Loading...
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: