7.1 Zone Meyer AddCITY OF SALINA
~ '~ REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
· ~ 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SEC~ON: ORIGINA~NG DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
7
ITEM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~
NO. Roy Dudark ~
1 and la. BY: BY:
Item
Application #Z94-5, filed by Statcare, L.L.C., requesting a change
in zoning district classification from R-1 (Single-family
Residential) and R-3 (Multi-family Residential) to PC-1 (Planned
Restricted Business) on property legally described as Lot One (1),
Block Seven (7), Meyer Addition, Lot One (1), Block One (1),
Hancock Addition and the North 154.24 ft. of Lot Two (2), Block
Ten (10) in the Replat of Block One (1), Lots One (1) through
Eight (8), Dow Addition to the City of Salina, Kansas (aka 1200
East Republic).
~. Information
The owners of the Wedel, Barker & Burnett Clinic recently
purchased the Statcare Clinic and its landholdings. They have
filed this application for Planned C-1 zoning to allow
construction of a parking lot on Lot One (1), Block Seven (7), (a
triangular shaped lot on Republic) and future development on the
lot directly behind Statcare. Approval of this zoning change
would unify their holdings under one zoning classification of PC-1
(Planned Restricted Business).
The City's zoning regulations require that an application for
planned commercial zoning include a site development plan for
purposes of depicting the scale and character of the proposed
project. A plan for Lot One (1), Block Seven (7), has been
submitted for consideration. No site plan was submitted for the
area behind Statcare.
Zoninq History
The Statcare Clinic on Lot One (1), Block One (1), Hancock
Addition was approved as a Conditional Use in R-3 in 1978, and
i constructed in 1986. Lot One (1), Block Seven (7), in the Meyer
COMMISSION ACTION
MORON BY SECOND BY
THAT:
_ CITY OF SALINA
, REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/12/95 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING a DEVELOPME~'
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 2
BY: BY:
Addition has been zoned R-1 and has remained vacant since the
Meyer Addition was platted in the 1960's. The North 154.24 ft. of
Lot Two (2), has been zoned R-3 and has been vacant since the Dow
Addition was originally platted.
Across the street, the site of the Wedel, Barker & Burnett Clinic
was rezoned from PDD for townhomes to PC-1 (Planned Restricted
Business) in 1990. At the time this Planned Commercial District
was approved, the clinic successfully argued for a reduction in
the ~equired number of off-street parking spaces from the 46
calculated as the requirement by staff to 36 spaces which is the
number of spaces that were constructed in their parking lot. In
August of this year the City banned parking along the north side
of Republic between Manchester and Ohio due to parked cars lining
both sides of the street and making two way traffic passage
difficult.
Nature of Current Request
The plan submitted by the applicant calls for construction of a 14
space parking lot on Lot One (1), Block Seven (7). The existing
row of trees would be left intact. No development plans have been
proposed for the North 154.24 ft. of Lot Two (2). Commercial
development of that tract would be subject to future site plan
review and approval by the Planning Commission if rezoned to PC-1.
The parking lot plan shows landscape buffers in the front yard and
along the east side of the lot. A single 24 ft. access drive is
proposed on Republic.
The application states that approval of this request should help
reduce on street parking on Republic. Any development on this
site other than what is proposed on the approved site plan would
require the submission and approval of a new site plan.
Suitability of the Site for Development Under Existinq Zonina
This factor concerns whether there are reasons the subject
property has remained vacant as zoned and whether it is suitable
for development as currently zoned. Lot One (1), Block Seven (7),
CITY OF SALINA
~ REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/12/95 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 3
BY:BY:
Meyer Addition is a pie-shaped or triangular shaped lot that has
remained vacant for over 20 years. The irregular shape is caused
by the curve in Republic Street as it curves to the north east of
Ohio before straightening out east of Manchester. Certainly the
shape of the lot and the difficulty in creating a plan that meets
setback requirements have been a factor in this lot remaining
vacant as the rest of the addition developed. Also it is a bit of
an orphan lot, being the only residential lot west of Manchester.
:'~.~;~ Th~;.~pplicant's position is that this lot is not suitable for
'~'~':"~:~ deOelOPment as a single-family home site and that it will never be
ii developed as presently zoned. Staff believes it may be physically
.~ ...... possible to fit a dwelling on this lot but that it is not a
.'.' ~' desirable residential home site because of its position west of
~;. Manchester which serves as a transition line between office uses
along Ohio and single-family development to the east,
The North 154,24 ft, of Lot ~o (2) is a leftover landlocked tract
and could not be developed except in con~unction with Lot One (1)
on Republic or the Statcare site to provide it with frontage and
access to a public street,
Character of the ~eighborhood
This factor concerns whether the uses allowed under the requested
{.~' zoning would be compatible with the zoning and uses of nearby
~'i property. Both the northeast and southeast corners of Ohio and
Republic are developed with medical clinic uses. On the north
'~ side of Republic, the Mormon Church, the Manchester Manor
'i~' Townhomes and the Wedel, Wedel and Barker Clinic extend all the
'~' way east to Manchester. On the south side of Republic, Statcare,
the Johnson dental office and Hancock Chiropractic Clinic all
extend east to a depth of 227 ft. The remaining property east to
Manchester Road extended is a transition area between commercial
offices along Ohio and single-family development to the east.
Noise and lights from parking areas can spill over into the yards
of nearby homes. Screening, buffering and landscaped setbacks
would help eliminate any adverse effect on surrounding residential
properties. Construction on this lot would not push clinic
traffic east on Republic. The issues for the City Commission are
the extent to which removal of the existing residential zoning
restrictions would harm nearby property and where to draw the line
between residential and commercial zoning.
: CITY OF SALINA
- REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/12/95 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING a DEVELOPMENP
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 4
BY: BY:
Public Facilities and Services
The proposed expansion would not create any additional burden on
public utilities and no street widening would be needed as a
result of this proposal. A stop light is already in place at the
Ohio-Republic intersection. Additional traffic on Republic east
of Ohio is more likely attributable to new residential development
in Meyer, Dow and Eastgate Additions than to the clinic.
~' ' street'&ccess
....... Republic Street at this location is a collector street with two
!l:.~ traffic lanes. With 33 ft. of paving width it is narrower than
.'. the city standard for collectors which is 41 ft. Access is
restricted along Ohio but there is no restricted access along
.. ..... Republic except for the Engineering Department's driveway
separation requirements. The applicant's site plan shows a single
24 ft. in and out driveway serving the parking lot. staff thinks
this proposed width is adequate since the driveways on the north
are 20 ft. wide.
Some of the traffic and access related comments staff has received
from citizens in the area include concern about too many driveways
being located between Manchester and Ohio (there are 4 now), the
lack of a sidewalk or pedestrian route between Manchester and Ohio
to get to the Ohio sidewalk and concern about the tight curb
radius and narrow travel lanes at the Ohio-Republic intersection
which make right turns on to Republic difficult.
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
The comprehensive plan designates this area as low density and
high density residential. Rezoning to C-1 commercial would be
inconsistent with this designation and required a plan amendment
prior to any zoning change to PC-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The initial public hearing set for this application was October 4,
1994. At their October 4 meeting the Planning Commission tabled
this application for failure to provide a site plan. On October
18, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing and
considered the site plan submitted by the applicant for a proposed
parking lot on Lot 1, Block 7, Meyer Addition and also received
CITY OF SALINA
: REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/12/95 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPME~'
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 5
BY: BY:
comments from the applicant and neighboring property owners. At
the conclusion of the October 18 public hearing, the Planning
Commission voted to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation
for Lot 1, Block 7 from Low Density Residential to Office
Commercial. A motion to approve a zoning change to PC-1 and the
proposed parking lot plan for Lot 1, Block 7 failed by a 3-4 vote.
The Commission then voted to table the application to allow
revisions to be made to the parking lot plan.
.The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on November
:~ 15. Following additional discussion and questions, the Commission
approved a motion 9-0 to recommend approval of PC-1 zoning and a
'! i. Site development plan for Lot One (1), Block Seven (7), Meyer
. Addition only subject to the foll~owing conditions:
~. .~ 1) The applicant shall have the option of ~adding a
fourteenth space near the parking lot entrance.
2) The main entrance driveway shall be reduced to 24 ft.
in width.
3) A 4 ft. wide property line sidewalk shall be installed
by the applicant along the full length of their
property on the south side of Republic Ave.
The Planning Commission offered the following reasons in support
' of its recommendation:
1) Due to its size, shape and location, Lot One (1), Block
Seven (7), has been shown to be unsuitable as a single-
family residential building site as evidenced by the length
of time it has remained vacant as zoned.
2) The harmful effects of the removal of residential zoning
restrictions on Lot One (1), can be reduced by buffering,
landscape plantings and screening.
3) Existing public utilities are adequate to serve the proposed
use, and
4) The traffic resulting from the parking lot can be
accommodated by the existing street system and traffic
movement on Republic should improve as a result of reducing
or eliminating on-street parking.
CITY OF SALINA
· REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/12/95 4:00 P.M.
!'AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
!NO. AGENDA:
i PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
IITEM
iNO. Roy Dudark
~ Page 6
~ BY: BY:
~ 5) The character of the neighborhood would not be adversely
~ affected by the rezoning.
6) It would not create an isolated district in the area.
7) The property has adequate facilities to serve the public.
City Commission Action
:~ if '~t~e City Commission concurs with the recommendation, the
attached ordinance should be approved on first reading. The
protest deadline expired on November 29, 1994, and nothing was
~ii:ii~ filed. Second reading would be scheduled on December 19, 1994.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation, it may:
~.~.~ 1-).=overturn the Planning Commission and deny the request': provided
four (4) votes are in support of such action; or 2) return the
application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration citing
the basis for disapproval.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of 10/4, 10/18,
' ' '~11/15/94
· , Ordinance No. 94 - 9665
cc: Don Tasker
Darrell Ehrlich
Lynn Elder
Troy Eisenbraun
PUBLICATION DATE No Later Than September 8L!_9_94 APPLICATION NO. Z94-5
HEARING DATE October 4, 1994 DATE FILED September 2_. 1994
';' VICINITY MAP ATTACHED No FILING FEE 270~00
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED No RECEIPT NO.
(INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION ARE ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM)
"" APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
'..:' DISTRICT ZONING MAP (REZONING)
· ., 1. Applicant's Name: StatCare L.L.C.
2, Applicant's Address 1001 South Ohio Zip Code: 67401
'~ 3. Telephone (Business): (913) 827-6453 (Home): NA
:. 4. Owner's Name: SANE AS AEOVE
," 5. Owner's Address SA.H~ AS ABOVE Zip Code: SAt~
:":' 6. Legal description of property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary):
?': Lot(s). Lot 1 Block 7
:. In Block No.
· . L In Heyer Addition Subdivision
<'" Metes and bounds description if unplatted (a Surveyor's Certificate must be filed with this application and if approved
;~ will be required to be platted):
· ' N½ of Lot 2~ Block l0 tn the Replat of Block 1,
-' Lots 1 - 8 Dow Addition Lot 1, Block 1, Hancock Addition
':' 7. Approximate street address: 1001 South Ohj.o_
':', 8. Area of property (sq, ft. and/or acres): Less than 5 acres
': 9. Present zoning: ~R_T_i,_ R-~3~ _ Use: Vacant and Medical Clinic
10. Requested zoning: PC-1 Use: Commercial off-street ParktnK
· 11. Are there any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development? (Attach copy): NO
· 12. List reasons for this request. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
.. OF PARRING LOT TO SERVE M_EDICAL CLINIC. TO lv~I(E_~THE ZONING UIII~ORH ON AT.T. OIIR
· HOI~INGS.
13. Supply factual data showing the effect the request will have on present and future traffic flow, schools, utilities,
refuse collection, surrounding properties, crc: (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
" WILL HELP ALLEVIATE ON STREET PARKING ON REPUBLIC.
14. Will there be sufficient off-street parking provided for the requested use?
Explain: YES, I~F REQUESTED ZONING IS APPROVED.
15. List exhibits or plans submitted: SITE PLAN
PROPERTY OW~( ~) I, . O~ APPLICANT'S
SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE:
DATE: 8/30/94 DATE:
If the applicant is to be represented by legal counsel or an authorized agent, please complete the following so that
correspondence and communications pertaining to this applicajt~on may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE:
ADDRESS: ~
TELEPHONE (Business): q ! ? - ~ ,] ? - -~ -:~ ) ~- ~ ~ [, 43 ¢/I f.. AREA CODE:
VVhite - Planning Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant
(Rev. 8/84) 101
(PLEASE DO NOT DETACH)
Scale F= I0' / ~" /
OUANTITI£S
~ / ~ ~ . G' Reinforced Concrete ~av~me~' 5~0 S, r.
