Loading...
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