7.1 Zone Sur Plat ACITY OF SALINA
AGENDA SECTION: Development
NO. 7
REOUEST FOR COMMI SS ION ACTION D.ATE
5/17/9~,
OR I G I NAT I NG DEPARTMENT:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
TIME
4:00 P.M.
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO. 1
Roy Dudark ~
BY: BY:
Item
Application #Z93-3, filed by Bennington State Bank, requesting a
change in zoning district classification from R-2 & R-3
(Multi-Family Residential) and C-1 (Restricted Business) to PC-1
(Planned Restricted Business) on property legally described as
Lots 7, 8, 9, 11 and the east 25' of Lot 10 in Surveyor's Plat A
in the City of Salina, Kansas (aka 200 $. 9th, 415 W. Walnut).
Backqround
Lot 9 on the corner was rezoned from District "B" (equivalent to
R-2) to District "DD" (equivalent to the current C-1 zone) in
1962 to allow construction of a 1,260 sq. ft. credit union
office. When the new zoning ordinance and map was adopted by the
Planning Commission in 1977 the "DD" (office) zoning on this
tract was specifically not converted to C-1. Instead the tract
was given an R-3 designation similar to the surrounding zoning
and uses in the area. This made the credit union a nonconforming
use enabling it to add parking on Lot 9 but no additional land
could be used for building expansion. As with the Knowles
Kountry Real Estate site at Ash and Ohio, the 1977 Planning
Commission felt this was an island of commercial zoning (spot
zoning) and that the zoning of this corner should conform to the
zoning and uses of surrounding property.
In 1981, an application was filed to rezone Lots 9 & 11 from R-3
to C-1 to allow the credit union to expand its offices and add
drive-up windows and additional parking. The Planning Commission
did not recommend approval of the change believing it to be a
request for spot zoning and also saying it was inappropriate to
extend commercial zoning west of 9th Street. The City Commission
however, approved the requested zoning change. The Board of
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ITEM
NO.
REOUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION
DATE T I ME
5/1'7/93 4:00P.M.
OR I G I NAT I NG DEPARTMENT: APPROV ED FOR
PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN?AGENDA:
Roy Dudark
BY:
BY:
Page 2
Zoning Appeals then approved a Conditional Use Permit in 1982 to
allow the expansion because banks and financial institutions are
conditional uses in C-1. It is unclear when or how the parking
area was constructed on Lot 8 because commercial parking lots are
not permitted in R-3.
The applicant has filed a request to rezone two (2) additional
residential lots and the rear 25' of a third lot to C-1 and has
incorporated those lots into a proposed Planned C-1 district for
the site. The plan calls for removal or demolition of a house at
415 W. Walnut to allow an addition to be constructed to the west
side of the bank building. Expansion of the present building
would require the existing parking area to be shifted to the west
where, the house to be demolished now sits.
Site Plan
The proposed site plan calls for a 1,600 sq. ft. addition to the
west of the existing building bringing the total building size to
5,175 sq. ft. and the building site coverage to 20%. The
post-expansion parking lot would contain 26 spaces, a net gain of
4 spaces. The site plan shows the existing 30' driveway on 9th
Street remaining and a single, relocated 30' driveway entrance on
Walnut. A 6' solid wood privacy fence will be retained along the
west and south property lines of the bank site. Between the
parking area and the west property line of Lot 7 a 10' landscaped
buffer strip consisting of grass and six ornamental trees is
proposed.
If this request is approved the commercially zoned area on the
9th & Walnut corner will grow from 16,500 sq. ft to 25,816 sq
ft. ' ·
MOTION BY
COMMISSION ACTION
SECOND BY
TO:
AGENDA SECTION:
NO,
ITEM
NO.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMM I S S I ON ACT I ON [)ATE T I ME
5/17/93 ~4:00 P.M.
OR I G I NAT I NG DEPARTMENT: APPROV ED FOR
AGENDA:
PLANNING A DEVELOPMEN_~
Roy Dudark
BY:
BY:
Page 3
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this
rezoning application and proposed site plan on April 20, 1993.