/ ~ '. , ~ 4" Stripping 29~ ~.f'.
~ / ' ~, ~ ~ S~n9 5no~ /flo.er;,~ C~a~le) ~ Eo.
,~ . ,,
_,.~.
THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY
~54.24' j~
7.fl·
Scale 1" = 60'
· ~..."'., ~.... ~.,.~
::'a'~...'~.'" '?'" .
~. ?:'~...~.'.. ~ ~.
'.....:' j: Employee...'.. ~ of ~ t
'.~' ~:: '~arking Area:" 'i ~ tots t~
..,.....(...:. ,...~
>..'. ?.. ~..,:L:
~.i. 'i. ..:.~ ... :.. ;.
154.24'
I00.00'
OHIO STREET
MONROE and BODWELL..~,o o.~ mo..~.. ,.~.
659 NOR11'I OHIO SUITE 26 BOX 2.187 SAUNA, KS 67402-2387
913-827-3708 FAX 913-827-1333
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
October 4, 1994 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hardman, McCoach, Duckers, Haworth, Allen
Blevins and Umphrey
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larson and Weathers
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew, and Barker.
The Hearing began at 4:00 p.m.
#1 The regular minutes of September 20, 1994, were approved
as presented.
#2 Application #Z94-5, filed by Statcare, L.L.C., requesting
a change in zoning district classification from R-1
(Single-Family Residential) and R-3 (Multi-Family
Residential) to PC-1 (Planned Restricted Business) on
property legally described as Lot One (1), Block Seven
' ' (7), Meyer Addition, Lot One (1), Block One (1), Hancock
Addition and the North 154.24 ft. of Lot Two (2), Block
Ten (10) in the Replat of Block One (1), Lots One (1)
through Eight (8), Dow Addition to the City of Saltna,
· Kansas, (aka 1100 Block of East Republic).
Mr. Dudark gave the staff report and stated that this is
' '~ really Just a recommendation from the staff to table t! ~s
application because of the lack of a site plan. The
owner/applicants are aware of that and are still working
on that. We did notify all the property owners within a
200' area that this would be continued for 2 weeks so
everyone is aware of that. We are getting a lot of
interest in this project and they need a little bit more
time to get their drawing completed including landscaping.
Mr. Hardman asked do you have a suggestion regarding the
length of time to table? It seems in the past, especially
when we tabled items and there wasn't a representative
here often times we get a little optimistic and we
reschedule it for the very next meeting and then they are
not ready and we have to table it again. Would it be more
appropriate to schedule it for two meetings away?
Mr. Dudark stated that he would like to suggest that we do
take it to the next meeting because that is the schedule
people have been told.
Mr. Hardman stated that is fine.
Mr. Dudark said I think they are aware of that and I do
think they will have the drawing. I know they have worked
on one version and now they have a second version. Dean
" do you know anything more about that?
" Mr. Andrew stated only that I have been in conversation
with the people who are responsible for designing the lot
and they are aware of what they need to do. They seemed
to be quite Interested in getting something done this fall
before the ground froze so we were under the impression
· ~ that they considered this an urgent matter but they are
not pursuing the site plan part of that with any urgency.
Mr. Dudark stated we will write them if you wish and let
them know what they need to have that completed so we can
have the hearing on the 18th of October. Your options on
the 18th would be another tabling or that the request be
denied for lack of responsiveness and they could reapply
~ .,and have another hearing scheduled.
MOTION: Mrs. Duckers moved to table Application 9Z94-5, to the
October 18 meeting.
Salina Planning Commission
October 4, 1994
Page 2
SECOND: Mr. Allen seconded the motion.
VOTE: Motion carried 6-0.
7. Umphrey entered the meeting after the above vote.
#3. ,lication #PDD94-2, filed by the Salina Board
ation (USD #305), requesting prelimihary
approval and a change in zoning :t
.cation from R (Single-family Residential) t-2
-family Residential to PDD (Planned
on the Gleniffer Hill Schools grounds, 3.6
acre of land located on Lots Twenty-one ( and
Twenty- (22) in Surveyor's Plat 8 (aka 1511 .
Mr. gave the staff report and stated is an
applicati¢ for both preliminary development pla approval
and from residential to planned ~elopment
district, is is to allow USD #305 to convex Gleniffer
Hill school to administrative offices for ~he school
district. I you are aware of where school's
located direc ~ to the north of Indian Park at the
east end of ~sum. You can see on that the
surrounding ig is predominately resi. and for
that reason we the school dis to file an
application for planned development istrict because
this did have of the same public of
the Jail project other projects we have handled
with the planned ,elopment )licatlon. The
board is proposing ko convert the to office'
space. What you is a driveway from Stapler
Avenue up to a rear lot already exists.
There is a proposed as area to the west of
the building and the sf area new asphalt or
paving that they have o put in to install
additional parking plan calls for moving
the offices of the staff from
the City-County building e remodeled space in the
former school building. I! they would move the
instructional media center data processing functions
from other locations into ~is converted space. The
school board also plans t~ their meetings in this
facility. As we noted, ti ~ submitted by the school
district's architect ~n additional 33 parking
spaces to be constructed side of the building
in the shaded area you on map. Also the project
would involve construct of [tion walls to convert
classrooms into office: of air conditioning,
conversion of childre s restrooms adult uses and they
are also planning the ~cafeteria area
into a multi-purpos~ room. n this building was
constructed, ~ were ~ as of right in
residential zones. Later when the or nance was changed
they became uses but is strictly an
office use and f that reason, it was to rezone
this property t be occupied for a use because
it has differe~ characteristics than a s. would. If
this request approved, the use and opment of the
site would subject to the site plan they have
filed with and also to what we suggest ~ld be the R
district re ~lations. So really the only ~nge to the
property ald be the added parking and :e of the
building. But the underlying zoning and Itrictions
would be same as it is now. In other .rds they
wouldn't able to abandon this building at a :er time
and it for other office space. It would limited
to thi~ use. This site is not allowable fo office
use u the existing zoning which is the for
this today. As far as the character ~ the
nei¢ it is mostly residential in addition t~the
area to the south. As you go to the north-north~st
Iron you do get into a mix of commercial uses ~nd
v land. We are going to see a continuation ~f
and use of this property for public purposes go
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
October 18, 1994 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allen, Hardman, Haworth, Duckers, Umphrey,
Weathers, and Larson.
MEMBERS ABSENT: McCoach and Blevins
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew, and Barker.
OTHERS: Peterson and O'Leary
The Hearing began at 4:00 p.m.
#1 The regular minutes of October 4, 1994, were approved as
presented.
%2 Application #Z94-5, filed by Statcare, L.L.C., requesting
a change in zoning district classification from R-1
(Single-family Residential) and R-3 (Multi-family
Residential) to PC-1 (planned Restricted Business) on
property legally described as Lot One (1), Block Seven
(7), Meyer Addition, Lot One (1), Block One (1), Hancock
Addition and the North 154.24 ft. of Lot Two (2), Block
Ten (10), in the Replat of Block One (1), Lots (1),
through Eight (8), Dow Addition to the City of Salina,
Kansas (aka 1100 Block of East Republic).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated this is an
application for zoning change at the southeast corner of
Republic and Ohio and then extending eastward. The area
that is shaded on your report is the extent of Statcare
holdings at that corner. Initially when we discussed this
with them one thing that was important to them was getting
their holdings unified under one zoning classification and
getting it considered all at one time. While it was a
good idea initially it kind of fell apart when they really
didn't have a plan for this large tract, Block One (1) in
the Dow Addition. So although their application includes
those three separate tracts, they did not submit a plan
for the largest tract there and we encouraged them to file
an application for Planned Commercial zoning, so that
tract fell out of consideration. Their actual request
with the plan before you today is for the triangular piece
which is Lot One (1), Block Seven (7) in the Meyer
Addition where they are proposing to build a parking lot
to serve the clinic which is on the north side of the
street. A little bit of the zoning history on this,
Statcare Clinic, which is on the south side of Republic
came first, it was approved as a Conditional Use in 1978.
At that time, Medical Clinics were allowed as a
Conditional Use in R-3. That was constructed in 1986 then
in 1990 the Wedel, Wedel, and Barker Clinic purchased the
property to the north designated as PC-1 on the map. They
rezoned that from the townhome development PDD to PC-1 to
allow that clinic to be constructed. At that time, we had
calculated the need for 46 off-street parking spaces for
the clinic and being a Planned Commercial Development this
board had the discretion to reduce that amount if they
provided evidence that it wasn't needed. That was later
reduced down to 36 spaces and that is what they built when
they constructed the clinic. Also, in August of this
· ~ year, the City went in and signed and marked the north
side of Republic between Manchester and Ohio as a no
parking zone, previously parking was allowed on both
sides. It is now banned on the north and that was in
response to cars being parked on both sides of Republic on
the street and making the transit out to Ohio difficult
when they were parked on both sides. Right now parking is
still allowed on the south side of the street. As far as
~ -, their current request, I think we have a drawing of the
plan that they submitted for a parking lot on Lot One (1).
The driveway they propose is on Republic and then they
have a plan that produced about 15 spaces with a single
· . Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
..' Page 2
driveway on to Republic. Their particular request is for
· PC-1 zoning which means they must submit a plan for that
for your approval. C-1 also allows a number of other
uses, medical clinics in and of themselves are allowed in
PC-1. One limitation that C-1 has is noted in your report
and that says that off-street parking and loading areas
associated with uses permitted in this district shall not
be permitted in any required front yard. And if you will
note on their plan we have the 25' setback line. That is
the required front yard and they are showing no spaces in
that area, so because of the C-1 requirements, they are
going to have to have a 25' front yard of green area
before they can start any paving. As we noted, any
development on this site other then what is before you
today, if they wanted to alter their plan they would have
· . to come back to you with another plan prior to
construction. One of the issues for you to consider is
the suitability of this site or this particular lot for
development under the existing zoning and this factor
concerns whether there are reasons that this property has
remained vacant while being zoned R-! and whether it is
suitable for development as an R-1 lot. As you can see,
' ' it is a pie shaped or triangular lot. It has remained
vacant for over 20 years. This irregular shape was caused
by the platting for the Meyer Addition where they swept
Republic north so they could develop housing on both sides
. of it so that it didn't line up with the Republic to the
west of Ohio. Rather then have Republic straddle that
property line or section line, they swept it up and this
was kind of a left over piece there. This is probabl_ the
only lot in the Meyer Addition that is not built on at
this time. We noted in the report that it is also an
orphan lot, we said it was west of Manchester, it is
probably more correct to say that it lines up with
Manchester, but a portion of it does run to the west of
Manchester. Our position in looking at that was that it
might physically be possible to fit a residential dwelling
on it but it wouldn't be a particularly desirable lot
because of the configuration, it's position in relation to
Manchester and also the fact that you have this piece of
ground behind it where development on that is still
unknown. It is presently zoned R-3 for multi-family
apartments· We also note in there that the large tract,
Lot Two (2) is really a left over landlocked tract and it
can't be developed without access either through the
Statcare side or this triangular lot to Republic because
without that it doesn't have the access or frontage which
is required in order for it to be developed. Another
factor for you to consider is the character of the
neighborhood. The zoning map shows you that you have R-3
primarily to the south, although those three lots on
Beloit have single-family homes. There are apartments
. ~ directly to the east here behind the lot on Bradshaw, you
have the clinic and then you have the townhomes and north
of a that a church. So you kind of have a mix of uses
along Ohio that then transition to residential east of
Manchester. We note that there are effects on residential
areas from parking lots. We also note that screening,
buffering and landscaped setbacks can help eliminate some
of those adverse affects and a parking lot in this lot
would not necessarily push commercial traffic farther east
on Republic, farther then it is. Basically this is a
· J decision for you on where to draw the line between the
commercial and mixed uses along Ohio and the residential
to the east in the Meyer and the Dow Additions. There are
no real issues that relate to public facilities and
· ' services because this is a parking lot. On street access,
Republic is classified as a collector street and it is two
lanes and has 33' of paving. Our standard if we were
building the street new for a collector would be 41' of
- ~., width. There is some congestion and tightness at the
intersection because we have squeezed three lanes, one for
turning and two for traveling at the intersection in a 33'
street. We noted in there, some of the traffic and
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
-"' Page 3
accidents comments we have received by phone and were
. included in your packet via letter where there was concern
that there were too many driveways now between Manchester
and Ohio. That there was a lack of a sidewalk or good
pedestrian route for school children and others to get
from Manchester to the sidewalk system on Ohio. There
also is concern about the tight curb radius at Ohio and
Republic and also the narrow travel lanes that make right
turns ·difficult because the lanes are a little narrower
than what you would normally see at an intersection. We
have noted that this is a really a transition area between
Commercial and Residential to the east on the
comprehensive plan. The policies that are in our plan are
" noted there. As far as the specific site plan, you will
note that they have a 25' yard area setback. You would
have a green space between the curb and the property line
and another 25' back. It diminishes the amount of the lot
that they can use for parking but it also creates more of
a buffer in the setback. They are proposing planting
ornamental trees out along the front, a 6' solid wood
fence on the east, also a 5' buffer which is required in
our landscape ordinance, a green space with bushes between
parking and the actual fence and the property line. They
are proposing to retain the existing tree line that is on
the south side of the property. We have noted as one of
the three alternatives you could approve the Planned C-1
for the entire request area which is the three lots, and
because they have provided no plan for the area behind the
existing Statcare building there, our recommendation,
would be to delete these two pieces from their requ~-t
because they lack a plan for that back lot. You could
recommend it Just for the parking lot area itself, in
other words a lesser area, you could chose to direct them
to modify their plan in some way or you could recommend
denial of the application. Our specific staff
recommendation would be that if you wish to approve this
request that you should first make a motion to amend the
comprehensive plan designation for this particular lot
from iow density residential which is shown on the plan
now to office commercial for the parking lot. If the
motion to amend the plan is passed then we would recommend
PC-1 zoning for the parking lot site, the triangular
piece, on the condition that the driveway that they have
shown as 30' be narrowed to 24', it really wouldn't affect
the ingress and the egress to that parking lot. The 30'
is pretty excessive width compared to the other driveways
in the area and secondly that the applicant agree to
lnstall a 4' property line sidewalk on either side of
Republic. Since they own both sides, they could choose
which side is more feasible in order to connect to the
Ohio sidewalk system. And our recommendation is based on
the fact that due to the size and shape and location of
this triangular lot it has been shown to be unsuitable for
single-family residential building as evidenced by the
length of time that it has remained vacant zoned R-l, the
harmful affects if any from the parking lot could be
reduced by the proposed buffering and landscaping,
existing public utilities are adequate and the traffic
resulting from this additional lot could be accommodated
on Republic without any public improvements. With that
either Roy or I will be available for questions. We also
have Engineering here as well.
