7.2 Plat Shoney's Add CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMI SS I ON ACT I ON DATE TIME
AGENDA SECTION: Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
NO. 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENt
ITEM Roy Dudark~ .~~
ND. 2
BY: BY:
Item
Application #P92-6/6A, filed by Kaw Valley Engineering, Inc.,
requesting a replat of the North 17.2 acres of Lot 1, lock 1 of
the Sullivan Addition (2700 & 2750 S. 9th Street.) To be known
as Shoney's Addition.
Information
The applicant is requesting final plat approval for a 17.2 acre
tract that was once part of a single platted lot. This request
is a replat of the North 17.2 acres of Lot 1, Block 1 of the
Sullivan Addition. Lot 1 has already been split and one split
off is all state law and the City's Subdivision Regulations allow
without replatting. This plat further divides the northern
portion of Lot 1 into three (3) commercial building lots. J.J.
Chevrolet already occupies the North 9.4 acres of the replat
area. A Shoney's restaurant is proposed on Lot 2. Lot 3 has
been laid out for some future commercial use. The property is
zoned C-5 (Service Commercial).
B~ckground
A final plat for the Sullivan Addition was recorded on January
27, 1976. It was platted as one 27.4 acre commercial lot. The
northern portion was sold off in 1976 for construction of an
automobile dealership (J.J. Chevrolet). The South 10.2 acres was
sold to Sutherland Lumber Co. in 1983 for construction of a
lumber yard and home improvement center. Although a conditional
use permit was approved, no building permit was ever applied for
and the tract remains vacant. The proposed division of Lot 1
into a third building tract for a Shoney's restaurant triggered
the replatting requirement. The applicant, Kaw Valley
Engineering, offered to include the Sutherland Lumber Tract in
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DAT____~_E TIME
4/19/93 4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN ~GENDA:
ITEM Roy Dudark
NO.
BY: BY:
Page 2
the replat but Sutherland's declined to participate in the
application.
The City Commission first considered this replat at its January
4, 1993 meeting and voted 5-0 to return the plat to the Planning
Commission. The plat was returned because the owner of the
proposed Lot 1, James Sullivan, was unwilling to sign the plat
with a 20' utility easement straddling the lot line between Lots
1 & 2. After consultations with KP&L and the owner of Shoney's
lot (Lot 2), the easement was shifted so it is now located
entirely on Lot 2.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission considered this final plat application at
its April 6, 1993 meeting. Following presentation of the staff
report, discussion and questions, the Planning Commission voted
7-0 to approve this proposed replat subject to correction of the
final plat drawing to show matching dimensions between the
external boundary and internal lots prior to recording.
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the action of the Planning
Commission, a motion should be made to authorize the Mayor to
sign the plat drawing.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Plat Drawing
Excerpt of PC Minutes 4/6/93
cc: Leon O~bourne, K~W" v~iey ~ngtneertn~
COMMISSION ACTION
~OTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
ApplicatiOn No. P92-6/6A
Date Filed ... November ].3, 1992 Initial Deposit $103.00
Prel. Plat Approval Date Receipt No....~o/~3 ~ ./////,/~]2~ $'.
/-
Ownership List Attached Accepted by DA
APPLICATION FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
1. Subdivision Name Shoney's Addition a Replat of a Part of Sullivan Addition
2. Subdivision Location(general)NE 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 35, T-14-S, R-3-W, Saline Co.
3. tand Area (sq. ftandloracres) 17.20 Acres, more or less
4. Number of Lots Proposed . 3
5. Present Zoning. C-5 Use Commercial
6. Pending Zoning(if any) c-5 Proposed Use Commercial
7. Please explain any provision~s of conditional' preliminary plat approval, and your compliance with
those provisions (attach additional sheets if necessary)
N/A
8. If any changes have occurred between the approved preliminary and this final plat, other than those
required by the Planning Commission, please explain the nature of these changes
N/a
9. Explain any waivers of the subdivision regulations granted with the preliminary plat or requested
with this application N/A Replat
10. Applicant [(aw Valley Enqineerinq, Inc
Address 2319 N Jackson, PO Box 1304 Junction City, KS 664ft~one 913-762-5040
PropertyOwnerMarlin W. & Carolyn E. Wilson, 804 Juniper, Manhattan, KS 66502 776-5805
11.
Address James E. & Eleanore Sullivan, 435 Camden, Sali~6neKS .67401 823,9851
12. Engineer or Surveyor Kaw Valley Engineering, Inc
Address 2319 N Jackson~ PO Box 1304t Junction Cityl KS 664FJ~one. 762-5040
13. Authorized Representative Leon D. Osbourn Kaw Valley Engineerin~l Inc
Address 2319 N Jackson, PO BOx 1304, Junction City, KS 66~J~ne 913-762-5040
I hereby agree to comply with the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Salina, Kansas, and all other
pertinent ordinances of the City of Salina and statutes of the State of Kansas. In addition, it is agreed that
all costs of recording the plat and supplemental documents thereto with the Register of Deeds shall be
assumed and paid by t.he ~or a~131~.~ /
Applicant's Signature ~/'~_r/~--O'~ '/""~/(_~---------~'~ Date~ //-~'~/~----
'~'~on D. Osbourn
WHITE -- PLANNING CANARY -- CITY CLERK PINK -- APPLICANT
(REV. 12181)
'
Requestj'/~ ,,~-~
~ ~al-Mart Sam's Club
Site Site
Schilling Road Application ~P92-6/6A
Shoney's Addition
imm
I
AVENUE "B"
Application #P92-6/6A
Shoney's Addition
Revised Final Plat
o o=-,u'06" E 899.12'(k,~ S 89'56' E 899.00'(P) 77.05
10' Utility/
LOT 1 .
20' Htil~tv ~ '
Esmn t
25' BId~ r
, O
LOT 2 ~
~ -- ~J ~'~ ~ -- ~ _ /
~ ~'~ ~ - -LOT~'~3 .....
...... ~.~ ~ ~ ..... ~.~ *0.~
~ ~.~o'o~' w ,o2.~'(u) ,o~.so'(~) c~ ~x.. ~' ~ ~
in Concret ~
SU~IVAN ADDIn~
PART OF LOT I
z
~ SULLIVAN DRI~ b
N 8g'3~'22" w g04.2~'(~) N 8~'47' w gO~.OO'(P)
~1/2" ID Pipe
Salina City Planning Commission
April 6, 1993
Page 19
T~e primary concern is the main health care facility. As you
r~all, Phase II has to do with duplexes. The apartment complex is
3 ~o 5 years down the road. Alot of things happen in 3 to 5
yea~. Since I am not the developer, I am just the realtor, they
may ~dec ide that single-family will be a wonderful thing.
Presb~erian Manor has done the duplex which blends right into the
neighbd~hood. They have housing being developed around that area.
The watt is there, electrical is there and the road is there. As
staff ge~ more into the drainage and ponding they will find that
this will ~t impact anybody downstream.
Chairman SeXton stated it is well noted though because it is
unlikely for~ the commission to ever recommend three phases at
once. The \~eveloPer is under the assumption that certain
development densities were being caused by the commission. We are
committed to t~ing to pin down the densities that the plan
proposes. That ~ill give us a better idea of the intent of the
property. ~
Wally Storey stated~the question of staff was what is the future
plan for Phase II and~hase III.
Ted Brown stated we ~ere asked to present a site plan for
development so they ~uld know. Our current need is the
development of the nursing home itself. Again as Mr. Storey
indicated, if the market ~ed and demand says all these should be
divided into sing_le- family~ homes and there is not a need for
housing for the elderly, that obviously is the direction we will
go. We do not want to sit the~e and hold the land forever.
__
M.ark Lacy stated__we who live ~ that area have had conversations
about this. I will tell you that we are unified and committed to
retaining the existing zoning of~that property. We will not let
Chairman Seaton stated we have close, the public comment portion of
the. he_aring.. .... ~
Mark Lacy stated in the interest of e~ryone's time, we are very
c.o~itted ~o this process. _ ~
chairman seaton stated we understand. I~have closed the public
portion ~e have had adequate ~me for public comment.
MOTION: Mr~ commission recommen~denial of
A~ng that the proposal i~not in conformance
wtth__the city's C. om_pr_ehensive Land Use Plan. ~
SECOND: M.r. Mu?son seconde, d the ~otion. ~
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (7-0) in favor of the motion. ~Motion
........ \
Mr~l ke to recommend to the ~eveloper to
please submit an application for another location~ for this
d~ling and desirous to,ave this
within the community~tatement that we do, not want
t~ d_eveloPmen, t,. but merely th_at_ that location is not approp~ate.
Ted Brown stated we are certainly open to the planning commis~ion's
recommendation on this. ~
\
Mr. Haworth excused himself and left.
#6. Application #P92-6/6A, filed by Kaw Valley Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Morris returned to the commission.
Salina City Planning Commission
April 6, 1993
Page 20
Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant was present? The applicant
was present.
Mr. Dudark stated this application has been before you earlier. At
that time we had a problem with the owner of Lot 1, the J.J.
Chevrolet site. He did not wish to have a utility easement shown
on Lot 1. Since that time the engineer with the approval of the
owner of Lot 2 shifted the utility easement all onto Lot 2.
Otherwise the facts are pretty much the same as it was. Our
recommendation is to approve this replat subject to some minor
technical changes in dimensions on the perimeter boundary.
Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant would like to make a comment?
Leon Osbourne stated no.
MOTION: Mrs. Duckers moved that Application #P92-6/6A be approved subject
to minor corrections that need to be included on the plat drawing.
SECOND: Mr. McCoach seconded the motion.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (7-0) in favor of the motion. Motion
carried.
~ noer Matters.
ted we have received a letter from KP&L stating that
research information in their company or in the
industry that _~. pares the long-term cost of below-ground vs.
above-gr_ound utili_t~ In the absence of that, they believe it is
an aesthetic benefit ~4~h in their opinion should be paid for by
the subdivider. Their~r~sponse is pretty much what they
recomm, e.nded .in the first_ plac~ We can talk-about this later if
~ext meeting is Ap~q~ 20th. We have an application
from th~gton State Bank to e~nd their operation to the
w_.est a?d_also th_e Su_ther!and's plat. ~
There being no further business, th me ee~ng wa~journed at 5:40
p.m.
Ro~ Du~ar , Secretary
ATTEST: