7.2 Rezone Weavers Addition CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMI SS ION ACTION DATE TIME
3/15/93 q:OOP.M.
AGENDA SECTION: Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
ND. 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~ AGENDA:
ITEM Roy Dudark /~ ~
ND. 2
BY: BY:
Item
Application #PDD93-2, filed by Saline County, requesting
preliminary development plan approval and a change in zoning
district classification from R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) to
PDD / R-3 (Planned Development District) to allow construction of
an expanded law enforcement center and new county jail facility
on property legally described as Lots 18 - 37 in Bishop's 3rd
Addition, vacated llth Street and Lots i - 6 on Park Street and 1
- 6 on Elm Street in Weaver's Addition to the City of Salina,
Saline County, Kansas (aka 501 619 W. Elm Street & 500 - 624 Park
Street).
Information
Saline County is proposing to construct a new jail facility
directly to the west of its overcrowded and outdated existing
jail facility. The existing jail is located in the south end of
the Law Enforcement Center at 251 - 255 N. 10th which also houses
the Saline County Sheriff's office and the Salina Police
Department. The existing jail and sheriff's office occupy 13,255
sq. ft. in the Law Enforcement Center. The current jail has an
authorized capacity of 62 beds.
The existing R-3 zoning on the block bordered by Elm, 11th, Park
and 12th does not allow public facilities such as a jail as a
permitted use but public facility uses are permissible
conditional uses in R-3 upon review and approval by the Planning
Commission. The PDD application filed by the County provides the
Planning Commission and City Commission with the opportunity to
review the use, the proposed location, the architectural
appearance of the proposed structure and proposed landscaping and
buffering on the subject site.
COIV~IlSSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
3/15/93 4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENt?AGENDA:
ITEM Roy Dudark
NO.
:BY: BY:
Page 2
The County is proposing to construct a 53,626 sq. ft. addition to
the west (rear) of the Law Enforcement Center to house a new 175
bed jail. The existing jail space would be remodeled and
converted to other uses. The plan presented by the County and
its architect would require the demolition or relocation of
twenty (20) dwellings on the block west of llth Street. It would
also necessitate the closing (vacating) of llth Street and the
alley between Park and Elm Streets and the relocation of certain
above and below ground utilities. The vacation of llth Street
and the public alley would require a replat, combined replat /
final PDD or a petition and separate approval action by the City
Commission. The County has elected to do a replat.
The jail building itself would be two (2) stories in height and
have a pitched roof. The County's architect has also identified
a 10,000 sq. ft. area in the SW corner of the site as an area for
possible future expansion. The existing house located at 248 N.
12th and shown on the site plan will be retained for a short time
(2 - 3 years) for use as an Attendant Care Facility for 2 - 4
juveniles until such time as the County has a new or renovated
juvenile detention facility.
After extensive study, it was determined that the most feasible
and cost effective solution to the jail overcrowding problem, was
an addition to the existing Law Enforcement Center. Due to the
configuration and layout of the Law Enforcement Center, adding on
to the west was determined to be the most suitable alternative.
From a logistical and construction standpoint, the block to the
west of the Law Enforcement Center is suitable for development as
a jail site. This is especially true since it would be staffed
by Sheriff's department employees and is located adjacent to the
Salina Police Department.
CON~ISSION ACTION
MOTION BY _, SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
3/15/93 4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~ AGENDA:
ITEM Roy Dudark
NO.
,BY: BY:
Page 3
This project would convert an entire residential block from
housing to a governmental use and would be surrounded by
residences on 3 sides. It can be argued, however, that the
proposed jail site would be a logical extension of the existing
City-County governmental complex on both sides of 9th Street
between Ash and Elm. It should also be noted that the existing
Law Enforcement Center is surrounded on 3 sides by residential
housing.
Utilities
Water Service - The proposed jail site is served by a network of
4" and 6" water mains. Plans call for water service to enter the
jail building from an existing 6" water main in Elm Street. The
Fire Department had expressed some concern about whether the
existing water distribution network is capable of supplying the
1,500 g.p.m, flow rate required by the Fire Code for this type of
occupancy. The City's Water Utility has replaced a 4" line with
a 6" line and upgraded the fire hydrant at llth and Elm. City
crews conducted tests to determine g.p.m, flow rates on both
existing and upgraded hydrants in the area. The results
indicated that the existing water mains and hydrants are adequate
to provide the needed fire protection.
Storm Drainage - There is an 18" storm sewer located under llth
Street. Since the County's plans call for vacating and building
over llth Street, this storm sewer will either have to be
relocated or encased in a steel sleeve. The County has chosen to
relocate the existing storm sewer to the east away from the
proposed basement, encase the line under the building and
dedicate an easement to the City within the vacated llth Street
right-of-way.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
3/15/93 q:OOP.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGI NATI NG DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~AGENDA:
ITEM Roy Dudark
NO.
;BY: BY:
Page 4
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
The newly adopted Comprehensive Plan shows the subject site as
public or quasi-public use. This land use designation was made
in anticipation of the block bounded by Elm, llth, Park and 12th
Streets being selected as the most feasible location for jail
expansion or new jail facility.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the following policies and
guidelines with regard to municipal facilities:
* Additional land to the west of the existing law
enforcement center on Elm Street should be considered
for jail expansion. A portion of the block lying west
of Eleventh Street between Park and Elm Streets would
be required to meet anticipated space needs. That
portion of the Eleventh Street right-of-way between
Park and Elm Streets would be vacated.
* In addition, Park Street between Ninth and Tenth
Streets could be vacated to provide additional parking
for public uses in the area. However, this would
require the acquisition of some privately-owned land.
Parking - The County's plan shows a parking area of 63 spaces.
The proposed parking plan appears to meet national guidelines for
jail parking which require one (1) parking space per jail
employee and one (1) space per 25 inmates. The County has not
indicated to staff what the staffing level of the jail would be,
but with 175 beds, 7 spaces would be required for visitors and
the plan shows 22 spaces. One (1) parking space for every 300
sq. ft. of office space would be required for the Sheriff's
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
3/15/93 4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN'PAGENDA:
ITEM Roy Dudark
NO.
BY: BY:
Page 5
offices on lOth St. and the plan shows 22 staff spaces in a iot
south of the buiiding.
It should be noted that the closing of llth Street wouid result
in the ioss of on-street parking on llth currenti¥ utiiized by
Police Dept. empioyees. Th£s ioss of spaces wiIi be partialI¥
offset by the avaiiabilit¥ of additionai on-street spaces on Park
and Eim due to the removai of driveways and houses. The
avaiiabie off-street parking for the Poiice Dept. and Municipal
Court operations is cleari¥ inadequate and this was noted in the
Oomprehensive Pian. However, this is a separate issue that wiii
have to be addressed by the City and not by the County as part of
this. project. The Building Official estimated that 60-80
off-street parking spaces would be required for those operations
under current code requirementS.
Landscaping - The County's architect is proposing a system of
berms and tree and shrub plantings to provide a buffer between
the parking lots and jail building and adjoining residential
properties. The proposed landscape plan was reviewed by the City
Forester and he offered several suggestions for revisions.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Salina City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
this application on March 2, 1993. At the conclusion of the
public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend
approval of the preliminary development plan and requested zoning
change from R-3 to PDD (R-3) subject to the following conditions:
COFNISSION ACTION
NOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
RE(~LIEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
3/15/93 4:00 P,M,
AGENDA SECT I ON: OR I G I NAT I NG DEPARTMENT: APPROV ED FOR
NO. PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN'~GENDA:
ITEM Roy Dudark
NO.
BY: BY:
Page 6
1. The landscaping plan shall be amended to show:
a. Substitution of the Aristocrat Pear for Bradford Pear
on the planting list.
b. The addition of low growing shrubs on the 4' berm
along the south face of the jail building, on the 4'
berm between the parking lot drfveways on 12th Street
and on the 4' berm between driveways on Elm Street.
c. Lowering or removal of the 4' berm at the southwest
corner of Elm and llth Streets.
d. The addition of plantings on the street parking and
islands adjacent to the parking lot south of the Law
Enforcement Center.
2. The existing 18" storm sewer in llth Street shall either be
abandoned and relocated or encased in a steel sleeve in
accordance with the specifications established by the
Director of Engineering and Utilities.
3. The applicant shall replat the property or a separate
petition for vacation of llth Street and the alley between
llth and 12th Streets shall be approved by the City
Commission prior to final zoning approval.
4. No building permits for the jail site shall be issued until
such time as the Director of Engineering and Utilities
certifies that the public water system is capable of
supplying 1,500 g.p.m, to the site.
COMMISSION ACTION
IV~3TION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
3/15/93 4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORI $1NATI NG OEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN'~
ITEM Roy Dudark
NO.
BY: BY:
Page 7
The Planning Commission gave the following reason in support of
their recommendation:
1) The site is suitable for development of a new jail.
2) The proposed development will not harm the value and
enjoyment of surrounding residential property.
3) The public facilities can be improved to meet the demand.
4) The proposed use is in conformance with the city's
comprehensive plan map and development policies.
