The response of each individual Councilmember was No. The Mayor stated that he had a third party communication with Tobi Bitner, who lives within the notification area. They discussed her concerns about the project and protest petition. The Mayor also stated that this communication would not prevent him from rendering a fair and impartial decision. The Mayor asked each individual Councilmember if they had a conflict of interest concerning the proposed rezoning application. The response of each Councilmember was, No. The Mayor invited comments from the applicant. Mr. Grant Merritt, applicant for BlackHawk Development, stated that this project has been his vision since 1998. When he presented his original Master Plan, the City was not interested in multi-family housing; therefore, revised the plan to include commercial zoning with the thought of downzoning in the future. Mr. Merritt believes that this is a good project that will provide a housing mix that is currently not available in Spring Hill, access to the complex will be off of Harrison Street, and the plan meets all the criteria. Mr. Merritt introduced his team of professionals and invited his land planner, Peter Opperman, for additional comments. Mr. Opperman, Land Design, presented the landscape design and layout for the proposed site. Mr. Opperman noted that this site is not viable for commercial due to the site being too far away from an access point. Page 2 of 5
The Mayor opened the floor for public comments who oppose the zoning application. Tobi Bitner, 22680 S. Franklin Street, confirmed that she serves on the Spring Hill Planning Commission but is attending as a citizen who lives within the notification area of the proposed zoning. Ms. Bitner requested clarification about new evidence being presented this evening and if it would require the application to be remanded back to the Planning Commission for further review. The City Attorney stated that unless the information is significant, it would not need to be remanded back to the Planning Ms. Bitner stated that the applicant has not presented documentation indicating a hardship, the applicant agreed to commercial zoning in the original application in 2003, concerned about the increase in density from the 2003 application, concerned about the slope of the land, believes the storm water study was not provided to the Planning Commission, was concerned about the updated traffic study in lieu of a new traffic study. Ms. Bitner stated that this is a fantastic project, but is the wrong location. Michael Dellinger, 22673 Washington, lives two blocks from the proposed site. Mr. Dellinger compared this project to developments in Overland Park and Olathe and was concerned that Harrison Street would not be a good access point for the development. He is concerned about his property value and is opposed to this project. Lisa Rush, 21271 W. 227 th Street, lives within the notification area. Ms. Rush bought into the original plan which shows this area as commercial uses, concerned about additional traffic, is not concerned about the highway noise, concerned about property values and increase in crime. Ms. Rush requested that the Governing Body oppose this development. The Mayor opened the floor for public comments who support the zoning application. Aletha Lawrence, 22573 S. Franklin, has lived nearby the proposed project since 2010. Ms. Lawrence is a former planning director and believes this residential project is a logical infill development that is more consistent than commercial, many commercial structures in Spring Hill are sitting empty which is not good for the community, opposes commercial use on this property, the apartment buildings will serve as a barrier from the noise of the pool, pleased with the amount of landscaping proposed around the edge of the property facing all the residential areas, having lived in a rental unit owned by BlackHawk - Mr. Merritt is the most conscientious involved landlord she has ever known, Mr. Merritt informed her that he intended to retain ownership of the property in question and will be heavily involved in the construction and management of the project. Ms. Lawrence supports the approval of the project and has been given the authority for support of the project on behalf of her fiancé Allen Moore and her neighbor across the street, the DeWendt s. The Mayor requested a rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Merritt responded to the hardship he has incurred trying to market this property as commercial with no success and paying the large amount of taxes that includes a benefit district, the stormwater study was completed and reviewed and approved by engineers, the traffic study has been provided by his engineer and has been reviewed by the City and County Engineers and the traffic impact for multi-family is negligible vs commercial development. Mr.Opperman quoted from a Harvard University study that states single-family residents generate more trips per day than apartments and apartments do not lower the property value. Mr. Merritt believes this is a good plan, met the criteria and regulations, will benefit the City, community and businesses, and requested favorable consideration. The Mayor closed the floor to public comments. The following statements were made for clarification to the Governing Body: Mr. Merritt confirmed that this development will require a full-time staff for leasing and maintenance and BlackHawk Development will remain the owner of the development. Page 3 of 5
Mr. Hendershot confirmed that a storm water study was prepared by the applicant s engineer, Allenbrand-Drews, and reviewed by Olsson Associates. The storm water will flow to the southwest corner of the property into a detention basin. The study is in compliance with the Best Management Practices. Mr. Tom Fulton, Olsson Associates, confirmed that traffic counts were taken on Tuesday, December 3, 2013 which fall within the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Mr. Hendershot stated that phasing is allowed and the applicant has mentioned the possibility for phasing in this project. Mr. Hendershot confirmed that the City follows the International Property Maintenance Code Mr. Jeff Shinkle, BCS Design Architect, stated that the stormshelter will be located under the clubhouse which is a Federal Emergency Management Agency requirement. Mr. Merritt s best guess to complete the construction for this development is 18-20 months minimum. Mr. Gillis stated that there is already an apartment complex next to a residential area in Spring Hill. Mr. Opperman explained the 48% open space which includes sidewalks that will connect to other public sidewalks. Mr. Leaton stated that he has served on the City Council for numerous years and has seen different rezoning applications throughout his tenure. He added that he listened and respected the comments made this evening and took that into consideration, but at the same time based on his experience, his professional background of civil engineering, he stated that this is a good fit in that area. Based on that, he made the following motion to adopt the ordinance to approve the rezoning. Motion by Leaton, seconded by Gillis to approve Ordinance No. 2014-02, subject to approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be prepared by city staff and submitted to the Governing Body at its regular meeting on the March 27, 2014. Motion passed by a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Governing Body by roll call: Gillis-Yea, Koder-Yea, Vaughan-Yea, Leaton-Yea, Eckert- Nay, Ellis-Yea (5-1 (Eckert)-0). [Explanatory Note: Approval of Preliminary Development Plan. Section One of the Ordinance provides that both the rezoning and accompanying preliminary development plan were approved and adopted by the Governing Body]. At 9:00p.m., the Mayor declared a 15-minutes recess. At 9:15p.m., the meeting reconvened with everyone present. 5. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-03: Conditional Use Permit CU-01-14, Off-Premise Billboard Sign, 169Hwy & 191 st Street, Ad Trend The Community Development Director presented the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) renewal application for an Off-Premise Billboard sign located approximately 1,100 north of 191 st on the east side of US 169Hwy. Staff found the sign to be in compliance with applicable codes including the zoning code and comprehensive plan. On February 6, 2014 the Planning Commission held the required public hearing and received no comments from the public. Staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the CUP with the following conditions: 1. The sign being kept in good repair, and 2. Lighting to be shielded to prevent glare to adjoining properties and US169 Highway; and 3. The applicant, Ad Trend, contact city staff in the event of sale of the sign structure, and 4. The CUP shall become null and void if the sign is vacated or removed for a period of six months 5. Permit approval subject to annual review by staff with a report forwarded to the Planning Motion by Leaton, seconded by Gillis, to adopt Ordinance 2014-03 approving Conditional Use Permit CU-01-14 with the following conditions: Page 4 of 5
1. The sign being kept in good repair, and 2. Lighting to be shielded to prevent glare to adjoining properties and US169 Highway; and 3. The applicant, Ad Trend, contact city staff in the event of sale of the sign structure, and 4. The CUP shall become null and void if the sign is vacated or removed for a period of six months 5. Permit approval subject to annual review by staff with a report forwarded to the Planning Motion passed by roll call: Koder-Yea, Vaughan-Yea, Leaton-Yea, Eckert-Yea, Gillis-Yea, Ellis-Yea (6-0- 0). 6. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-04: Conditional Use Permit CU-02-14, Volumetric Concrete Facility, 20790 Woodland, Randall J. Miller The Community Development Director presented the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a volumetric concrete facility to be located at 20790 Woodland Road. This type of facility is an allowed use in an industrial zoned district with an approved CUP. The Planning Commission held the required public hearing on this CUP on February 6, 2014 and received no public comment. Staff recommended approval and the Planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the CUP with the following conditions: 1. Approved concrete approach and driveway must be installed from Woodland Road within six months, (August 2014), and 2. The applicant contact city staff in the event of sale of the property, and 3. The CUP shall become null and void if the use is vacated or removed for a period of six months 4. Permit approval subject to annual review by staff with a report forwarded to the Planning Motion by Leaton, seconded by Gillis, to adopt Ordinance No. 2014-04, approving conditional use permit CU-02-14 subject to the following conditions. 1. Approved concrete approach and driveway must be installed from Woodland Road within six months, (August 2014), and 2. The applicant contact city staff in the event of sale of the property, and 3. The CUP shall become null and void if the use is vacated or removed for a period of six months 4. Permit approval subject to annual review by staff with a report forwarded to the Planning Motion passed by roll call: Vaughan-Yea, Leaton-Yea, Eckert-Yea, Gillis-Yea, Koder-Yea, Ellis-Yea (6-0- 0). The Community Development Director inadvertently omitted one item from his presentation and stated that the long range plans call for the construction of a building on the west side of the property as identified on the site drawing. The Governing Body had no objection to the building. The City Attorney advised that a revised motion was not necessary for the inclusion of the future building. ADJOURN Motion by Leaton, seconded by Gillis, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:50p.m. Approved by the Governing Body on March 13, 2014. Page 5 of 5