Following presentation of the staff report and comments from the
applicant, a motion was approved to table the application for
revision of the site plan to provide additional information. The
public 'hearing was continued at the May 4 meeting of the Planning
Commission and the Commission took two actions. First, a motion
was approved 6-0 to recommend that the comprehensive plan be
amended changing the designation of the site from low-density
residential to office commercial. Second, a motion was approved
6'0 to recommend approval of Planned C-1 zoning and the revised
site .plan subject to the following conditions:
1)
A 6' high solid screening fence shall be installed along
the entire south and west sides of the property;
2) Ail trees planted shall be selected
approved street tree list;
from the city's
3)
Ail development shall be in substantial conformance with
the approved site development plan.
The Commission cited the following reasons in support of its
recommendation: 1) The proposed zoning change will not adversely
effect the orderly development of the city or harm the
surrounding neighborhood; 2) The existing public utilities and
street system are adequate to serve the proposed use.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOT I ON BY
SECOND BY
TO:
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMI SS I ON ACT I ON D,,ATE. T I ME
4:00 P.M.
ORIGINATING DEPARTM~I~'~?/93 APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
Page 4
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, a motion should be made to place the
attached ordinance on first reading. Second reading would be
scheduled on May 24. If the City Commission disagrees with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, it may: 1) overturn
the recommendation by a 2/3 majority vote or 4 affirmative votes,
b) make minor changes in the recommendation by a simple majority
vote or 3) return the application to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration along with the basis for disapproval.
Encl:. Application
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
PC Minutes of 4/20 and 5/4
Ordinance #93-9568
cc: Doug Alt
MOTION BY
COMMISSION ACTION
SECOND BY
PUBLICATION DATE No Leter Than March 30, 1993
HEARING DATE April 20~ 1993
VICINITY MAP ATTACHED DA
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED
APPLICATION NO. 79.~-.~
DATE FILED March 19, 1993
FILING FEE $300.00
RECEIPT NO. ~__O t~
(INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION ARE ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM)
1. Applicant's Name:
2. Applicant's Address
3. Telephone (Business):
4. Owner's Name:
5. Owner's Addre~-,~
6.
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
DISTRICT ZONING MAP (REZONING)
The Rennlnoton State Bank
200 S. 9th St.
827'5522 (Home):
Same
Same
Zip Code: 67401
Code:
Legal description of property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary):
Lot(s) 7,8 and part of 10 (east 25.5 feet) In Block No.
In Survey0r' s Plat A 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):
N/A
7. Approximate street address: 200 S. qth St., 41R W. Walnut
8. Area of property (sq. ft. and/or acres): apprnximately 11,775 sq.. ft.
9. Present zoning: Use: see attached
10. Requested zoning: Use: see attached
11. Are them any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development? (Attach copy):
12. List reasons for this request. (Attach additional sheets if necessary):
and provide additional parking
NA
Fxpand pee~ent building
13. Supply factual data showing the effect the request will have on present and future traffic flow, schools, utilities,
refuse collection, surrounding properties, etc: (Attach additional sheets if necessary) The only effect should
be to improve traffic flnw with addition of 3rd drive up lane and additional parking
that will reduce .~treet pa~'kln9~ll ..... ._~ _ _1[ ' ,_..~m~.=.
14. Will there be sufficient off-street parking provided for the requested use7 Yes
Explain: We will be gning frnm 22 tO 28 parking stalls.
15.
2) property diagram
PROPERTY OWNER(S) APPLICANT'S
SIGNATURE: The B, ennington State Bank SIGNATURE:
Kent )!. Berkley, Pr/~sldent
DATE: 3-19-93 DATE:
List exhibits or plans submitted: 1) attachment for questions 9 and 10
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 application may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (Business):
White - Planning
Canary - City Clerk
Pink - Inspection
ZIP CODE:
AREA CODE:
Gold r Applicant
(Rev. 8/84) 101
(PLEASE DO NOT DETACH)
II ' ?
'~ Request Area
12
14.
23
2~
31
35
.~.
I-
Z 17
· -, ADD.
.J
Walnut
24
30
.32
34
3~
lO
· 14 '1
'l m s ~
37 ~
39 40
4I 4:'
41 44
K-2
19 8
i
5EITZ
$
5
45
46
l_ IRON
114
I1~
im.
12o
122
ill
Ill
Application #Z93-3
Bennington State Bank
I
m
I II I~h
m i · ~ WALNUT
I
I
20 21
'~ ? e ~
d .4 , 33 ~
~ ....
IZ~
- ' ADD.
7
ill
134
i
L15
I37 138
S 4 3 2 i
~CHOOL GROUNOS
ROSEVIrLT
SCHOOL
FI /--L_
iai
i~l
173
Wslnut Street
99 94'
N 89~42'44' W/
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
April 20, 1993
4:00 P.M. ~
MEMBERS PRESENT: Seaton, Allen, Duckers, Haworth, Larson, andi
Munson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Hardman, McCoach and Morris
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew and Stock
OTHER STAFF:
The hearing began at 4:00 p.m.
#1. Approval of the regular minutes of April 6, 1993.
Chairman Seaton asked if there were any comments or corrections to
the minutes of April 6, 19937 She stated I would request a change
on Page 19, the second paragraph, the second sentence, "the
developer is under the assumption that certain development
densities were being caused by the commission". I would like
caused changed to considered which would more appropriately address
the point being made there. There being no further corrections,
the minutes were approved as changed.
#2. Application #Z93-3, filed by Bennington State Bank.
Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant was present? The applicant
was present.
Mr. Andrew stated if you look on the reverse side of the
application it summarizes what the existing zoning and land uses
are for their request area. Lot 7 which is the lot closest to the
corner of 10th Street currently has a rental house on it and is
zoned R-2. The proposed zoning is to make that a part of their
Planned C-1 District. Lot 8 is presently zoned R-3 and is used for
parking. The parking west of the building is on that lot. They
are also requesting to rezone 25' of the rear yard of Lot 10 which
presently also has a rental dwelling on it. To go into a little
history on this site, it is basically a story of establishing
commercial zoning on the corner and then having a need for it to
grow. Originally Lot 9 which is on the very corner was zoned our
equivalent of R-2. In 1962 it was rezoned to DD, which is
equivalent to our C-l, to allow construction of a 1,260 sq. ft.
credit union office. In 1977 instead of having this continue to be
C-1, the Planning Commission gave it a designation of R-3 similar
to what they did on the Knowles Kountry Real Estate site believing
that they wanted to keep it a nonconforming use so that could
remain but not expand. In 1981 an application was filed to expand
the commercial zoning and to rezone both Lots 9 and 11 to C-1.
That was not recommended for approval by the Planning Commission,
they believed it was spot zoning and they also did not want to see
commercial zoning go west of 9th Street. The City Commission
approved the zoning change and the BZA approved a conditional use
permit to allow the building to expand. They added about 2,200 sq.
ft. to it under that permit. It is unclear to us when and how Lot
8 was converted to parking. It was not part of the rezoning
request or the conditional use request. Sometime in 1982 the then
occupants, the Bell Telephone Credit Union, demolished the house on
that lot and constructed parking. However, it is still zoned
residential at this time. The applicant is requesting to rezone
two residential lots and the east or rear 25' of a third lot to C-1
and then incorporate those into a Planned C-1 District. for the
entire site. The plan would call for removal and demolition of a
house where you see the parking stalls on the west. There is a
two-story house that sits on that site now. It is the expansion or
future addition that they are trying to plan for that would
necessitate shifting their parking west to where the house at 415
W. Walnut now sits. They also have talked about the possibility of
Salina City Planning Commission
April 20, 1993
Page 2
adding a third driveway-up lane but that is really not related to
this expansion. The plan as it is proposed here measures !35'
north and south along 9th and 200' east-west along Walnut Street.
The plan would provide 24 parking stalls compared to the 22 that
they have now. The plan that was submitted to us did not indic&re
either the existing screening, fencing or landscaping or what was
proposed as part of this plan. It does show the existing driveway
on 9th Street remaining. They would relocate the driveway on
Walnut to the west and have a single entrance there. On their
application the applicant states that the only effect of their
request should be to improve traffic flow and also the additional
parking should reduce on-street parking on Walnut. Also we should
note that banks and financial institutions are conditional uses in
C-1 but because this is a Planned C-1 with a site plan, you can
approve it as part of a rezoning action. Their plan would be
subject to all C-1 requirements. One thing that we were unable to
come up with exactly was figures on the square footage. They do
not have the site plan labeled as far as the dimensions or the
square footages of the office space. With our calculations we came
up with about 5,040 sq. ft. with the addition which would require
25 spaces. On Page 3 of the report the section on development
standards notes that exterior lighting shall be shaded so as not to
direct light onto adjacent residential property and that site
obscuring screening of not less than 6' in height shall be provided
along all lot lines that abut a residential district. As far as
suitability of the site for development, they currently have 16,500
sq. ft. of commercially zoned property. They believe that
additional land area is needed to accommodate their expansion
plans. If this request is improved in its entirety the total site
would be approximately 26,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Haworth arrived at this time.
Mr. Andrew stated as we noted, Lot 7 is a 50' x 75' lot. They are
showing a rezoning only to the 75' depth of the lot on their site
plan. They actually applied for rezoning of all of Lot 7. We are
going to need to work out that discrepancy as well. In our opinion
this is a habitable structure. As we mentioned, the applicant also
believes it is also suitable to meet their expansion needs. While
we are reluctant to encourage commercial expansion that causes the
removal of an existing habitable home, it is really up to the
Planning Commission to decide where commercial expansion should
stop in any given location. As far as the character of the
neighborhood, it is an older residential area. Many of the homes
have been converted either to rentals or multi-family housing. The
two areas most affected would be the homes on the west side of 10th
at Walnut and also along the west side of Walnut which would be
viewing a parking lot and lighting across from their homes instead
of the existing residential. There could be noise and light
spillage but if they were to provide adequate screening and
additional buffering on the west this would reduce some of that
impact. Again the issue for the commission is to what extent the
removal of these residential restrictions on that property and
designating it commercial would harm nearby property. There won't
be any effect on public facilities and services. They are keeping
the 9th Street driveway. It is not entirely clear to us whether
Walnut Street would be a one-way or a two-way driveway but it
appears that the natural flow would be from Walnut Street as an
entrance and 9th Street as an exit. The Comprehensive Plan shows
this area as residential so as with the Knowles Kountry Real Estate
application, it would require a plan amendment to a commercial
designation prior to a change in zoning. Some of our policies in
our comprehensive plan relating to commercial development are on
Page 5 of your report. As we noted in our site plan review, we
really did not feel we could make an accurate judgement on whether
this met all of the C-1 zoning requirements because there were no
dimensions or setbacks for the building, we did not have notes on
the total floor area or site coverage. We did count 24 spaces but
Saltna City Planning Commission
April 20, 1993
Page 3
there is no landscaping or lighting or fencing indicated on the
site plan. We did not feel comfortable in making any
recommendation pro or con on the site plan. Our recommendation is
if you are in favor of this application that you table it for two
weeks to allow revision to the site plan so we can determine
whether it meets all of the C-1 zoning requirements.
Mr. Dudark stated you may be interested to know that this indicates
that the parking could be moved a little closer or further back
from this residential property to increase the width of the
buffer. We do not know why those spaces would need to be that
long, you could not park behind the car anyway. You could move it
further east to increase the separation of the parking lot and the
next home.
Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant would care to make a comment?
Doug Alt stated I am an employee at the Bank. Regarding a couple
of the situations with the neighbors, we have visited with several
across the street on the Walnut side and then the property owners
at the corner of 10th and Walnut. The one individual has the home
that may eventually be designated a historic site. He had checked
out what we were going to be doing and he felt as far as his
situation, it was acceptable to him. The other parties we talked
to on the Walnut side were not objectionable. We talked to two
home owners there. They understood the need for some expansion to
allow for adequate parking. As far as the square footage for the
office, currently it is approximately 3,500 sq. ft. If you squared
that off, it would be about 64' by 59' but you have a little spot
there where our dumpster is in that is not office space. If we
would add on the area that is shown there that would be another
1,300 sq. ft. approximately. That would be 4,800 sq. ft. or less.
The 24 stalls should be adequate. I think we can get another one
or two at one point there that is the elongated marked area or just
lines on concrete that could be used for another parking stall and
probably would be. As Dean mentioned, we did not show fencing but
there is an existing fence there. I think it is a 6' privacy
fence. That needs to be moved west or another one installed if it
is not in a good enough state of repair. As far as lighting, we do
not have any special lighting situations that would affect anything
that we know of. I am not sure of what else to comment on. Mike
Berkley, president of the bank, is here if anyone has any questions
I did not answer.
Chairman Seaton asked did you talk to home owners or people living
in the area?
Doug Alt stated we talked to the home owners. Two were on the
Walnut side of the Street, the other gentleman on the corner I
talked to and another party on the north side of Walnut and the
west side of 10th Street. They own the three homes on the west
side. That party was not objectionable. I also talked to the
owner of the brick home that is a rental unit that is right on the
corner that is immediately west of the property we are discussing.
That property owner does not object to this situation.
Mike Berkley stated as a matter of fact one of the people Doug
talked to actually thought it would be an improvement.
Doug Alt stated while the house is habitable, it is not in the best
condition as far as view from the street, etc.
Chairman Seaton asked who owns that property?
Doug Alt stated we own that house.
Mike Berkley stated we own this whole lot, the lot goes clear up to
where the brick house is. We own clear through to 10th Street.
Salina City Planning Commission
April 20, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Allen asked do you own the house on Lot 7?
Mike Berkley stated yes.
lot.
We own from 10th Street to our parking
Doug Alt stated down below where Dean indicated that it dad not
appear we were asking for that rezoning on down to the corner of
our lot.
Mr. Andrew stated there is a discrepancy on the application that
the platted lot is actually 100' deep. It goes to about right
here. If you rezoned all of Lot 7, you would be rezoning to about
this point. On their site plan they only indicated wanting to
rezone the North 75' and that is the property on the deed that goes
with the house. There was an inconsistency between the application
and what the site plan showed. We needed to clarify whether they
were wanting to rezone all of Lot 7 or just the North 75'
Chairman Seaton asked if Lot 7 actually comes into that other lot
in the back yard?
Mr. Dudark stated it comes down here another 25' or so. That is
the garage. They do not need all of Lot 7 zoned for this plan.
Mrs. Duckers asked do you own all of these lots?
Mike Berkley stated when we bought the building and first opened,
we owned this house, it came with it. The house we are talking
about removing we just bought last year. We have rented to the
same people who had it before.
Chairman Seaton asked if there has been any correspondence?
Mr. Andrew stated just comments as to what was proposed.
negatives comments.
No
Chairman Seaton asked if there were any interested persons who
would care to make a comment? There were none. She stated there
are concerns with changing the zoning to something that is not in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. I would like to discuss
that now. It would not be fair to the applicants to table the
application if the larger issue is changing zoning from residential
to Planned C-1.
Mr. Haworth stated I have no problem with the C-1 zoning change. I
would like to table to see a better plan that would concern
vegetation, proper dimensions, etc.
Mike Berkley stated if you do table the application I would like to
know what you do want because we do not have any plans to build
right now. This is in the future. Do we need to go to an
architect and get a set of building plans? We are not that far
along. Whatever we do at that time we want to make it nice in the
neighborhood like we have it now. There are no lighting or fencing
problems. We are not that far along in terms of having an
architect look at the building plans. Is that what that involves?
Mr. Andrew stated there was a land surveyor who prepared this
plan. We had a meeting with him and marked up the plan and gave
him a list of additional information we needed which was to
indicate the location of existing and proposed fences, if there is
going to be a green space or buffer along the west, it needs to
indicate what type of plantings, trees or otherwise might be
planted there, identify where there is landscaping on the site now
and provide the square footage and dimension information we need to
be able to say this plan provides enough parking for the square
footage proposed. We would be talking about what we indicated mn
the staff report on the site plan review section on Page 6 which
Salina City Planning Commission
April 20, 1993
Page 5
would be dimensions and setbacks for the building, the total floor
area of the existing building and the future addition, what ~the
building site coverage is, the total number of parking spaces to be
provided, the location and type and size of existing and proposed
fencing, what type of landscaping is proposed, signs, if the
parking lot will be lighted and the location of the lighting.
Mike Berkle¥ stated if you look at that parking lot down below, it
is all parking. This is where our drive-thru is now and it is all
parking and there is a fence along here. There really is no
landscaping involved in this inside territory. We were going to
leave a gap between here and have the wall here and have a gap for
some greenery and shrubbery. As it comes out here, it is backing
our parking lot. It is all parking. Here is the only buffer we
had in mind. We do not have a buffer now, it is wall to wall
pavement.
Mr. Dudark asked how would you feel about moving that back a little
bit and increasing the width of that buffer? Do you see any reason
to have those aisles deeper?
Mike Berkle¥ stated no. The reason it was drawn that way was to be
flexible in terms of we wanted on square footage. We do not know
whether we are going to add on 18' or 22' here. We wanted to make
sure we had enough parking so you did not tie up the driveway. So
we do not tie up traffic, we could back up and get out.
Mr. Haworth stated on a typical commercial use I do not know what
that scales out to on the plan when you look at the buffer. A
fence or something other than just a green area and the building
would be nice.
Mike Berkley stated here is a fence.
fence here. We want a 6' fence here.
We were going to put in a
Mr. Haworth stated that is what we need on the drawing.
Mrs. Duckers asked your landscaping would be in front of the fence?
Mike Berkley stated that is correct. There would be more here than
there is the way it is now.
Doug Alt stated one reason to allow more space between the parking
is to allow for double lanes in there for the drive-up because that
can get backed up on certain days of the week.
Mr. Dudark stated we can work with them on the location of that.
The buffer could be wide enough to put ornamental trees or
something like that and you would still have enough room for
parking spaces there.
Mrs. Duckers stated it is already commercial. We are adding to
something that is already existing commercial, I do not see any
problem. It is not like he is taking two whole blocks.
Chairman Seaton stated I am a little uncomfortable with the
concept. It seems to stick out like a sore thumb as one spot of
commercial zoning surrounded by residential. It is encroaching on
the residential. It is an excellently maintained site and I am
sure any additions would also be maintained in that style.
Mr. Allen asked assuming we were to approve this, could we get
enough information today with them not knowing exactly what type of
building they are going to put up for a Planned C-l?
Mr. Dudark stated some of the information has been stated but we do
not know exactly where the lines are going to end up if we do not
have parking and the width of that buffer and where the trees would
be located. It is your call as to whether or not you think there
Salina City Planning Commission
April 20, 1993
Page 6
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
ks enough information to make a decision. We would like to be able
to say these are the facts before you approve something. That ks
always up to you.
Mr. Haworth moved that Application #Z93-3 be tabled to allow the
dimensions and setbacks on the building be worked out with staff
concerning the total floor area of the building, site coverage and
location, type and size of proposed fencing and landscaping be
added.
Mrs. Duckers seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous (6-0) in favor of the motion. Motion
carried.
rApplication #P93-2/2A, filed by Kaw Valley Engineering.
man Seaton asked if the applicant was present? The applicant
ent.
ew stated you are pretty familiar with the history of this
ng just seen the Shoney's Addition plat again last week.
this was developed as one large commercial lot. There
me subsequent split-offs and proposed split-offs. The
land Lumber and Improvement decided they did not want
to join in o~ the Shoney's plat but they did want to have a replat
of their own ~ich left them with one major building lot and also a
one_ ac~e _par~e~ for First Bank and Trust, a new facility there.
Both of the lot~ as proposed on the plat would have frontage and
coul_d_h~ve_t~e a~ess to the frontage road off of, 9th Street that
pa__rall~ls9th Street. As we noted on the Shoney s plat the West
10' of the fronta~ road right-of-way was vacated by the City
Commission, leaving ~nly 40' of right-of-way. There is 29' of
paving which is adequa~ for that type of frontage road. The other
~sue ~s th_at when this%~lat was originally approved they dedicated
30'_ of right-of-way for~a Sullivan Drive that ran west of the
frontage r~ad. The idea ~eing when the property to the south was
e~ deyeloped that the~other half of that road would be
dedicated. _Unfortunately, w~en Earthcare was approved on the site
to .the_ sou~h in 1985 they w~e able to keep the property zoned
a~}.. ~y ~eaving_%t_a~icultural they were not required to
plat it. They had a conditiona~ use permit approved by the Board
o~. n.g A~pealsso the othe~ half of that road was never
~ .Ther~ is_ a_ ~curb cut o~ 9th Street for Sullivan Drive
but there is only half the neede~right-of-way to complete the
~ informed First Ban~and Trust that in order for
them~livan Drive as a publi~ street access, there would
nee~angement made with~the property owner to the
sou~on of. 30 additional f~t of right-of-way. They
woul~ork ~u? some arrangement for sharing in that
c .t.w_ou _ot have to be he fun length of that
~ .%? allow t_hem to use it ~ a public street for
their drive-in f ca ility. We have pointed out~o the owners that we
did no~ Drive needed to go the~full depth of the
property to the west. It could be shortened~and still provide
access~ated that they want to ~ep it that full
l~ee_ts the C-5 zoning re~irements. The
site is adequately served by utilities. There,s a new 30'
~ pr~v_e. _ That is where~he new sewer
~ough they are showing ~25' setback
l~y farther back th~n t~at to stay
~nsive plan shows this a~ suitable
f~o~endation is to ap~ove the
~e drawing, the ~nature
indlcati that
~ be dedicated upon pla~ting
O~ome reason t~e E~rth~re
have to rezone it to commercial and replat it. We would be gettin
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
May 4, 1993
4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Seaton, Allen, Hardman, Haworth, Larson and
McCoach
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Duckers, Morris and Munson
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Andrew and Stock
OTHER STAFF:
The hearing began at 4:00 p.m.
#1. Approval of the regular minutes of April 20, 1993.
Chairman Seaton asked if there were any comments or corrections to
the minutes of April 20, 19937 There being none, the minutes were
approved as submitted.
Continuation of Application #Z93-3, filed by Bennington State
Bank.
Mr. Andrew stated this is an application you tabled at the last
meeting to get additional information on the site plan so we could
evaluate whether it met all the C-1 zoning criteria. This is a
vicinity map of the location which is the southwest corner of
Walnut and 9th Street. They did submit a revised plan to us. The
orange shaded area is the proposed addition to the building. They
have provided all the necessary dimensions that we needed on the
plan to make an evaluation. Even with the addition, their proposed
lot coverage would be 20% which is still under the 30% that is
allowed in C-1. They have provided adequate parking space and they
have indicated the addition of a 6' screening fence along the west
landscaped buffer. Our only comment was made at the last meeting
and still remains a concern and that is that we believe there is
additional room on the west to add an additional green space or
buffer. The proposed buffer strip is only 10' wide. We think it
should be 15' to provide additional buffer to the west. They have
indicated that they feel their site plan is in flux in terms of
they do not know exactly how much they will add on to the west and
they also want additional stacking for cars that get backed up at
the drive-in, to have additional width there. We felt we wanted to
bring that concern to your attention. There is about 40' from the
end of the stall to the actual driving lane so there would really
be about 20' to 22' of extra stall depth. We also wanted to note
that any recommendation to the City Commission for approval should
be preceeded with a motion to amend the comprehensive plan because
that does show this as residential at this time. As we noted, we
have reviewed this and it does comply with all ordinances,
regulations and policies as a planned commercial district. Our
recommendation is approval subject to the three conditions you see
in the report.
Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant would like to make a comment?
Doug Alt stated the yellow area on the plan is the fence that would
be put in. Most of that is already there but it is just a case of
moving it. The blue would be the existing building, the pink the
proposed addition and the green is the grassy area now.
Chairman Seaton asked has there been any correspondence since the
last meeting?
Mr. Andrew stated there has been no correspondence since the last
meeting.
Salina City Planning Commission
May 4, 1993
Page 2
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Chairman Search asked if there were any interested persons who
would like to make a comment? There being none, would the
commission like to take action?
Mr. Allen moved that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to change
the designated area from low-density residential to commercial use.
Mr. Hardman seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous (6-0) in favor of the motion. Motion
carried.
Mr. Hardman moved that Application #Z93-3 be approved subject to
conditions #1 - 3 citing that the proposed amendment will not
adversely affect the orderly development of the city and the
proposed amendment will not be detrimental to or harm the
surrounding neighborhood and that the public utilities and
street system are adequate to serve the proposed use.
Mr. McCoach seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous (6-0) in favor of the motion. Motion
carried.
.M.r~.. A Application #Z93-2, filed by Golden Eagle Estates, Inc.
ndrew stated this vicinity map shows the general location of
%he_~rea we are talking about. We are talking about an area that
~s ~%~he county and currently zoned agricultural and is adjacent
to ~e%~ity limits north of Magnolia Road. The purpose of this
m~e~ng .~ primarily to get notice to the surrounding neighborhood
0~ the in%~nt for residential development and to get feedback on
~? types ~. residential density that you see as appropriate in
this_ ar~a. T~is is currently a work in progress. They do not have
~ layout ~et. For that reason we think it is appropriate to
dis~s onl~ t~ zoning issues of this case at this particular
me~t~n~As ~is presently scheduled they have their plat
scheduled for revi~ on June let with some final reco~endations on
]~nipg.- ~eir ~en~al concept is to lay out this area into R
~ngl~-F~ly, R-2 Mull-Family and R-3 Multi-Family zones. It is
~ncorpo~a~ed Salin~County and is directly east of the Mayfair
~/~n. Their proposa~would be to have 22 of the 39 acres zoned
R ~ngle-Fam~l~ This ~uld be primarily in the northern and
~r~ sect~?n~. _ This is~ rough schematic concept of the area.
There/ ~d~tch between Hu~ington Road and this ground. The R
area i~t~_in yellow fo~single-family. The layout is only
approx___ it .is ~ ~ny~tng~they have finalized. The orange
area is R-~ and_ ~uld ~ for ~wnhome/duplex development. The
g~s~the propped_ area ~or R-3 and on the triangular
~~ey are looking at ~me kind of unified townhome
development with- co,on area~ We ~ave had meetings with the
~neer _and ~ have~dentified several problems
~ th%~~ We iook~ at this piece of ground
~ P~s sh?w thisbe a prima~ growth area
~re~n~cates l~-density residential.
~a~es ~at _areas wh.~ mixed residential
~~ld b~ d~e!oped as ~lanned development
~~in~his is still ~ straight zoning
a~rel~y p~ for ~is site is still
~ this point--ave no lo~ or blocks to
~~n to. Thirdly, the a~ and the R-3
~ as straight zones so ~ would not
~~tectu~ontr~s in place
~~~a~-2,~ou cou~U
~ or duplex6s or wha~type of
w~~e.t to go beyo.U two
reco~end approval as submitted using metes and bounds descriptio