City Commission Action
If the City Commission agrees with the recommendation of the
Planing Commission, a motion should be made to place the attached
ordinance on first reading. Second reading will be held in
abeyance until a final plat is approved for the property. If the
City Commission disagrees with the recommendation of the Planing
Commission, two alternatives are available. First, a motion
could be passed to return this item to the Planning Commission
including a statement of the reasons for the disapproval.
Secondly, a motion could be passed to deny the application on
first consideration if four (4) votes are cast in support of the
motion and substantive reasons for the denial are articulated.
Encl: Application cc: David Gurss
Vicinity Map John Shaver
Site Plan
Excerpt of PC Minutes 3/2/93
Ordinance #93-
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY , SECOND BY
TO:
P~.,;ca~i~.n Oa:eFebruary 9, 1993 Application No. PDllg~-?
Hearing Date March 2~ lqq3 OateFiled Janizary 22. 1993
Development Plans Attached Ye s Filing Fee $ 350.00
OwnershioCerdficateReceived Yes ' ReceiptNo. ~ ~(~ ~ ~ ~--~-Q/, ~
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT(P.D.D.)
1 Applicant's Name Saline County
2. Applicant's Address ~ W_ A~h R~mm ]0~ Salina: ~S 67A~1
3. Telephone (Business) 826-6555 (Home)
~. Projec[Name ~line County Jail
5. o,~n~'~ N~m, __S~L~y
6. Owner's Address ~am8 2~ ahov~
7. Legal Description of Property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Lo~(s> Attached i, Block No.
in .Subdivision
8. Approximate Street Address 501 - 619 W. Elm St.
9. Area of Prope~y (sq. ft. and/oracres) 164,360 sq. ft. (3,773 acres) "
10. PresentZoning R-3 Use Residential and jail
~. P~oposed Zo9ing R-3 PDD Use Jail facility
12. Is the P.D.D. to be utilized in conjunction with another zone or independently~
13. Are there any covenants of record which affect the proposed development (attach copy).; N0
14. List reasons for this request (attach additional sheets if necessarv) Salin~ County proposes to add existing 3ail
__fac ~y
15. Anticipated time period for substantial completion
16. Total ground area occupied by buildings (sq. ft.)
17. Describe any non-residential uses proposed ,]~ 'i l_
18. Number of housing units proposed: Single family_ N~_ne_ Multi-family Norlp
19. Relationship between this application and the Land Use Plan Property is designated a~ "puhl~r, and
quasi-public" in Plan
Applicant(s, ,~,~.~ ~__~,~ Owner(s)
Signature Signature
If the applicant is to be represented by legal counsel or an authorized agent, please complete the following in order that correspondence and communi-
cations pemaining to this application may be fo~arded to the authorized individual.
Name of Representative ~ohn A. Shaver
Address 205 1/2 Santa .Fa Salina= K~ ZipCode 67401
Telephone (Business) 823- 37 ]7 Area Code
White - Planning Canary.- City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant
~'~ ~!"~ ' !, M,s P,~¢,p¢ n~. II Application /~PDD93-2
' ) I ~' ~' ;" )'~ Saline County
lO 58 I ,
P 91/
"~"~~~ ~ " ,
m, sm-6 ~ mm mmm'.mmmm
, ~ ~ ~ ' ---
m ~11~ ,~ "
~o' -- /~ ~ ~oL /~a' ~ i
Elm i
· 1~, .~ ,~ ,.,~, ~- ..
, , ,~ ,, ,o ~ ~ , ~ ~i ~ 'I '~ ~I .~: ~' ?,'"~
· ~.' - .o. : ~ , J , ,.I -- ~
. t ' A ~ 4 ," ~' "~
d
ST.
o
i
m
~2~D ADD~
' " :-
, ,o. ' ~ . lmm l~m
. .................. - ...... ..:l '~-)
] m
· ..' .'..:-r. ':.!,... ;;.??.:~.~: -~: ,-...:';:!..-:'~ "'.' .-:....'.':., . , :.. :' 4;: ... ,. ,.:;~,i.i'~ :..'.." -'~.~"i~.i, !.i "'.i.':'ii~ i.
-,,- ~L
'. ' ..'i: I
..~
'1
·
.~' = .... ~'
,
'.
· '- . ~ .' '. · ~ -
-o-~-,~-~- · '":" ":": -' SITE PLAN
M~N~ES
S~J~INA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMmiSSION ROOM
~arch 2, 1993
4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Seaton, Allen, Duckers, Hardman, Hawoz~h,
Larson, McCoach, Morris and Munson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew and Stock
OTHER STAFF=
The hearing began at 4=00 p.m.
#1. Approval of the regular minutes of February 16, 1993.
Chairman Seaton asked if there were any comments or corrections to
the minutes of February 16, 19937 There being no corrections, the
minutes were approved as submitted.
#2. Application #PDD93-2, filed by Saline County.
Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant was present. The applicant
was present.
Mr. Dudark stated this application is to rezone a tract of land
that is located west of 9th Street between Park and Elm. This is
the existing location of the law enforcement center and the police
department and sheriff's office and the existing jail sit in this
area. It consists of an entire two blocks. This is llth Street
which would be closed and vacated to allow these two blocks to be
combined into one tract. Park Street on the south and 12th Street
on the west and again Elm Street on the north. The site covers
about 3.7 acres. The proposal is for Saline County to build a new
175 bed Jail to essentially replace the existing one they have.
The existing jail would be remodeled for different uses. The
current Jail is over capacity with a 62 bed capacity and really
obsolete. The addition would be to the west. The addition would
be connected in the rear and come out over llth Street. The main
access to this facility would be from 9th Street and Elm to a
parking lot off of Elm with entrances off 12th and Elm Street. Elm
Street does have a traffic signal for getting on and off of 9th
Street. I will let the architect, Mr. Shaver, go into detail on
this. He has perspective drawings. Essentially, it would be a two
story building with two levels of cells. This property is zoned
R-3 Multi-Family Residential. Around it is mostly R-3 zoning, some
R-2 Multi-Family and R-3 against the north. It is pretty much
solid residential on the south side and west side. There is mixed
residential and some commercial up in this area. The question is
whether or not this tract is suitable for this proposed use. The
jail question has been studied extensively as to whether or not a
new free-standing facility should be built or whether or not the
jail should be built as an addition to the existing facility.
After going through that exercise, the conclusion was that it is
most feasible and most logical to have an addition to the existing
facility because of the location of the existing sheriff's
department and police department in terms of monitoring this
facility and providing staffing for it and the administration of it
and linking the existing administration with the proposed addition
through this connection. It is the most logical connection to the
west rather than some other direction because you have the old
Saline County Courthouse which is an historic building and it would
not be feasible to remove that building. The connection in the
rear turned out to be the most practical connection to make. The
question is whether or not this proposed plan as a public use with
the landscaping, setbacks and various architectural treatments and
Saline City Planning COmmission
March 2, 1993
Page 2
so forth can be integrated in to this neighborhood to be a
compatible use in this location. The public facilities and
services, there is a water llne in the street surrounding Chis
entire block. There are se~er llnes and storm drains and electrlc
and gas lines. There is no real problem with the sewer. There are
service lines readily available, the same thing with the electric
and gas. The two utilities that have been looked at ve~ carefully
are the storm sewer and water systems. There are some four inch
lines in this area. Those are smaller than the standard 6" 11ne
built today. In doing some of the fire flow tests, it was
determined that some of those flows were under the standard for a
facility of this t~pe of occupanc~ which is 1,500 gallons per
minute. They were getting some 1,200 and 1,400. The water utility
went out and replaced an existing service line to a hydrant that
was a 4" line with a 6" line and Installed a hydrant. Today they
flowed the hydrant and it flowed 1,966 gallons per minute. Which
illustrates that by following that plan and going around this block
at various hydrant locations and changing out those lines, they can
get the 1500 or better fire flow requirement. That was good news
about the water pressure. The storm sewer, there are some inlets
in Elm Street which drain part of the block. That storm sewer
comes down through 11th and intercepts with another storm sewer
which then flows over to 9th Street over to a larger sewer. As you
can see, the footprint of the building is to go where the storm
sewer is located. The consultants for the county have been
evaluating whether or not to abandon this line and reconstruct a
new line either out to 9th Street or back to the west. It was
determined that going west was not feasible. Out to 9th Street it
is possible to get into a storm sewer because it is low enough to
have the adequate flow. However, they have determined that
relocating the storm sewer line still in 11th Street, to Jog around
the basement of the building and go underneath the part that would
be shallow is the most feasible plan from the Engineering
standpoint. That line could be encased so you could have the line
protected and it would not be crushed. City Engineering believes
that can be done. We do that on occasion. On the facilities and
public services, the water and the storm sewer can be modified and
upgraded to provide the standard aa needed. The comprehensive plan
shows this area as public and quasi-public which is the intended
use for this block. The guidelines in the plan indicate that
public facilities should be located to the extent possible and
clustered with other public buildings. The opportunity exists to
landscape those facilities to improve the appearance and make them
blend in with the neighborhood. We believe the plan that has been
presented follows those goals and advances those goals with some of
the design treatment you see here and also on the site plan
drawing. The comprehensive plan is in our opinion supportive of
this change and consistent with the proposal. The site coverage
dealing with the site plan itself, the R-3 district says that the
maximum site coverage by the building is 40%. This plan shows
48%. It is a planned development district. You have the
discretion of increasing that standard, if you find that the plan
is sensitive to the area, there is offsetting landscaping
improvements, building setbacks and treatment of the area so that
the building does not dominate the site and overwhelm the site. We
do not think it does. It is still around half the total land area
available on the property. Parking has been looked at. It is a
question. The plan shows a new parking lot for the ~ail staff and
also for visitors. The best we can determine from the national
standard for correctional facilities, this plan exceeds those
standards. It will provide enough parking for staff on the maximum
shift and these parking spaces which should be more than sufficient
for any kind of visitors. The other parking question that came up
in the review of this was llth Street. Both the Sheriff's
employees and the Police Department employees park their personal
cars on llth Street between drivew&ys, allowed on-street perking,
presently and this will eliminate that. However, it will also
eliminate the parking demand around the entire block. There are 20
Salins City Planning Commission
March 2, 1993
Page 3
homes in here. Those people who are living in those hoiel have
also been parking in the street and also their guests end
relatives. That will be a lessening of deland and therefore,
will be a surplus of parking spaces around the perllete= of l~lis
block where employees of the law enforcement center can park. .That
will free up some parking spaces that are now being used. We think
basically there is an increase in the number of on-street parking
spaces that would be available for people working in the existing
facility. There is certainly going to be area lighting and the
architect can address that. There is nothing we have received that
has indicated the type of lighting. There is a list of plantings
here and the location of those plantings. We sent that to the City
Forester. He made suggestions for modifications. So~e of those
are included in our recommendation for conditions of approval on
this. I did mention llth Street. Because the building will go in
there, that will need to be vacated as a public street. That can
be done through a replat of the area which could be combined with
the final PDD. That drawing would remove the public street
designation for llth Street and would probably also put in place a
utility easement for the storm sewer that would be left in that
area. The planned development section of the city zoning ordinance
does set out various guidelines and standards. Essentially, is the
building consistent and in keeping with the intent of the
surrounding area. This law enforcement area is surrounded on three
sides by housing presently. This plan will continue that
situation. By buffering the use and being sensitive to the
placement of the lighting and the parking lots, we believe it can
be suitably placed in this area without any adverse impact on the
adjacent property owners. Our recommendation is to approve the
application. We have conditions. The first one is to modify the
landscaping plan as outlined on the four sub parts of that first
condition. Those are minor changes. One of them does include
providing landscaping in this area which presently is lacking. We
think it would help this blend in with the new. It would be an
element that would soften the effect rather than having to do
something with the building itself. Secondly, that the storm sewer
in llth Street either be relocated and abandoned or be shifted in
alignment in llth Street and encased sub~ect to the specifications
of the City Engineer. Three that the applicant would either rapist
the entire property to vacate llth Street or petition separately.
we think if they plan to rapist, either method is available.
Fourth, that the building permit for the Jail be issued when the
City Engineer certifies that the area has the 1,500 gallon per
minute fire flow. Based on the evidence we have, we think that
will be possible to do that. The fifth condition, in consultations
we have had with the county, our recommendation is to delete that
condition from your action. We do want to point out that the
Police Department which occupies this space has some needs for
facilities and access into the rear of the building. We would lake
a county representative to acknowledge those interests and express
their commitment with working with the City Police Department in
overcoming any potential conflicts that may occur in the
construction in this area and their legitimate needs to access the
rear of the building. It appears to us that the County does own
the land that the Police Department sits on so the ownership of the
vacated street will accrue to the County. However, the City does
occupy the tract and does own the building that sits there. We
think with cooperation we can overcome any problems that might
exist. We believe the site is suitable for the new jail and is a
logical extension of the existing law enforcement center, lC will
not harm the value or enjoyment of the neighboring property because
of the architectural design of the building and the setbacks and
landscaping that are shown. That public facilities and services
can be improved to accommodate the requirements of this facility
and that this use is consistent with the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Sea=on asked are you deleting recommendation #5?
Salina City Planning Commission
March 2, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Dudark stated yes. We would like the County to acknowledge
these interests in that area.
Mr. Morris stated under parking you have made mention t~at no
handicapped stalls are indicated on the site plan. Has that been
dealt with?
Mr. Dudark stated no. This is the site development plan. It is
not necessarily the plan for the building permit. They are aware
of that and that will need to be shown when the get the building
permit. It is a detail. There will be other details but we did
not want to take the time to point everything out.
Mr. Hardman asked you said the parking would conform to national
standards for this use, what about the city requirement?