Mr. Rardman asked if there were questions of staff?
Mr. Weathers asked could you cover again when they applled
6 years ago they asked for a variance, how is it that you
approved a fewer number of parking lots?
Mr. Dudark stated as Dean mentioned this is a plan that
was approved for the Wedel, Wedel, Barker Clinic. That is
'%he site plan that has the 36 parking spaces in it. At
the time, in 1990 when they came forward, the ordinance
required 46 spaces, but it was based on the number of
· Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
· ':. Page 4
doctors and staff and treatment rooms in the clinic. As
we determined in our review of the parking standards that
is a very difficult thing to apply and it doesn't allow
for the addition of doctors and staff. You get your
parking based on your current standing and then you add
staff and there is no knowledge about what the public need
is. So our current standard is based on the one (1) space
per 200 sq. ft. of floor area. The requirement then was
46, they said they only had 3 or 4 doctors, so many staff
and that their need was 36 spaces so that is what was
approved and so now they have added two additional doctors
and some additional staff which is kind of brought on more
patents and so forth so it has increased the parking need.
We have been by probably about 8 times on different days,
and have observed that there are vacant spaces in the lot
most usually 6 to 8 vacant spaces and there are that many
or a few more cars on the street. I presume that the
employees are parking on street and reserve the parking
spaces on the site for patients. If all the employees
that were parking on the street were to park on the site,
there wouldn't be any vacant spaces in the current lot, so
that is why they are trying to find a solution for
additional parking.
Mr. Weathers said to allow them to go from 46 down to 36
they didn't ask for a variance?
Mr. Dudark stated, they asked for a modification of the
off-street parking requirement under the planned
commercial section of the ordinance which gives '~he
Planning Commission the discretion to do that based on a
· finding of a lesser need than what the ordinance required.
Mr. Weathers there was not an indication that that was as
large as it would ever be?
Mr. Dudark said there was no indication that they would
provide additional parking in the future if that was shown
to be necessary or where it would be. I don't think they
anticipated having a parking problem. I think they may
not even have known they were going to be adding more
doctors to their practice. I don't know what they knew at
the time 4 years ago.
Mr. Weathers asked four?
Mr. Dudark said yes 1990 was when they built the building.
Mr. Hardman asked are there any additional questions for
staff?
Mr. Weathers asked has any thought by given to increasing
the number of parking spaces in their present parking lot?
Mr. Dudark stated yes, on the drawing on the screen, the
orange areas shown would be where you could, in our
opinion add some additional parking on the clinic site
.. without adversely affecting existing appearance and
landscaping of the parking lot. There are 6 spaces that
could be created there but you would have to remove some
existing curbing, pour some new curbing and then asphalt
in where the landscaping or grass is where each of those
· ~ parking spaces would be.
Mr. Weathers asked you have added six?
.. Mr. Dudark said yes, there was a drawing that was sent to
the staff and I believe the Planning Commission got it,
from an adjoining property owner which showed, I believe
15 or 16 spaces. That drawing is inaccurate. It doesn't
~ show the true location of the fencing. So you really
'' couldn't get that many parking spaces unless you took out
. all of the islands and all of the landscaping along
Republic.
'. Salina Planning Commission
'~ October 18, 1994
~ : Page 5
.~ Mr. Weathers asked has the applicant commented on the
· addition of the spaces In the existing parking lot?
Mr. Dudark said no they haven't.
Mr. Weathers asked could we ask them to?
Mr. Dudark said they are here today.
Mr. Hardman stated they will have an opportunity today do
Just that.
._ Mr. Dudark said that is one option, it produces 6 spaces
but not 15 which is what they are proposing across the
street.
Mr. Weathers asked and we don't know how the 15 is arrived
at this time?
Mr. Dudark said no we don't other then there are probably
8 to 10 cars in the street.
Mr. Hardman asked Mr. Dudark if staff had analyzed at all
the parking at the rear of Statcare to determine if there
was an expansion there that might be possible?
~ Mr. Dudark stated they do own Statcare although It ts a
separate clinic. The same ownership exists. There is a
rear parking lot that you could expand some and add some
': asphalt to it and get some additional parking spa,~s in
· this area, maybe another 6. Six (6) on site and 6 over
behind the building, you might get 12 by combining a
: couple different solutions.
Mr. Hardman asked if there were further questions of
staff.
Mr. Hardman stated hearing none would the applicant like
to comment on the application, step forward and state your
name and address for the record?
Darrell Erhlich, I am the manager for both Statcare and
the clinic across the street, Wedel, Barker and Burnett
are a family medical clinic or whatever you choose to call
it. We have experienced some unusual, and probably I
would also say, some unexpected growth since we built the
building in 1990. I think we moved in in January of 1991.
I can tell you that we had always planned on recruiting
two more physicians. I think that should bring some cheer
to the city of Saltna, because we certainly do need them.
What was unexpected, I guess, was what we needed to do
staff wise and we have added some services that are not
: necessarily related to physician services which has
created more employees in that building than what I ever
thought would be there which hence has constituted
somewhat of a parking problem. We have asked our
employees if they would park out in the street to, as Roy
suggested, save the parking slots for our patients. There
have been, I don't know when they have driven by there,
but there have been a lot of times that I have been there
that we had the 8 or 10 cars out in the street and also
- almost every parking stall is full in the clinic parking
· ~ lot. We certainly want to be good neighbors and we feel
that the proposed parking lot will not only get the cars
off the street but will be as aesthetically pleasing when
you are driving by as certainly what it was before we went
· in and spent 2 or 3 days with a couple of bulldozers and a
couple of people cleaning that area up and I am assuming
an accumulation of trash that has been accumulating for
quite some period of time. We would really like to see
~ -, the commission make the proposed change for the entire
~ piece of property so that we don't have turn around and
i. come back in here in the future and get that done at a
later date. As for not having a plan, actually we gave
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 6
you the best plan that we had and that is none. We really
don't have any plans for the portion of the property next
to the proposed parking lot. I guess we could say that we
could use the one that staff has drawn up, that looks
pretty good, but really we have no plans for that. So
unless someone has questions for me that is basically all
that I have. We would ask that you approve this, we want
to put the parking lot in to get the cars off the street
because we too recognize that there are a lot of children
that live in that area and I think cars out on the street
is probably the most dangerous situation that you could
have, so with that, unless you have questions is all that
I would have.
Mr. Hardman asked if there were any questions of the
applicant?
Mr. Weathers asked apparently, did I hear you correctly,
you said that you were planning on two additional
physicians when you originally got your permits for the
clinic?
Mr. Erhlich stated yes.
Mr. Weathers said but you had also said at the time that
you didn't need 46 parking spaces because you had no plans
to expand?
Mr. Erhlich stated when you look at 36 parking spots for
four physicians, you are looking at 9 per physicians and
that is also including your employees and I can honestly
tell you I thought that was going to be more then we could
ever fill up. I think maybe ~t is the same as building a
two garage and thinking you will never fill those two car
stalls and then pretty soon you need a third, but we
certainly had no intention of being above that 36 stall
limit.
Mr. Weathers said ok, let me get this straight. So you
thought that regardless of what the city said that 9 per
physician times four is all you would ever need?
Mr. Erhlich said we thought at the time 36 stalls was
going to be adequate for our needs in the future, yes.
Mr. Weathers asked how did you arrive at the 15 additional
spaces? Because that is what we can put in there?
Mr. Erhlich said basically yes, we think that, by the way
! am glad you asked that because there is another part to
that that I wanted the commission to know, that this also
is going to take care of some of the overflow from the
Statcare employees, we have somewhat of a problem there
also in not having enough stalls so we figure we have
eight at the very most 10 employees that we do not have a
spot for. And then that will give an additional five for
growth. To answer your question yes we wanted as many as
we could possibly get in that space, if we could get in 18
we would love to do that.
Mr. Hardman asked any additional questions of applicant?
Mr. Hardman then stated I have one. Previously there was
discussion of realigning the present parking lot, picking
up 6 spaces there and then an additional 6 spaces at the
rear of the Statcare facility.
Mr. Erhlich stated that was kind of a surprise to me
because at the time this parking lot was developed, it was
my impression that due to the drainage requirements and
~ -. whatever that this was the maximum number of stalls that
we could get on that particular lot. As I recall, and
then my memory is not very good any more, we asked the
city to draw that lot or to have our people draw that lot
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 7
and put the maximum number of stalls and as I recall this
was the maximum number that we could get in at that
particular point of time, with that particular scheme. In
fact, Roy correct me if I am wrong, ! thought there was a
variance as to proximity to Republic on the south side of
the street, I think you granted a varlance letting us put
the parking stalls closer to the street than what the
statute calls for.
Mr. Dudark stated that is correct, along there you stlll
have the 25' setback that in the C-1 ordinance prohibits
parking but because of the extensive landscaping design
and the fact that a lesser number of spaces were being put
in, they may have to use some of that 25' setback.
Mr. Hardman asked did staff analyze at the time the
possibility of putting in the required 46 spaces that was
suggested based upon the number of physicians that were
going to be occupying that facility?
Mr. Dudark stated we thought that our standard was a
little excessive based on the 3 per doctor and so forth
and they believed it was too, so 36 was arrlved at as a
satisfactory number that would accommodate the needs of
the building. The drainage issue deals with what was
approved for townhomes. Manchester Manor was supposed to
go all the way down to Republic so we had a trade off of
site coverage. What was originally approved for dwellings
and parking and now we have an office building so it was
kind of an equivalent run-off calculation. I don't think
we looked at whether they could get more parking spaces on
there. It met the drainage needs and it met the needs of
the clinic. We really didn't want to see the open space
and the landscaping compromised any more than was
necessary. Our suggestion of 6 spaces, ! don't think
would necessarily compromise the appearance that much but
now to go in and add the 6 spaces ls not as easy if you .
had done it originally. Probably would take some hand
work and so forth to do that, but it ls possible.
Mr. Erhllch stated I think I can say unequivocally that we
would certainly be opposed to that plan for a number of
reasons, one being financial and two being the disruption
that that would make of our particular patients for
probably a considerable amount of time. And the third
reason is it appears to me that the area that we had
proposed the parking lot to be is perfectly designed for
that and is going to serve not only the cllnic on the
north but also the clinic on the south and we would hope
that you would see that.
Mr. Haworth asked did you ever, since it was serving both
clinics did you ever consider the possibility of expanding
the parking lot that is to the east of the Statcare
building and farther to the east more into the larger lot
utilizing Just the one access and not adding an additional
access?
Mr. Erhlich stated that was discussed, we thought that
this proposal would be better for our employees and our
patients and also would, down the road, if we do something
in that vacant lot, probably extending our parking lot ls
going to have to be torn up and redone anyway and this
would allow us a parking lot that hopefully would be there
forever without having to tear it up and start over as all
of you know, putting in a parklng lot such as this is
quite costly.
Mr. Hardman stated it would appear to me that this same
thing could posslbly be true of the triangular shaped
~-. parking lot that if you develop the landlocked section
here that you would have to totally modify that parking
arrangement in order to make it work with whatever
problems arise.
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 8
Mr. Erhlich stated perhaps, but I would think that it
would not be over a 24 to 30 foot area for access into the
back lot. So you wouldn't be disturbing the other parking
spaces.
Mr. Hardman asked are there further questions?
Mr. Weathers said on this triangular lot it seems like you
are screening off this rectangular section. Screening it
off, whatever is in there you won't really have total
frontage on a street.
Mr. Hardman stated it would screened to the east.
Mr. Weathers said I am thinking about screening to the
north. You are screening whatever is built in the
rectangular section from the street, you won't have a full
frontal view.
Mr. Erhlich stated that is true.
Mr. Weathers stated which would be less desirable then
adding on to the parking lot behind Statcare.
Mr. Erhlich stated I suppose that could be your opinion.
I happen to not agree with it.
Mr. Weathers asked but what is the distance to add on to
the east from Statcare versus the triangular place is
there any measurable distance that employees would ha--e to
walk?
Mr. Erhlich stated oh it is several feet but it is not a
great distance.
Mr. Hardman stated hearing no further questions, there
maybe some later but we would like to open up this portion
of the hearing to comments from the public if you would
like to make a statement please step forward to the podium
and state your name and address please for the record.
Lynn Elder, 1201E. Republic, and I believe that you may
have gotten a letter that I wrote to the Planning
Department here at the City and I hope that you have had
time to review it. My lot is located on the corner of
Manchester and Republic, Lot Thirteen (13) of Block Six
(6), Meyer Addition, directly to the east of the current
Wedel and Barker clinic. I would dispute the staff report
that Lot One (1), Block Seven (7), lies west of
Manchester, I have struck a few north-south lines on this
lot plan so that you could see direction and proximity of
the proposed zoning change to my property which if you
drew a line directly through the middle of my lot, north-
south line, it catches the eastern most third of Lot One
(1), Block Seven (7), that they are proposing as a parking
lot. We do have the parking lot directly to the west but
my house faces more or less south east, it does kind of
face southeast to the curve of the street, but if I come
out my front door, I look directly to the south, the
parking lot would be there, so it a little bit misleading
to say that this is an orphan lot and that it lies west of
Manchester where everything is zoned commercial presently.
If you go to the line, Manchester does make it turn back
to the southeast as it approaches Republic, but if you go
back to what we are talking about as far as commercial
that is what you have. The area that is already Statcare,
it was there before we moved in. The townhomes were also
there but they are very attractive and if you have ever
driven by there you would agree that that has no
detrimental effect to your property value whatsoever.
~-, However, the clinic came in at about the same time when
all of these lots were in development and many of the lots
were undeveloped. In fact probably 95% of them in that
area were undeveloped and especially the ones in the
· .. Salina Planning Commission
'- October 18, 1994
~i' Page 9
affected area. I had Just moved into my home when they
applied for the zoning change and it was hard to find
anybody else to support any opposition because it had an
attractive architectural plan, four physicians, everything
about it and it was fine for a couple of years but nobody
· had any idea that they were going to add additional
~. physicians and I might be incorrect but I think you have 7
;. physicians currently?
Mr. Erhlich stated we have 7 in our group but that
building is designed for 4 and it can only hold 4.
Mr. Elder stated you have 7 practicing physicians in the
facility.
Mr. Erhlich said no.
Mr. Elder asked they don't practice there?
Mr. Erhlich said right, there are 4 physicians in that
building at any one given time and that is the absolute
maximum that the building will hold.
Mr. Elder stated at any rate, that is fine, thanks for
clearing it up but anyway at that time there wasn't much
opposition and really it wasn't a problem up until
· probably last winter. I don't know magically, suddenly we
had, I would dispute and I have a video tape to dispute
the figure of 8 to 10 cars, it can be anywhere from 8 to
· : 15, and they not only park along the south sid- of
· Republic, they also park on both sides of Manchester,
adjacent to my property and the situation has Just totally
~ gotten out of hand and I would also disagree with the fact
that the lot would be completely full all of the time.
That is not a fact at all. I live there. I don't Just
:~ drive by 2 or 3 times, I live there, I know the situation
and the lot is almost always at least half empty, while
there are 10 to 15 cars on the street. I have got a video
to support this and I didn't Just go out there and video
tape at the time when it was empty because there have been
times, probably twice that it would have been completely
full had all the cars on the street been in the lot.
Probably three or four times that I know of or that I have
taken a chance to count. But at any rate, that is one
thing that I would dispute in the staff report. And also
the wording of it "In its application, the applicant
states that approval of this request should help reduce
on-street parking on Republic." That word bothers me a
little bit. We would like to eliminate on street parking.
As far as comparing this clinic to the townhomes and a
church, a church as you know operates one day a week and
that is all you have to be concerned about, indeed there
is probably a great deal of traffic, but they all park in
the lot. And the townhomes, we have twenty units there
and at two cars per unit that is 40 cars. We have
anywhere from probably 200 cars per day of traffic
associated with this clinic, so there is a major
difference in trying 'to compare a clinic to a townhome
situation. I have a video here, I didn't know when it
would be most beneficial to see it, it is about 9 minutes
long, I can fast forward.
Mr. Hardman asked could you Just hit the high points for
us because I know there are some other people who would
like to make some comments.
-. Mr. Elder said yes I don't want to take up all your time,
I know that you are busy and have other issues. So at any
rate, I proposed a plan in my letter to you that shows the
ability to add 16 spaces in the existing lot if indeed
- ~-, they do need extra spaces. Now I don't have the time to
· -: ~ go over and lay this thing out, the plan that I sent you
showed the existing parking lot. Mr. Dudark says that it
was incorrect. Yes it might not be exact, but the concept
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 10
was, and I believe that sixteen spaces could easily be
added to the existing lot and it would be much more
desirable to us that live in the neighborhood to add the
existing spaces to the lot that they have then it would be
to add another lot and further surround our property with
parking lots. We have this lot. Move the trees, do
whatever is necessary. Also I might add that by adding
sixteen spaces to this lot you would add 2,500 sq. ft. of
pavement. I believe the lot across the street adds 7,500
sq. ft. of pavement. Maybe it does take away some of the
aesthetics of the lot now but to us it is more desirable
than having another lot across the street and it is a much
.. safer situation. As far as disrupting the patients, I
believe that you could cordon off sections of the lot'to
be cut and paved without completely disrupting their
.-. operation and as far as disruption, we have already had
our neighborhood disrupted with 10 to 15 cars on the
.. street for the last 9 to 12 months. We would like to find
a situation that would be most beneficial to everybody to
get. the cars off the street, to allow them some extra
parking and not further damage the value of our property
In that neighborhood.
At this time the video Mr. Elder brought with him was
shown as he narrated the high points of the video.
Mr. Elder then stated If there were any questions he would
be glad to answer them.
Mrs. Duckers asked Mr. Elder if he had included the house
_ plan in his letter?
Mr. Elder said yes I did.
Mrs. Duckers then asked and why?
Mr. Elder stated to demonstrate. They say that the lot is
unsuitable for R-1 development and I dispute that fact and
to say that it has been vacant for 20 plus years and I
suppose if we would have had this meeting a year ago, we
could have included at least 8 other lots in that same
area. It has remained vacant, but it has not remained
vacant that much longer then other lots in the area and it
has never been publicly marketed, it has never been listed
with a real estate agent, it has never been advertised for
sale etc.
Mr. Hardman then thanked Mr. Elder and asked if other
members of the public cared to comment on the application.
Troy Eisenbraun, 1204 E. Republic, I am the owner of the
lot right next to the proposed parking lot. I wanted to
comment on some of the same things that Lynn has about
standing vacant for 20 years or if you look at it 200
years or a 1,000 years. I think that we were the second
house in that area of the street, Lynn was the first, I
believe, and we have been there less then 5 years. Right
now there is currently a house under construction on Lot
Ten (10), I believe, so things have been going on possibly
in the last 5 years. That lot is kind of an odd shaped
one and I think what has killed the development, you know
in addition to the size is the way the specials were
· ~ assessed. The specials on that particular lot are I
understand over 2 times what the other lots were which
would obviously make that quite a bit less attractive. I
submitted a letter to Mr. Dudark, I don't know if that got
into the packet in time. One of the things I am concerned
about is the drainage situation, not so much for what the
parking lot has proposed but the area back behind. Of
· course last year was a very unusual year, but right now
there are several areas that are a water pond back there
· : ~ and any development that ever takes place back there is
.. going to be a commercial-type density. I don't see how
drainage is going to be handled unless a storm sewer
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 11
system is put in and then we are looking at ripping the
lot up that they just put in to get the storm sewer in and
then it is a question of going to Ohio and tying into the
system. Farther east along Republic there Is a storm
sewer system. I view this case from that standpoint, you
know this lot is being proposed in this configuration now,
but what are we really going to end up with if future
development is allowed back there. Again I kind of agree,
I am not able to get home at a wide variety of times
during the day, but in my mind there is a question, are
the additional parking spots really needed? Because the
times I do go home there are a lot of empty spots in the
existing parking lot. One of the comments was if any
modifications of the existing lot were done from a
financial standpoint that may be a negative. But what
about the amount of dirt that is going to have to be
hauled into that Lot One (1) plus all the new paving?
would think it would be cheaper to do some modifications
of the existing lot, than it would be to fully develop a
considerably sizeable area. It will detract from the
area. We much prefer a house next to us, and I agree with
Lynn I don't know if the lot has ever been publicly
marketed. I understand, but could not confirm with the
developer that built our house that he tried to purchase
Lot One (1) in a tax sale and I think most of the lots in
the subdivision were sold off but he elected not to
strictly on account of the specials. If you could work a
deal with the city to forgive some of those it was his
feeling that the amount of specials would detract from the
development of the lot. The last 2 or 3 years we have
seen a boom in the subdivisions in the city, houses are
going up, lot prices are going up, I don't know if that is
always going to be the case. If this thing would never
develop, I don't think a person can say that. Unless
there are any questions that is all I wanted to say.
Mr. Hardman said thank you very much and asked if there
were any other comments from members of the public.
Sheldon Walle, 1223 Fredrtch, I don't really live close to
that area. My greatest concern of course is Just the
safety of the kids going through that area to school back
and forth, there is a lot of foot traffic. My
recommendation quite frankly and I did submit a letter, I
would like to see consideration for developing a parking
area on the area Just immediately east of Statcare. I
think that basically is the point that should be made and
! think that is more suitable and I Just simply wanted to
make the point that safety is a consideration here that we
need to be looking at.
Mr. Hardman asked if there were any other comments from
the public.
Beth Eisenbraun, 1204 E. Republic, regarding the comment
made about extending the parking lot, there is already a
group of trees there that would act as a screen. It would
also screen the lot from everyone and then they could use
the same traffic route that they have got right now and
then maybe still put in the sidewalk or something.
Mr. Hardman asked for any further comments.
Shawna Carter, 1219 Martin, again we do not directly look
upon this proposed lot, aesthatically it would not affect
us because our property is to far away, but I for one was
very excited to have the stoplight go in at Republic and
Ohio. Being east of Ohio, Ohio is extremely hard to
access at peak times of day, 8=00 in the morning 3=30 in
the afternoon, 5=00 to 7=00 at night, so I am using that
~-, stoplight every time I leave my house and return to my
home and I am very concerned about the congestion. I
would like to have, in my letter I submitted, I would like
to also see the no parking signs extended back all the way
Saltna Planning Commission
.:.' October 18, 1994
-' Page 12
to the Manchester entrance there where the proposed
parking lot is to again eliminate the congestion, get th®
cars off the street and I am also in favor of the
extension of the Statcare parking lot.
Mr. Hardman asked for other comments from the public.
Hearing none we will close this portion of the public
meeting.
Mr. Erhlich asked if he could make one quick comment. I
· certainly do appreciate the concern of the residents and I
can assure you that I could also show a video of Just the
exact opposite of what you were shown and the parking lot
would be full. We have a situation where there are tlmes
when we have one doctor in the building and the other two
are out for surgery, delivering a baby, whatever and of
course the parking lot is going to be empty at that time.
· ~ And obviously we saw on camera that that ls true, but It
also is true that there is Just as many times that the
opposite is true. Mr. Walle had a good point. I also
feel the safety of the children definitely should be the
.. concern of everyone and a sidewalk would not be
objectionable to us. I also kind of question, I drove
down Republic today, there are a ton of cars parked from
: our property all the way out into the street and I would
~ think that would also be somewhat of a problem and maybe
the sidewalk should be extended down that street, I don't
know but that is another issue. We would stand on our
.: proposal, stand on the staff's recommendation and we would
like to see the parking lot approved as presented and
drawn.
Mr. Hardman stated we are bringing the hearing back to the
Commissioners for any further questions, or comments.
Mrs. Duckers asked isn't a sidewalk a requirement of this
planned commercial development?
Mr. Dudark stated not necessarily, but it is within your
authority to attach that as a condition of the development
because of the need to have pedestrian safety for
individuals.
Mr. Duckers asked would that be on both sides of the
entrance?
Mr. Dudark stated yes It is your discretion to attach
stipulations that are related to the impact of the use.
Mr. Haworth stated as a commission obviously we have a
problem on trying to decide you know on the safety of
children. Obviously that is one major lssue with the
sidewalks. Obviously we have houses that are there right
now with the understanding that there would be a house
., possibly built at that location. Some of this parking lot
would face into one of the houses of one of the speakers
.. and trying to decide if we do turn this down, what would
happen to this lot. If there would be some person within
the city that would want to build a suitable house at this
location. What is the design? We were furnished a plan
here from one of the people saying that a house can be
.~ built there, the reason that they don't want the parking
lot there is because they don't want it next to their
houses, which is obviously golng to be a negative for
somebody else building on that particular lot because
.. there would be parking lots both in front of them and
behind them so the reason that they don't want the parking
lot here is the exact reason that I feel like this lot has
not been developed. So it perplexes me as to what would
be the best plan for the area and what would be most
' ~. suitable to try to do
Mrs. Duckers stated this strikes me as the same situation
that we have at the corner of Belmont and Magnolia, that
Saltna Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
.: Page 13
funny shaped area in there. The residents have fought
against and fought against everything saying they want a
house in there and they have turned down offices and
everything and nothing has every been developed in that
piece of property. Isn't it a similar situation?
Mr. Dudark stated it is similar, odd shaped lot and all.
Mr. Umphrey asked for Mr. Dudark to refresh his memory on
the sidewalk situation on Republic west of Ohio.
Mr. Dudark stated I don't believe there are any.
Mr. Umphrey said there are none on either side of the
street?
Mr. Dudark stated I think that they are Just on the east
side of Ohio north and south.
Mr. Umphrey asked none on Republic?
Mr. Dudar~ said I don't think so.
Mr. Haworth asked did staff review commercial traffic, I
mean with this being employees there might not be a lot of
tn and out traffic here, but there is a possibility of a
reconftguration of the parking lot you know by using the
current Statcare entrance. Was that ever discussed that
strongly? I know you mentioned Just doing the buffer on
the east but was that ever discussed broadening it out ~nd
having more green area towards the eastern side of this
present lot?
Mr. Dudark stated our conversations have been with the
applicant's designers and I think that they really don't
have any plans for that vacant lot except that they are
reluctant to put any parking there because it may be
inappropriate for the future use. It may have to be
removed like the applicant said. In the absence of a plan
for that tract it is hard to come up with something that
would be adaptable for a future use. Sure you Could pave
some additional spaces back there, whether it would remain
and fit tn with a future building it is hard to tell. We
have Just Illustrated here how we believe that that vacant
lot behind, is either going to be used by an office
building or by a multi-family dwelling. I really don't
think single-family homes are going to be built back
there. Thus the Influence is being exerted on that
-. parcel, mainly office and parking lot use. So the
question then becomes, what do you do with the triangle,
the pie shaped piece? It is probably not going to be a
single-family dwelling, even if one were built there it ts
probably not going to be enhancing the value over the
years and so it may be more of a negative tn 5 or 10 years
down the road than something else that would be more
viable for the long term, so the question then becomes,
what do you do with the private piece of ground? Open
.- space, it is nice but it doesn't really produce any use so
it is going to be some kind of building, multi-family or
office building or a parking area. And the parking lot
that is proposed, probably has the most set back with no
parking in the front yard with the additional trees and
· , screening than probably any parking lot you could put on
the property. So as far as aesthetics, I think the design
is equal to the one across the street and it may be better
becaus~ It doesn't have any parking in the front yard.
Mr. Haworth asked was there a discussion with them about
less parking to the east, in other words a green area
there versus being only about 5' from the property line of
~ the house to the east?
Mr. Dudark stated the 5' buffer is the minimum required in
the landscaping regulations.
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 14
Mr. Haworth stated I know there is a 6' fence there, but
it is still only 5' away.
Mr. Dudark stated the area would contain 5 spaces and if
you were to stop the parking in this area, then you would
have ten spaces along the south side and would lose at
least five.
Mr. Haworth asked what was worked out with the Green
Lantern on 9th street, wasn't the fence held back in the
Green Lantern area and put next to the house or something?
.. Mr. Dudark stated, there was a larger buffer. The
standard that we have now, which is what is proposed is a
6' wood screening fence and then a 5' planted buffer
.... before the parking area starts.
Mr. Haworth stated but there was a wider buffer on that,
if I remember right because the trees were there.
Mr. Dudark stated that is right but there was a car wash
there too. I mean that is the difference. So you have to
' ' look at the east, I am not saying you couldn't do that.
Mr. Hardman stated one of my biggest concerns about this
application is if we approve it as they request it with
the parking in the triangular shaped lot, we are virtually
committing ourselves to commercial use in Lot Two (2),
which is going to bring commercial then into this
neighborhood as a further encroachment as to what is t~ere
already. And I have a lot more problem with that then I
do with putting this little lot in the corner, which
really don't have a major opposition to but I have a
concern that we are Just going to have a commitment then
in Lot Two (2) which is a large tract and we are going to
have another commercial development Just because it is
landlocked and we have lost our access then off of
Republic. Lot Two (2) is zoned R-3 and Lot One (1) is
zoned R-1. It would appear to me, although those are two
separate tracts, and may require replatting of the area,
but it would seem quite logical that that could be
developed as Multi-family housing in townhomes as an
excellent use, and they would be able to use then the Lot
· · One (1) and have access off of Republic in order to
develop Lot Two (2). I have a real problem with this if
that were ever to be developed as commercial. The multi-
family housing is and has been used historically as a
buffer between our commercial areas and we would lose that
opportunity in this area. It seems to me that we could
solve the problem to some degree by an expansion of the
lot on the existing Statcare facility since they have
common ownership because there is an area Just to the
north of the paved area now which I have looked at and
visited with Mr. Dudark about and it appears that
approximately 6 spaces could be acquired there and if more
then 6 are desired then it appears that 6 can be obtained
in the existing lot that the applicant has, albeit, there
would be some expense to that. That additional expense I
guess is somewhat tempered by the fact that at the time
that the lot was developed, the code established that 46
spots were requested and they requested from this
commission a special waiver on that number of spaces and
· ~ we did give them that and lowered it to 36. Those are my
major concerns and I would be interested in hearing
comments further along those lines.
Mr. Weathers said I would tend to agree, I think that I
touched on it earlier, that it seems like it would really
be best to leave the triangular lot open, that it would be
better to find a use for this rectangular spot back there.
By putting that parking lot in there it would definitely
be cutting off the large tract.
Mrs. Duckers what townhouses are back through there?
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 15
Mr. Dudark said that is multi-family, an OCCK grou~
dwelling.
Mr. Allen stated that he thought a couple of things in
favor of this situation are that you have got specials
there that probably, a residential developer would not be
happy with but could develop it. It is an odd shaped lot,
and of course if it is a parking lot it doesn't
necessarily prevent future expansion of some type of the
lot behind it as I would see it. It also would, at least
temporarily, I guess permanently, alleviate some of the
parking problem on that street. I know that the residents
there are concerned about the parking and the safety of
their children and I think that could be a portion of the
staff's recommendation to eliminate a lot of the concern
... that we have heard today as far as safety ts concerned.
Mr. Haworth stated another thing is that this affect the
applicant too and if we would turn down this specific
application obviously we should give some direction as to
what we would like to see done. On the other the hand,
the applicant doesn't have to do anything as it is right
now and that ts to keep the cars on the street and choose
not to build any parking lot. So we should give the
direction even if we would turn this down as to what
parking lot we'd like to see get built, what we would like
to be done. I think that would be a more positive note
than to just turn it down if it was turned down today
totally the applicant would say it ts turned down and
leave everything as is, because we would accept some r~rt
of parking lot arrangement or give a direction to come
back In a couple of weeks with a plan for a parking lot
then they could more possibly eliminate the parking on
both sides of the street plus have a sidewalk added which
! think would be a plus to all the residents in the area.
Mrs. Duckers said I thinking Just getting the cars off the
street would be safer. Even though they don't like the
parking lot, we could at least get the cars off the
street.
Mr. Dudark said even if they rode their bikes tn the
street it would next to the curb rather than out in the
· '. travel lane.
Mrs. Duckers asked how long can you table an application?
Mr. Dudark said you can table it to your next scheduled
meeting. It would either be two weeks or four weeks.
Mr. Hardman asked what would the purpose of tabling it be?
Mrs. Duckers said to allow a revision of the plans.
Mr. Haworth said if the Commission offers to do that
distance-wise, like I said, we are getting more entrances
farther up toward the residential area again I don't know
:. what size is the entrance here in the back of Statcare, is
that a pretty small entrance?
Mr. Dudark stated it is probably a 20' drive which is
standard for a low volume parking lot. That is what they
are on the north side.
Mr. Haworth stated I didn't know what the possibility of
widening that entrance and still retain some of the same
layout, you know, come back toward the pie shaped lot but
maybe not as far east and just having one entrance, ts
that a concern you know of staff at all of adding another
entrance was that ever thought through? And then the
~. other entrance would end up being the heavier traffic
, ' entrance as Eric said being a possible commercial or
townhome development back behind there.
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
.. Page 16
Mr. Dudark stated you have got to expect that something is
going to happen back here at some time or another and
either it has to use the driveway of the proposed parking
lot, you would take out three spaces and use that as a
driveway into this parking area here for a possible
building, either you do that, or block this off where you
don't come through there and take the other driveway and
move it so that it becomes an entrance into the rear
parcel and also that parking lot. I don't think a fourth
driveway is the answer here. It is either consolidating
these into one or using this one to access this parcel.
Mr. Haworth said that is what I was talking about more of
a consideration even right now, to have one with kids
going across there with the sidewalk safely built on that
side. The possibility in the future of two major accesses
and one minor one for staff.
Mr. Umphrey asked why do you feel that driveway should be
reduced from 30' to 24' knowing that as you Just said the
larger portion of the lot may be someday be used for some
sort of development.
Mr. Dudark stated a 30' driveway sometimes encourages two
cars to try to exit and one wanting to turn right and one
wanting to turn left so it creates a little more potential
for confusion than if you have a driveway that is not that
width. I think the question is this lot, the pie shaped
lot what can it be used for? Some sort of housing or some
kind of parking that is really about the only uses that it
can be put to. This parking with the parking plan could
be integrated with the future use of the rear parcel. It
i - wouldn't necessarily be incompatible with a parking lot to
the south of it.
Mr. Hardman stated a motion may be in order at this point
if anyone would be so bold.
Mr. Umphrey stated the applicant is asking for the entire
- tract to be rezoned, is that correct?
Mr. Dudark stated they were asking for all three pieces to
be rezoned to C-1. Our recommendation is for only the
". triangular piece for the parking lot itself be rezoned and
to leave the existing parcels alone until they have more
definite plans?
MOTION: Mrs. Duckers stated for the sake of getting something
started I would make a motion to move that the commission
approve planned C-1 zoning for a lesser area than
requested which is the pie shaped lot.
, ~ Mr. Hardman asked as a point of order that a motion be made to amend the Comprehensive Plan first.
" MOTION: Mrs. Duckers I would move that we would amend the
Comprehensive Plan Map to show a change on Lot One (1),
" Block Seven (7) Meyer Addition only from residential to
office commercial.
SECOND: Mr. Allen seconded the motion.
'~OTE: Motion carried 6-1.
MOTION: Mrs. Duckers then stated her previous motion to approve
PC-1 Zoning on Lot One (1) subject to the measurements of
· t the driveways being reduced in width and that the 4' wide
property line sidewalk be installed by the applicant upon
one side of Republic to provide for the safety of the
children and based on the staff recommendations and
~ -, incorporating the current provided site plan.
.. SECOND: Mr. Allen seconded the motion.
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 17
,.: VOTE: Motion was defeated 3-4.
Mr. Hardman said you may remember the statement about
providing some direction to the applicant if it would be
appropriate, I would wholly concur. Based upon those
comments did you have something you would like to add?
Mr. Haworth said that he would like to hear a little bit
more from Mr. Larson about what comments he possibly had.
I would definitely like to go in a different direction.
don't Just want to turn this thing down and say fine. I
"' would hope that they would come back again so that we can
approve something too. To eliminate a parking lot,
parking on the street, make a sidewalk, you know try to
get an even means with the people in the area and the
.-. applicant, that the applicant can economically live with.
Mr. Larson stated I think that the parking lot is too
extended to the east, it should be moved down farther,
closer to Statcare, maybe in that circle. By moving the
driveway further west you could still have it right on
that Junction and use more of that southwest corner and
stay away further than 5' from the east property line and
have a buffer zone so no one would have to look at a
parking lot, basically.
Mr. Haworth stated that he would concur with that.
Mr. Larson said and use the space in the commercial area
': and stay away from the residential and still put ~he
· sidewalks in and do away with the on street parking. It
seems to me that there is still more spaces in there that
they could use.
Mr. Dudark stated if the Commission wishes to do that the
applicant needs to be consulted as to whether or not they
are interested in pursuing that other alternative, if so,
then you could table it for a period of time so that they
could pursue it.
Mr. Hardman stated at this time we had a motion to approve
which has been denied so our options at this point are the
application could still be tabled.
Mr. Dudark said yes with the applicant's concurrence with
time to pursue another direction. You could postpone it,
for I would hope it would be four weeks, because I don't
think they are going to have a plan a week from today so
that we could get it out to you in time for the meeting
two weeks from today, so a four week delay would give them
more time to study the problem and determine the economic
feasibility of the solution.
Mr. Hardman asked is that within our proper parliamentary
procedures since we defeated the motion for approval at
this point?
Mr. Dudark stated you would need another motion to table
and you would need to seek the concurrence of the
applicant to see if they were interested in doing that.
Short of that your other option is to deny the request.
· ' Mr. Umphrey stated if we are going to consider tabling
this for a time, I think we still have to keep in mind
that the primary problem is the on street parking and the
hazards that that presents and with all of this discussion
': we haven't really come up with an alternative to the plans
submitted by the applicant. I think we need to try to
come up with a concrete idea to alleviate the on street
parking.
· -' - ~Mr. Hardman stated the on street parking is not an issue
that this commission would deal with and in addition, the
sidewalk situation, there is a method available to the
Salina Planning Commission
October 18, 1994
Page 18
residents that they could petition the Planning Department
and the City Commission for establishment of sidewalks and
that options is available to them regardless of the
outcome of this application. So that is really not an
issue for this commission to discuss, although it may be
pertinent, it Just is not germane to our authority.
Mr. Hardman asked the applicant if he would accept a
motion for further consideration with other options.
Mr. Erhlich stated he thought that would depend on what
the other options are. If the other options are to throw
out the plan as submitted, then probably the answer would
be no, but I can't necessarily speak for the members of
the group.
Mr. Hardman stated if I might suggest then If we table the
application that would at least give you an opportunity to
reconsider the application that you have made, which we
did not approve, but the application is yet to be denied
so if you can work with city staff and come up with an
alternative that might be more in line with what our
thinking is, then I would encourage you to do that.
Otherwise, if you would state flatly that you are not
interested then we might be inclined to make a motion to
deny the application in Its entirety.
Mr. Erhlich stated I suppose then that I would agree to
that, I feel like I really don't have any choice that I am
kind of backed up against the end of the building and ~-ou
guys are deciding for us.
Mr. Hardman stated that is our Job.
Mr. Erhlich said I agree with that but on the other hand I
believe someone made the comment we could elect to do
nothing and leave the situation as it is now and I don't'
think that is a good situation for anybody. But you have
made you decision and the answer to your question is yes I
will agree with that.
Mr. Hardman stated perhaps we could entertain a motion for
tabling with some direction for the applicant.
MOTION Mr. Haworth moved to table Application %Z94-5 with
direction to the applicant that they consider the
possibility of a larger buffer area to the west and the
possibility of shifting the fence more to the east and
have a larger green area for the existing house located
directly east of the parking lot and possibly shift the
entrance as shown farther to the west area to where they
could encroach on that one lot behind Stat Care and retain
the same amount of parking spaces and that the tabling be
until November 15, 1994.
SECOND= Mr. Larson seconded the motion.
VOTEI Motion carried 7-0.
At this time Mrs. Duckers excused herself the
meeting.
· ~3 Continuation of Application #PDD94-2 by the Salina
rd of Education (USD %305), preliminary
~t plan approval and a in zoning district
class~ from R (Single Residential and R-2
(Multi-family PDD (Planned Development
District) on the Schools grounds, a 3.6
acre tract of land 1¢ Twenty-one (21), and
Twenty-two (22), il 's aka 1511 Gypsum).
Mr. Andrew the staff report and this was
continued your last meeting on October 4,
is a by the Unified School District %305 to
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
November 15, 1994 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allen, Haworth, Blevins, McCoach, Hat(haan,
Duckers, Weathers, Umphrey and Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
DEPARTMENT STAFF= Dudark, Andrew, and Barker.
The Hearing began at 4=00 p.m.
The regular minutes of October 18, 1994, were approved as
presented.
92 Continuation of Application #Z94-5, filed by Statcare,
.' L.L.C., requesting a change in zoning district
-. classification from R-1 (Single-family Residential) and R-
3 (Multi-family Residential) to PC-1 (Planned Restricted
Business) on property legally described as Lot One (1),
· '- Block Seven (7), Meyer Addition, Lot One (1), Block One
(1), Hancock Addition and the North 154.24 ft. of Lot Two
'~' (2), Block Ten (10), in the Replat of Block One (1), Lots
~ One (1) through Eight (8), Dow Addition to the City of
~ Salina, Kansas (aka 1100 block of East Republic). Tabled
'. on October 18, 1994.
..'- Mr. Dudark gave the staff report and stated this is a
..' continuation of the application. I think everybody is
pretty familiar with this location at Republic and Ohio,
the Wedel, Wedel Clinic on the north and Statcare Clinic,
· vacant parcel in behind and the lot located here is the
request before you for the parking lot. There is a
revised plan. The original plan had five (5) parking
spaces that were facing east toward the home located on
Lot Two (2). There was about a 5' buffer proposed
earlier. What they have done is pull out the parking
spaces and shift them over which puts 2 and 1/2 spaces in
front of the front yard setback line, which under C-1, you
are supposed to have the parking completely behind the
front yard setback line. The earlier plan did that, but
by making this change, a portion of this now will still
have quite a large area of green space. On the other side
it is similar, there is some parking within the front yard
setback interspersed by the landscape islands. Of course
the reason to do that was to get a greater distance or
separation from the property line of the home to the east.
That would be 12' ft. to 24' ft. so you would have more of
a buffer and no cars directly facing the house. They also
are showing a 4' property line sidewalk on the entire
frontage of this lot and extending down to Ohio to connect
it in with the existing sidewalk. The driveway will
remain in the same location. If it was moved 10' west it
would be directly across from the other parking lot.
There is a 10' offset and it looks like they could move it
10' and add one more space here without running into the
wedge. I think that is the basics of the plan. You still
have .he same options that you had before. Of course
their request has been Planned Commercial for all three
lots, Statcare the one behind and the one before you
today. We are recommending only the approval of this lot
and leaving the existing properties zoned as they
currently are. They are not far enough along to have a
concrete plan for the remainder of their holdings, so that
would be looked at at a later date. You could table it,
you know if you wanted to direct them to make specific
changes, site changes or location changes of what is shown
or you could deny the application if you don't believe
that this is in the best interest of the neighborhood. We
are recommending approval of this redesign of this lot.
And we have four reasons listed that essentially deal with
the 'buffering, sidewalk, elimination of the parking
Salina Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 2
- . problem which is now on Republic street. Eight to ten
. ~ cars are parked on Republic on the south side as kind of
overflow parking for the Wedel, Wedel Clinic presently in
" use. I would be happy to answer questions at this time.
Mr. McCoach asked if there was an existing wooden fence on
the east side and if so how far does that extend?
Mr. Dudark said yes the homeowner has a fence that goes
Just about 1/2 way, more or less the rear part of the lot.
They are asking that this proposed fence not be
constructed because they don't want this 1 and 1/2 ft.
separation between the existing fence and the new fence,
but that instead more landscaping be installed.
Mr. McCoach stated he was wondering about the density of
the landscaping.
· Mr. Dudark stated if you don't have the complete fencing
~· then you need to have shrubbery or evergreen or hedge type
material.
Mr. McCoach said I was thinking about the transition
there, I didn't know if that looked like very much.
guess I didn't know the nature of their landscaping.
Mr. Dudark stated well they will have ornamental trees
along the property line and then the fence would be the
· screen, so if you were to delete the fence and Just use
· '~ what the existing fence has then you need to come back and
'-' do some more heavier plantings in there where you would
have lack of the fence.
Mr. Allen asked is the access to the parking lot drive in
and back out?
Mr. Dudark stated well some spaces may be that way but the
main movement will be pulling in and then backing around
and pulling out. The parking spaces are turned a little
bit so it is not ideal but we do believe it would work,
although there is some question about that. But I think
the farthest end, back up pull forward and then back up
again and then come back out head first. I think that is
possible.
Mr. Hardman asked even on the parking stalls that would be
on the southwest corner of that parking area especially
those first three spots, it appears to me that they are
wide open for those particular spaces for trying to back
out onto Republic because of the difficulty they would
have in backing up and turning so that they could head
out.
Mr. Dudark stated that is a possibility and of course if
you had a house here you would have maybe a couple of
parking spaces that would do that too. If there were more
cars backing into the street, I think that would be a big
concern, you know if you had a whole row that were backing
into the street Just as you might have downtown, you know
where fou nose in and back into the traffic way. That is
not a good idea. These are off the street and they are
limited to maybe the first two or three that would do
that, but this is not an ideal plan. I wish that ! could
tell you that it was, it is obviously about the best that
they can do and get the 15 parking spaces and still
provide that buffer separation between the lot and the
home.
Mr. Larson I note between the driveway and the backing up
space there is only 16' in between one parking on the
north and one on the south, is that right.
Mr. Dudark stated they have it labeled as 24'. It is tiny
but t think it is 24' between the ends of the parking
Sallna Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 3
· . stalls. Normally you see about 20'.
Mr. Larson said 24' versus 16t
.. Mr. Haworth stated you asked that the driveway size be
reduced to 24' ft. in width, you did make one comment
~' concerning whether this access is 10' ft. off from the
access across the street. Is that something the staff
looked into? Is there a danger in that really?
Mr. Dudark stated I don't think there is much. of a danger
in it because you are not going to have traffic going from
one parking lot to the other parking lot. You know like a
" street would go across. There won't be any interchange
between them.
Mrs. Duckers asked are all the existing trees that are
available, will they remain.
- - Mr. Dudark stated the line of trees is to remain, they
trimmed those up recently but those are to remain.
· '-~ Mr. Larson stated Roy one of your main reasons to go for
approving this thing was that that lot has not been
':' marketable with R-1 zoning. After a conversation with a
couple of builders, the ones that built on the east side
of this lot and the next one to it, told me that that lot
· '. hadn't been for sale residential in the last three or four
.. years. Had it been offered with that R-1 zoning It might
.. have sold, so it is really not an orphan lot. One of the
..' residents presented a layout of the lot and showed that a
residence could fit on the lot and the builder that built
the house next door to this lot said it could be built on
and would have had it been offered for sale.
Mr. Dudark stated I think there might be a couple of
reasons why that is the case. There are pretty heavy
specials on this lot and for a residential lot that is a
cost that you are inheriting as a part of the residential
· use. The other thing is the location and the shape of the
lot. It is not really in the neighborhood like the rest
of them which are east of Republic. Those are solidly tn
that neighborhood. This one is kind of an appendage and
so it is going to be influenced by the surrounding uses.
I don't really think, you know I am not a real estate
person, but I don't think that you will be able to get the
same quality of home or value of home as in that
neighborhood.
Mr. Larson said right I Just have a problem with putting
you know 3 or 4 months ago we were talking about putting
· an R-2 zoned lot next to an R-l, I was thinking the man to
the east side has a $90,000 to $95,000 home established
already and then here we were voting to change the zoning
of the thing to C-1 (Commercial) I Just have a problem
with a parking lot being stuffed right next to residential
" zoning.
Mr. Dudark stated you can see where Lot One is and
bas'~ally it is the extension of Manchester as it comes
down right into Lot One. So I would say that this would
be the residential line. It is hard to say whether it is
single-family or something else. And that is why zoning
is so difficult.
Mr. Larson asked can a person apply for a Conditional Use
for that lot?
Mr. Dudark asked on Lot One?
Mr. Larson said yes, use part of it as a Conditional Use
instead of rezoning the whole lot.
Mr.. Dudark stated yes I think you could, obviously you
Salina Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 4
would have to zone part of it for let's say office or
parking and then the other part for something else. You
don't have to take the whole lot to look at a plan for a
parking lot.
Mr. McCoach asked what is the provision for the access to
the lot, how do you get to Lot Two one day? The one to
the south. It appears to be frozen.
Mr. Dudark stated it is not touched by Republic Street so
it has no direct access to Republic Street. This entire
gray shaded area is owned by one entity. So any
development of that rear lot is going to have to be either
gained by an access easement over part of the other lot or
purchase of part of the other lot. Which would be
probably a better answer. And then a shared driveway or
something like that. Last time we had showed a sketch of
what may be possible in terms of the future.
Mr. McCoach said that is what I was wondering about is
possibilities of opening up access in the future.
Mr. Dudark said this shows the driveway on the original
plan with the five spaces facing the house. If that
becomes a shared driveway to the rear, you know maybe an
office buildlng with a parking lot around it.
Mr. McCoach said so it would possibly come right through
the parking lot if acceptable.
Mr. Dudark stated right, you would sell the rear lot and
then the west portion of the Lot One with that and have a
shared driveway arrangement. We don't know what the
future use is of that rear lot, the large one, but it is
zoned multi-family and an office would be a possibility
but it would have to be rezoned.
Mr. Hardman stated one of the things we discussed at our
previous meeting was the possibility of realigning parking
behind both medical clinics, was that option explored with
staff at all.
Mr. Dudark stated we met with the applicants and talked
about that, they didn't believe that there was any
potential there in terms of very many parking spaces by
adding on to the parking lot to the rear. So it really
wouldn't meet their needs so they really didn't see that
much viability in that as a solution.
Mr. Hardman stated it appears that possibly that 10 spaces
would be gained by the combination of the two.
Mr. Dudark stated I don't know, you would have to actually
draw a plan of it but conceivably you would add on a
little bit. This is an existing concrete lot. You could
add on a little bit and pick up a few spaces and then your
other part is on the Wedel Clinic to add more parking
spaces there, I think last time we said maybe 6 spaces
could be gained without really destroying the appearance
of th lot.
Mr. Larson asked if you came in with a Conditional Use for
part of Lot One, as you come in the driveway and make a
left-hand turn and pull into a space Just l~ke shown you
could get l0 spaces right across to the property l~ne
where that island is and it still would bring the driveway
into the back lot for the future and still have a buffer
zone up there where it is proposed you wouldn't go that
far.
Mr. Dudark asked are you saying that the parking would
Just be along the front?
Mr. Larson said no facing the east. Use that and Just
Salina Planning Commission
Noven~er 15, 1994
Page 5
drive into it and back into that driveway and come back
down.
Mr. Dudark stated that would probably be five or six
spaces maybe.
Mr. Larson stated 9 spaces and then the rest would be
green area, planted area and it would be trees with a
buffer zone between a commercial and a residential zone.
Mr. Weathers asked what the total required 'nun~er of
parking spaces is for both facilities together?
Mr. Dudark stated we haven't looked at the Statcare
facility itself. They do have two parking lots, one along
Ohio for clients and then the rear for the staff. We
believe that that is adequate, there is no evidence that
there is any parking problem on that property.
Mr. Weathers stated I believe the original application
said they would use the rear parking lot on Statcare.
Mr. Dudark stated this new lot being proposed ts for the
Wedel Clinic.
Mr. Weathers said I understand that when we talked
originally they said that any spillover from Statcare
could also use the new lot.
Mr. Dudark stated I don't recall that, maybe they did but
I don't recall that.
Mr. Weathers asked what is the total number required where
they are, required for the Wedel Clinic?
Mr. Dudark stated what we went over at the last meeting
was that they requested a reduction in the number of
required spaces from 46 to 36 and that was granted in
1990. Since then they have added staff'and increased the
number of employees thus the parking situation on the
Wedel Clinic property, so the parking now has overflowed
into the street. They are trying to come forward with a
plan to deal with that. That is what they are trying to
solve, should they have done it four years ago? Probably.
If they would have done it on their property, on the Wedel
Clinic you would not have the attractive parking lot we
have. There would have been a loss of alot of green space
and landscaping. So it was a compromise more or less.
Now they are trying to provide those parking spaces, in
this case fifteen (15) across the street.
Mr. Weathers stated you had so many positions per
physician and now you use parking per square feet?
Mr. Dudark stated our current standard is one space per
200 sq. ft. and that would be 40 parking spaces on the
existing Wedel Clinic if that ratio were applied
retroactively.
Mr. We ~thers asked 40 for both?
Mr. Dudark stated well the basement, the mammography
section, when they got the building permit to make that
space into useable space rather than storage, they
indicated that the clients would be there for another
service rather then another client coming in so they said
their parking problem wouldn't be aggravated by the
conversion of that space for another service during the
visit. So that was the explanation given, that they were
not adding to the parking need based on that conversion.
They did add staff overall but our information from them
at the time was that that mammography section was not the
reason that they need more parking.
Salina Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 6
Mr. Weathers asked the building itself, how many spaces?
Mr. Dudark stated there were 40 parking spaces required
and that is one per 200 sq. ft. which is 8,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Weathers stated they are now using the basement?
Mr. Dudark stated yes for the mammography department and I
can't tell you exactly how many square feet are in the
" basement. I can tell you that the building official was
told that service provided in the basement was'a service
that would not increase the number of clients or the
'' parking need because they would be receiving that service
~: rather than being referred to another location. Such as a
· "' hospital, to get that while they were there for another
:' exam.
Mr. Weathers stated what I don't know Is whether the
-.' number that they are going to end up with is going to meet
~. the City's requirements.
Mr. Dudark stated they are ! think about ten spaces short
right now. With the new plan they would have a surplus of
five (5) spaces based on the evidence that we have.
: Mr. Weathers asked what evidence do we have? How many do
: they need?
Mr. Dudark stated that there is an overflow of ten (10)
employees parking in the street, that is the most hard
evidence that we have. Now the standard would be forty
(40), they have thirty-six (36) so based on that
comparison they are four (4) spaces short.
Mr. Weathers stated forty (40) Just for the ground floor.
Mr. Dudark stated it is for the 8,000 sq. ft. Now they
are using part of the basement, well that is right, at the
tlme that they converted it it was based on treatment
rooms and the number of staff.
Mrs. Duckers asked if she could explain the procedure of a
mammogram? A women goes in and sees the doctor and that
is a step that she takes in the procedure of the total
examination. It does not mean that they are going to be
bringing in hundreds of women to do mammograms in the
basement.
Mr. Dudark stated that is explanation that we received
that it wouldn't increase the number of people in the
building.
Mrs. Duckers stated almost all of the clinics have their
own rather than sending you to a hospital.
Mr. Dudark stated and I admit that it is a tough call
about whether or not to allow them to convert a basement
area, which would trigger a parking solution as opposed to
an accessory use in the existing building itself.
Mr. Larson stated at our last meeting Bob Haworth and I
talked about again putting the parking lot entrance at the
west edge. Originally what we had in mind was some way to
get ten (10) spaces and that would still leave them access
to the parking lot.
Mr. Dudark stated we don't have a drawing of that but what
that shows is that you have a driveway that would go
perhaps on through to the rear and you would park on both
i sides and you would get ten (10) spaces. Now one adverse
aspect of that is that you are backing into a driveway
that is going to serve perhaps a bigger parking lot in the
,. rear. I see that concern.
Salina Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 7
Mr. Larson stated at a future date.
Mr. Dudark said right at a future date but conceivably
that could happen and then you would have this in and out
movement with the backing into it. Where as with this it
would be straight on through without backing into.
Mr. Blevins asked Mr. Larson how do you compare that idea
with this proposal in terms of the neighbors' concerns to
your view when you come off of Ohio. Do you have any
comment on how that appearance might change?
Mr. Larson stated I am looking at a residence with a
parking lot adjoining it. The first fifty to forty feet
of green area, maybe there is sixty feet, that is almost
sixty feet from the property line back to where the front
of the parking would be. We kind of know that this is a
mutual thing between the clinic and the realdent owners,
their needs. If I lived next door I wouldn't mind, I
would rather have it sixty to sixty-five feet away than
five to twelve feet from my bedroom window, somebody
parking their car. That is what I am getting at. It is a
buffer zone between an R-1 zone and a commercial zone.
With a commercial zone we are stuffing a parking lot in a
residential zone.
Mr. Hardman stated that the Commission was getting a blt
off track and asked that they limit the questions for
staff and hold discussion at the appropriate time. Are
there any further questions of staff at this time?
Mr. McCoach stated yes Just one qulck question. The two
lots to the east are under common control, is that right I
mean this one to the south, this parcel is also under
consideration?
Mr. Dudark stated all of the gray area is under one
entity.
Mr. McCoach stated I realize it is not part of this but no
consideration has been given to use any part of that other
lot for this parking question?
Mr. Dudark stated no it hasn't. It is zoned R-3 right now
so there would have to a be a zoning change.
Mr. McCoach said just on this small parcel?
Mr. Dudark stated it is zoned R-! so either one of them
would have to be changed to do that.
Mr. Blevins asked Mr. Dudark what staff's position was on
a 12' barrier, thinking about what that accomplishes and
what it may not be adequate for.
Mr. Dudark stated for a small parking lot and with the
stalls not facing the residence with a 12' buffer and then
the screening, I think that meets the need, you know,
parkinq lots for office buildings are generally a Monday
throu%~ Friday 8=00 to 5=00 or 8=00 to 6=00 use, cars
generally aren't there at night or on weekends so I don't
really see that much of a conflict with a small parking
lot particularly with the screening.
Mr. Blevins asked how does the staff feel about the visual
effect coming off of Ohio and seeing that curve, the nlce
green space there versus what the parking lot would do?
Mr. Dudark stated I think with no parking in the front
yard setback it goes a long ways. The redesign has a
llttle bit of the parking in the front yard setback.
There is a drawing that the adjacent property owner has
provided on the original plan that has four parking spaces
facing east with the same extra wide buffer without any
Saline Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
· Page 8
parking in the front yard setback.
Mr. Blevins asked how about the corner, to the South?
Mr. Dudark stated that is the paving line.
Mr. Blevins stated I'm Just concerned how that would work.
Mr. Dudark stated those would be the four spaces instead
of five.
Mr. Blevins asked how does it work with the first one?
Mr. Dudark stated that parking space would back out and
leave that way. So you lose one space there and so you
would lose a total of two spaces and end up with thirteen
instead of fifteen. But it does accomplish no perking in
the front yard.
Mr. Herdman asked if there were any further ~uestions of
staff, hearing none, would the applicant care to co~ent
on the application?
Mr. Darrel Ehrlich, Clinic Manager for Wedel, Barker and
Burnett, also for Statcare, and I live in Minneapolis.
Last month we presented the plan before you and we got the
message from the commission that If we could move the
buffer zones somewhat to the west then it might be a plan
that would be accepted and would make the residents and us
happy. Personally, I don't think this plan is quite as
feasible, but in the interest of trying to compromise we
decided to present the plan and would accept it pending
your approval. There is a parking problem and right now
we have a number of cars on the street and we have agreed
to put a sidewalk along the entire northern border, which
I think is about 180' to 190' long in the interest of the
safety for the neighborhood children. This parking lot,
Mr. Weathers had the question, this parking lot would be
used by both Wedel, Barker and Burnett employees and
Statcare employees, we probably are short one or two on a
given day at Statcare. It is not a consistent problem,
but it is an occasional problem. I can understand the
concern of the people that live next to the parking lot,
but on the other hand if this is not a feasible thing to
put in then to think that you could sell that property to
someone to build a house, to pay what it would cost to buy
the land and put a residence in there with a parking lot
directly across the street does not in my opinion make
much sense. And we would Just ask that it be approved for
the safety aspect and also to get our employees' cars off
of the street. Unless you have some questions, that is
all I would want to add.
Mr. Haworth stated I am back to again concerning this plan
that Roy just showed us, what is your feelings on this?
Mr. Ehrlich stated ! am seeing this for the first time so
other than the fact that the parking lot and the sidewalk
is going to be quite expensive, we are getting two or
three mess stalls I believe with this version, so I would
personally not like that. ! am not sure that I can see
that we have e 24' ft. buffer on quite a bit of that
property, and to extend that another 10' ft. to 15' ft. or
20' ft. even I can't see where that is going to change
what we have. We have a parking lot. I know I didn't
answer your questions directly but ! would prefer the
extra spaces.
Mr. Blevins asked are you still proposing the privacy
fence?
Mr. Ehrlich stated we are but I understand that the
neighbor to the east has indicated that if the parking lot
gets approved he would rather see some kind of shrubbery,
:... Sallna Planning Commission
.~ November 15, 1994
Page 9
and I don't think we have any problems with that.
Mr. Hardman asked if there were any more questions for the
applicant?
Mr. Weathers asked at this time you still don't have any
plans for the lot to the south?
' Mr. Ehrllch stated no we do not, but I think that sometime
.. in the future there will be commercial development back
· ': there, depending of course on the zoning.
.'.. Mr. Larson stated you were talking last time about future
growth and we would still be Just asking about that, if
there was room enough on the existing clinic lot, do you
care to express an obligation that you would take care of
the slx parking spaces on the existing lot prior to coming
.. back for additional parking?
· "~'. Mr. Ehrllch stated I really don't think so. The reason is
that parking lot, if anyone has ever tried to negotiate
that parking lot it is quite safe the way it is. And we
have got some nice greenery, the dividers look nice and I
.., think that to go in there and tr~ to squeeze six more cars
into that lot is a mistake and I think that we would be
opposed to that and would continue to use the on-street
parking if we were forced to do that.
Mr. Hardman asked for further questions? None being heard
if any members of the public would l~ke to comment, please
step forward and state your name and address if you would
please for the record.
.. Troy Eisenbraun, 1204 E. Republic, I am the neighbor to
the east. In looking at the revised plan and having
discussed it with my wife, I guess we find this one a
- little bit more objectionable than the first. I guess not
only from our standpoint as landowners here but as coming
into the neighborhood, we are real concerned with this
too. Because if you do face it off of Ohio you can see
that curve the way the street is laid out and I would
rather give up a little distance because that side of our
house is our garage and we do have a privacy fence in our
back yard. So from that standpoint, our major thoughts
are we would like to see R-3 (multi-family) housing or
. some other development or, we are not even opposed to
commercial development but if everything would all be
taken together and this parking lot issue addressed at
that time, because there is enough land that a very
' ' attractive complex could be put in there on the whole two
parcels. The Wedel Clinic have been very good neighbors
· they keep their lot clean we don't have any objections, I
-. think they started building their clinic Just as soon as
we started building our house and I am confident if they
.- come up with a plan to put something in total in there it
would be a nice facility. We are Just a little concerned
that we are going to end up with a slab of concrete or
asphalt over there and we don't know what the entire plan
~ is. That is about the only thing I have to say, I did
: se~ ~ a letter to each of you and I Just ask if there are
any questions on anything I put in my letter.
Lynn Elder, 1201 E. Republic, directly north across the
street from this proposed lot. ! did send a letter it was
pretty long, I don't intend to ramble on like I did last
time. If you read the letter and understand everything In
the letter then there is no reason for me to do anything
more then to say that I am opposed to any zoning change of
.. this lot without taking into consideration the lot behind
it. I am kind of in agreement with Troy on that fact.
... think we really need to know what the whole area is going
to be before, I Just don't think that pushing the parking
~' lot so far out and so close to the residential lots that
ar~ in there and it is the best idea. ! am certain that
Salina Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 10
.' if the whole area were developed even if it was going to
' be a C-1 development that they would, the parking would
probably be moved back farther around the main office or
whatever it might be but that is the problem, we Just
don't know what it is going to be and that is the main
problem that I have with it and the fact that it was R-1
when we purchased our lot and in addition to the lot that
Wade1 now occupies was R-3 when we purchased our lot and
.. we had no idea that we were going to be surrounded by
· . commercial development and I don't imagine anybody would
.-~ buy a lot in an R-1 with R-1 on one side and R-3 on the
other and then be happy about parking lots on two sides
.: and especially facing one of them later on, and I don't
... think any mention was made of the lot size requirements
· according to the zonlng ordinance. It is pretty specific
:' that the lot depth, the minimum lot depth Is one hundred
feet and no mention was made of this in the plan or the
staff report either one, this lot doesn't meet that
~, requirement.
Mr. Hardman asked Mr. Dudark to comment on that.
· "- Mr. Dudark stated yes as a planned C-1 application the
Planning Commission has the discretion of modifying the
':~ specific requirements that the zoning ordinance would
~ require with a straight C-1 zoning and the same thing
"' applies to that front yard parking, so if you had a lot
· '. and it was C-1 and you wanted to get a building permit,
.' you couldn't park in the front yard, but if you come to
· ~ the Planning Commission with a plan that shows some use
-' they have the discretion to approve that as they would to
approve a lot that doesn't have a one hundred foot lot
depth.
Mr. Elder stated I guess my question would be, how many
variances are going to be made to put this lot into this
parking lot?
Mr. Umphrey asked did you or Mr. Eisenbraun or some other
neighbor submit the alternate site plan proposal?
~ Mr. Elder stated that Mr. Eisenbraun submitted that, he
has the lot adjacent to the property and mine faces it and
like he said his garage is on that side so he in fact
would not have to see the parking lot. The only problem
wlth this plan is that it is pushed so far out, I think it
will dominate that area. That is probably the main
problem with this plan. He lives next door to it and I
agree with him also that shrubbery in lieu of the fence is
· more attractive as far as the screening goes.
. Mr. Umphrey stated so If I understand you correctly, you
-. find his plan less objectionable than this one?
Mr. Elder stated Just because I think he has a great deal
of input since he is the property adjacent and if he
thinks that plan is better than this one then I will go
along with him on that one. I myself would oppose either
one.
Mr. Hardman asked if there were additional comments from
the public? Hearing none we will bring it back to the
Commission and I would like to remind the Commission
members that any motion made in favor of the application
would need to take into account Policy #87-2 and in that
form. With that ! will open it up for discussion.
Mr. Haworth stated he would like Mr. Dudark's comments
again on the revised plan that was mailed to us.
. . Mr. Dudark stated this is a variation off of the original
plan the applicant presented that had the parking lot 5'
· - ft. from the property line. This pushes it back another
8' .ft. or so or maybe more and results in the loss of two
~. Salina Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 11
-. ~' (2) spaces so instead of fifteen (15) this has thirteen
' ' (13) spaces. But it doesn't have any in the front yard
and has the same buffer as the new plan. You could also
" get an extra parking space near the entrance so there
· '. would be a loss of maybe one (1) instead of two (2), that
: is another thing that could be changed. I think this is
probably better because it doesn't have the cars
projecting into the front yard and the visibility pulling
.. in down the street and would still have the same buffer
strip in that area. I really don't think you are going to
have a night time glare of car lights because ! don't
think it will be a parking area after dark. So that is
.: not a concern.
Mr. Blevins asked now this is the wider driveway?
Mr. Dudark stated well they had a 30' ft. driveway when
. they came in. The new one is 24' ft. and this one could
:. be 24' ft. as well, there is no need for the 30t ft.
Mr. Haworth asked would we need the applicant's
permission, again we are going several rounds here on
· -. discussion, but would the applicant have to reapply again
for a plan like this or can the Commission act on their
.... own to approve the plan?
Mr. Dudark stated you can act on your own if you were
specific enough in describing what you are approving.
'.'-: Mr. McCoach stated I need some clarification on my part,
".' was there an original variance granted as to the number of
spaces from 46 to 36?
.. Mr. Dudark stated yes across the street at Wedel and
Wedel.
-' Mr. McCoach stated I have a couple of comments that I
'~ would recommend to the applicant. The applicant I think
~ knows there is a parking problem and it is well that you
.. are grasping it and I would say also that the parking area
actually I think could be very attractive without a
-' problem and I think we have all seen some areas where
"- there is some green space and I don't think they are
particularly out of context with commercial in a
residential area. The one problem that ! would have is
that there is a large expanse of space that is controlled
by the same person and here we are treating one small
parcel and asking for encroachment out on the setback on
the plan that is being offered. I think that really puts
a high density type look to this type of parking and I
think in lieu of the amount of land that is there and the
facilities around it I think I see this as kind of taking
-. advantage of the situation a little bit. ! think that
that piece of land could be used for parking but probably
I think as submitted I could not support the application.
':'. MOTION: Mr. Umphrey moved that the zoning change being discussed
be approved using the site plan as submitted by the
; neighbor, Mr. Eisenbraun, and further amending that plan
to i irrow the driveway to 24' ft. and leaving the option
' open for the fourteenth parking space up to the owner.
Mr. Hardman stated that the motion needed to be made in
accordance with Policy #87-2 in your manual.
Mr, Umphrey stated I am not clear on what you want.
Mr. Hardman stated specifically you will need to make the
· motion with the format as indicated in Section Two taking
· into account all of those items as listed in Section One
on that page of your notebook.
Mr. Umphrey stated I will then withdraw my motion. I was
Just trying to simplify what we have all heard on a item
Saltna Planning Commission
November 15, 1994
Page 12
that has gone on for quite a while.
Mr. Hardman stated I appreciate your concern but we do
have a policy statement that has to be used in zoning
cases.
MOTION: Mr. Haworth moved to approve Application #Z94-5 based on
the site plan that was proposed by Mr. Eisenbraun with the
revisions of the layout of the plan with the option for a
fourteenth space which would be located close to the main
entrance, the main entrance driveway shall be reduced to
24' ft. in width and that a 4' ft. wide property line
sidewalk shall be installed by the applicant, and the
motion would be based on the four reasons provided by
staff and that the character of the neighborhood would not
be adversely affected by the rezoning and that it wouldn't
create any isolated district in the area and the property
has adequate facilities to serve the public.
Mr. Umphrey asked for point of order and asked if Mr.
Haworth was moving that we recommend to the City
Commission as stated in this manual? You didn't say that.
Mr. Haworth stated yes.
SECOND: Mr. Allen seconded the motion.
Mr. McCoach asked which one was being voted on.
Mr. Haworth clarified and stated that the extra stall has
to be close to the entrance area as opposed to having a
fourteenth stall put wherever.
Mr. Dudark suggested that the applicant be queried as to
whether or not they are in support of this motion?
Mr. Hardman then asked if the applicant would be in
support of the motion that is presently on the floor?
Mr. Ehrlich stated to make sure that I understand, where
is the fourteenth slot?
At this time Mr. Dudark pointed to the overhead and showed
the fourteenth space added to the now near the entrance.
Mr. Ehrlich then stated yes we would support this.
Mr. Weathers said excuse me but I missed part of the
motion, what was the word about isolation.
Mr. Haworth stated that we are not isolating the zoning,
it is not an isolated zoning district.
.. Mr. Hardman asked so you are saying it is not spot zoning?
Mr. Haworth stated correct.
Mr. Umphrey asked you did Include the sidewalk?
Mr. Haw rth stated yes.
VOTE: Motion carried 9-0.
of Application #PDD86-2B,
Manor, requesting approval amended
final plan for Phase the Salina
PDD to co (5) duplex units
(2601 E. Crawl 18, 1994.
Mr. Dudark state :ian Manor application was
tabled at meeting meeting. We have
been with representative applicant and
asked that it be tabled a the next
meeting so that they have time to complete )1ans.
(Published in The Salina Journal December , 1994)
ORDINANCE NUMBER 94-9665
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE
NUMBER 8526, THE SAME BEING CHAPTER 42 OF THE SALINA CODE, AND
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP THEREIN AND THEREBY ADOPTED AND
PRO¥1DING FOR THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY
AND PRESCRIBING THE PROPER USES THEREOF.
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent for the amendment of the Zoning
District Map, the rezoning of certain property therein, hereinafter described
has been timely complied with, SO NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Governing Body of the City of Salina,
Kansas:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DISTRICT "PC- 1". PLANNED
RESTRICTED BUSINESS DISTRICT. That the Zoning District Map of the City of
Salina, Kansas, duly adopted and published as a part of Ordinance Number
8526, the same being Chapter 42 of the Salina Code, be and it is hereby
amended so that the following described property be rezoned as follows, to-wit:
Lot One (1), Block Seven (7), Meyer Addition, Lot One
(1), Block One (1), Hancock Addition and the North 154.24
feet of Lot Two (2), Block Ten (10) in the Replat of Block
One (1), Lots One (1) through Eight (8), Dow Addition to
the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas (aka 1200 East
Republic).
shall become a part of District "PC-l". PLANNED RESTRICTED BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
Section 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. That the use of said
described property shall be subject to all the conditions, restrictions and
limitations as made and provided for in Ordinance Number 8526, the same being
Chapter 42 of the Salina Code with reference to the PLANNED RESTRICTED
BUSINESS DISTRICT. Development of the property shall be subject to the
plans on file with the City Planning Commission and/or City Clerk and the
following conditions, to-wit:
1. The applicant shall have the option of adding a
fourteenth space near the parking lot entrance.
2. The main entrance driveway shall be reduced to
twenty-four (24) feet in width.
3. A four (4) foot wide property line sidewalk shall be
installed by the applicant along the full length of
their property on the south side of Republic Avenue.
Section 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its adoption and publication once in the official city newspaper.
(SEAL) Introduced: December 12, 1994
ATTEST: Passed: December 19, 1994
Judy D. Long, City Clerk Joseph A. Warner, Mayor