Mr. Dudark stated we do not list a correctional facility or Jail as
a specific use in our parking standards. Not having that, we did
research the planning literature and found a standard that we
provided to the county. Their consultants recommended a higher
number of spaces which we agreed with. The standard was pretty
iow. We are satisfied with the proposed number of spaces. We
think that will be accurate.
Mr. Allen asked about the surrounding zoning.
Mr. Dudark stated on the west side it is R-2 which is Iow density
multi-family. However, the use is predominantly single-family
homes. You could have duplexe~ and four-plexes but people have
chosen to use it as single-family. The R-3 is still a multi-family
district, it is just a higher density district than R-2. You could
have more dwelling units on a given lot by either going up in
height or having smaller units.
Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant would like to make a comment?
Dana Morse, representative of Saline County, stated to reiterate
some of the things Roy talked about, when we started this process a
couple of years ago we looked at four or five different sites. We
looked at the cost of acquiring additional land separate from this
facility and building a new Jail. Those costs were running into
the 12 and 14 million dollar range. We did not feel we wanted to
make that kind of investment when we thought we had a cheaper
alternative that would provide us with the same amount of beds. We
looked back at this site and had the Jail planner look at this.
They estimated this at $7.2 million. We went to vote in Nove~r
of 1992 for a half cent sales tax to fund the construction of this
facility and it was approved. Since then we have started
acquisition of the land. This depicts the block we are working
in. The green outlines the footprint of the Jail and the brown
outlines the homes and accessory buildings that are on the lot.
Currently, we have acquired all but three of the properties. Those
three are now in court to be settled. We anticipate having this
done by the end of June. Our projection is to start =onstruction
in September and finish that by the end of 1994. We thl~k the
inmates for New Year's of 1995 will probably get to use the new
facility. The question about cooperatlon, we have been working
with the City on some issues and we will continue to cooperate in
that area. We think it is very important to cooperate because we
have been neighbors with the City and the PD and the Sheriff's
Office since 1967. We are going to expand and we need their
input. Obviously we are causing some impact on them. Roy
addressed the parking situation. We are working on the removal of
underground storage tanks with the City now. We are going to try
to get the fuel storage tanks and the emergency generator
in conjunction with this project. We are working on redesigning
some electrical hookups for the City realizing we caused that. Our
architect has been working on that trying to figure out a way that
we can do that and provide the area we need by removing the power
Salins City Planning
March 2, 1993
Page 5
poles and still reduce the City's bill. That is anothe=.~we
are cooperating in. We want to work with the City on
Mr. Shaver will cover on his drawings there As going to be a
security fence across llth Street. We fully Intend to work with
the City to provide the electronic gates they need to get AnCo
their facility. We will give them access and approve their
security. If a commitment is what you are looking for on
cooperation, you will have that from us. We will continue to do
that. Mr. Shaver is here to Cover the architectural drawings and
address the storm sewer.
John Shaver, architect for the project, stated Roy has covered slot
of what I might have said and covered it very well. I will
elaborate on a few points. This is the footprint of the building.
One of the major questions was the storm sewer. We were thinking
of coming off an existing manhole here and putting four new
manholes and running a 21" concrete pipe to City standards leaving
it under the building a short distance about 35' at that point. We
only have to go under a small portion of the building. We have
checked with the Assistant City Engineer on the different flow
lines that the City measured here and the one out at Park Street
and apparently have 2' of fall from this point on down to that
point. This is the least expensive way. The other way was running
out to 9th Street. We also looked at tying it over to 12th
Street. We could not get enough fall in the storm sewer to make
those connections. We have water and gas and sanitary sewer
readily available. We intend to bring in sanitary sewer from both
Park Street and Elm Street and we have worked with KP&L on the
electrical and gas and they are-going to bring the electrical to
the building without cost. We are happy about that. They will
come in from the Elm Street side. We have been working with the
City trying to cooperate in cleaning up this area which
use area at the present time. We are looking at getting rid of a
couple of fuel tanks to make the EPA happier. The thing we have
tried real hard to do is make this building compatible with the
neighborhood. We have a generous green area around the area. We
are introducing some harming to break up the flatness of the site.
We have also put in some of the planting ~ou have asked for in your
comments. We think that will buffer the transition fro~ the
residential across the street on the three sides. In looking at
the perspective, we have tr~ed to design the building with a low
silhouette and stay away from a massive structure and get away from
an institutionalized character. On the south side of the building
where we have the two-story, two level elements, we have a
combination of brick which is in the existing building we will
carr~ through to these elements and then we will intersperse that
with precast concrete and then some pitched roofs recalling the
character of the gables typical of the structures across the
street, the residential area. AIl in all the combination of the
green area and the character of' the building, we think it will
blend in with the neighborhood and not be overpowering for the
neighborhood. They may even like it, we hope.
Mr. Dudark asked what about the lighting?
John Shaver stated so the exterior lighting is not disturbing to
the neighborhood, our thought is to have ground posltLon lighting
that would flood light on the wall of the building. It would not
shoot across the street. The only other lighting would be high bay
lighting over the parking areas to get it to the 1' candle
requirement for parking areas for security. Incidentally, it is
also important as a matter of security, we are talking about
security for the operation of the Jail and not for the people
across the street, that we have this buffer area here around the
building. The lighting will not be offensive the neighborhood but
will actually enhance the general character of the building
itself.
Chairman Seaton asked about the fencing?
Salins City Planning Commission
March 2, 1993
Page 6
John Shaver stated there will not be any fencing. This will be a
controlled green area around the building with video screening from
inside the complex. People will not be pe~aitted, other ~han Jail
personnel and visitors to the Jail, in this perimeter area around
the Jail.
Dana Morse stated if you have been by the current jail, there is an
outside recreation area that is fenced. You will not see that in
the new one. We designed that so that the main recreation area
will be this area right here on the roof and will be an
indoor/outdoor recreation area that will have large garage doors
that will open to meet the requirements. It will have a teflon
coated fiberglass roof that will allow some light in to meet the
requirements. This area which is the only outside area is fully
screened. It will have a concrete block wall or something around
there and high enough that you will not be able to see in or out.
Mr. Hardman asked it appeared from your drawings that the brick is
fairly light in color. How much reflection will we get off that
brick in the neighborhood?
John Shaver stated we will use a flood lighting instead of a spot
lighting effect which will kind of put a light glow on the overall
wall. It will not cause much reflection at all. It is a rough
face brick and not a smooth brick which will not cause a reflection.
Mr. Hardman asked £k the parking lot lights will be cast down in
direction7
John Shaver stated they will be'directed down. The light pattern
will cover the area of the parking itself.
Chairman Seaton asked if there were any interested persons who
would like to make a comment? There were none. She stated we do
have a series of letters. Have we had any calls?
Mr. Dudark stated only from the people you have a letter from. He
stated the letter is from Mrs. Jorgensen and some of the tenants in
this building at 244 N. 12th. This building is to be removed along
with the rest of them except for this one and this is to be
retained for a couple of years as an attendant care facility and
then it would be removed.
Chairman Seaton asked could you talk about public discussion that
went on prior to the sales tax vote and notification? ! know this
has been going on for quite a while.
Dana Morse stated there was no mailing to the 18 properties. There
are 19 homes there. One of the homes the County has owned for a
couple of years. There was no mailing prior to the election as we
did not know how it was going to come out. Immediately after that
we hired counsel and started land acquisition. AIl the property
owners were notified within 30 days after the vote. We intended on
acquiring all of the land. At that time we were saying all of the
properties would be removed and the entire block would be used for
the Jail. We have since decided to leave the one property, 248 N.
12th, temporarily as an attendant care facility. This would be
part of the secure area. There will be officers there for the
Juveniles. I do not know what your question is about this
property. I can tell you that the Board of County Commissioners
have met with the property owners. I can not speak for them but
from our perspective, we think that has been resolved. They
understand that we are going to proceed through the courts to
acquire that property.
Mr. Morris stated a good hUmMer of those properties were rental
units. Was there any special consideration for relocation expenses
for those people?
Salins City Planning CoBlssion
March 2, 1993
Page ?
Dana Morse stated there was not an additional specific fund added
to the settlement to pay for relocation of renters. We negotllted
for prices higher than the appraised value in most cases. We did
not specify that had to go to the renters. We made some igreeedn~e
or concessions with Mrs. Jorgensen about her renters staying for
the time she requested which was May 31st. The commissioners
agreed. We also agreed that she would have an additional 15 days
for her to remove what she wanted out of the property and they have
agreed to that.
Gary Hinchnan, Saline County Commissioner, stated I mat with Mrs.
Jorgensens attorney, we resolved all of those issues with exception
of price and cost and we are negotiating that. We wtll take that
to court on Friday.
Mr. McCoach asked if there is a peak time for traffic?
Dana Morse stated that would be the day shift.
Mr. McCoach asked do you see that as a problem with the ntuaber of
parking spaces?
Dana Morse stated we feel we provided adequate parking for that 1st
shift. There £s certainly adequate parking for the visitors even
though we are going to extend visiting hours if we run into a
problem with that shift occasionally. We do not anticipate it.
Marvin Pratt, 1807 Valley View, stated I have owned a rental
property in the neighborhood for 15 or 18 years. Over the time we
have had an awful lot of trouble with the police parking their
private cars. It makes about 30 extra cars. There are ver~
obnoxious about it. I was ready to move some furniture out of one
of the houses. My son was moving the truck and across the street
it was parked clear full. We recognized the cars because they are
there all the time. We asked if one of them owned that tan
Chevrolet. Officer Don Poore stated "Yeah, I do". We told him we
would like to move some furniture out of the house if he could
possibly move it so we could back in there and get the furniture.
He says "No. This is public parking on the street and we are
allowed to park here any time we want to. We will not ~ove It".
That's that. That is the response I have gotten from the Police
Department for 18 years. There is a parking problem with all of
the police employee cars.
Dana Morse stated as we remove multi-family units off this block
and move all the Sheriff's office parking and have spaces for them
and encourage them to park in those spaces, there will be more
on-street parking for the Police Department even though we will be
vacating llth Street. It may be a little longer for them to walk
to work because they won't be right there on llth Street, there
will still be places. The other thing we have done for parking,
the current facility is where the fenced area is now. You can see
where prisoners excercised outside the building. Under the
proposed plan, these will be converted to staff parking too. We
are going to enlarge not only the parking spaces for the Jail but
for the patrol area, the sheriff's office and the administrative
offices. They will have more parking. We will be pulllng some
parking that we now use over in here and here back on these lots.
I feel there will be move available.
Chairman Seaton asked there is on-street parking on Park and Elm
and all the way around?
Dana Horse stated that is right.
Mr. Dudark stated I would like to acknowledge that there is a
parking problem. We all know that. We are going to have to face
up to that as far as the Police Department and Municipal Court
sometime. This project does not aggravate that condition, It is
Salina city Planning commission
March 2, lg93
Page 8
offsetting It with sole additional parking and removing IM o£ f~he
demand from on-street parking. You can not tag the Jail £ac~lLty
with our on-going parking problem.
Mr. Mardman stated it.appears to be a City problem and not a County
problem.
Mrs. Duckers stated is the Leisure Years Center a factor in there.
They really do not have adequate parking for their activity.
Mr. Dudark stated that is true but at least they have so~e.
Dana Morse stated the property you were talking about earlier is
this property here. This is a multiple family dwelling. Hopefully
by removing that we will have three or four spots.
Chairman Seaton asked if there were any other interested persons
who would like to make a comment? There being none, would the
commission like to take action?
Mr. Hardman stated in absence of a lighting plan, would it be
appropriate to include some language in a motion for approval to
have a lighting plan submitted?
Mr. Dudark stated it is okay for you to do that but I am not real
concerned about that. The architect has gone on record and it will
be in the minutes as to the kind of lighting they do plan. I think
that is compatible. If you feel you want that in your motion, it
is certainly okay. We just wanted it addressed as to what the
plans are. We can follow through with them on that.
MOTION= Mr. McCoach moved that we approve Application #PDD93-2 subject to
staff's four recommended conditions in that the site is suitable
for development of a new Jail, the proposed development will not
harm the value and enjoyment of surrounding residential proepr~y,
the public facilities can be improved to meet the delend, and the
proposed use is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan
map and development polic~es.
SECOND: Mrs. Duckers seconded the motion.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (9-0) in favor of the motion. Motion
carried.
'~. Application #P92-1A, filed by Max McClintock.
Mr.~3~drew stated this is a final plat application for the proposed
Laurie~bdivision. You should be familiar with th~s tract of
ground. ~ looked at a zoning application for it last May. On
December l§'~4~ou voted to approve a preliminary plat for th~s
property. At t~t time it was known as the Alters Subdivision. At
the request of clOse, staff, they have renamed it Laurie Subdivis~on
because there is already an Alters Industrial Subd~vis~on on the
books and to avoid confusion we asked them to come up with another
name. On Page 2 of the ~l~f report are the five conditions that
the preliminary plat was appliqued subject to. They have addrelsed
Item #lby changing the subdiv~J~on name. The applicant's delign
engineer has now come up with a p~ so that they are now able to
accommodate ~he pond on two lots li~s4~ead of three as originally
proposed. The developer is in the~R~ocess of setting up a
Homeowner's Association~o maintain that~q~d. We have reviewed
the docume s an~ n ~d ~ ~us n dsee acidltiona~fine tuning to be
record de w~th the pla~. Item #4 will be ~_~ressed when the
applicant presents his plans to ~ eh Eng~neering~epar~ment for
p~li~ i~~ ~. he wo ~~ ~ c~an~es ~o the f~l p~at fro~
th~~ a~ d~ with ~he pond which he,ow been
~~e of ~he plat leav~17 as
drawing is the line within 1000' of the centerline of the fl
control dike and on everything to the right or east of th&t there