7.1 Zone Pacific Add CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
06/26/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. 7 AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NC). ~,/
1 , ia BY: ~ BY:
Item
Application #Z00-2, filed by Randy Sterrett, requesting a change in zoning district classification from
R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District to C-5 (Service Commercial) District on property legally described
as Lot 13, Block 14 of the Pacific Addition to the City of Salina (aka 724 N. 8th Street).
Back,qround
The applicant, Randy Sterrett, owns two lots back to back to each other on North 7th and North 8th
Streets. The lot on North 7th (721 N. 7th) contains a single-family dwelling. The lot on North 8th had
been vacant since 1974 when the dwelling on the property was removed by the City. In 1994, Mr.
Sterrett approached City staff about his desire to construct a detached garage on his property. The
problem from staffs perspective was that the applicant's lots are not contiguous to one another, they're
separated by a 16 ft. alley. In order to merge two platted lots together into one building lot the two lots
must share a common lot line. Vacating the alley was not a viable alternative because other property
owners in the block would have been affected. Staff's only solution was to tie the two lots (Lots 13 and
14, Block 14) together by deed so they could not be sold separately and so that the garage on Lot 13
(724 N. 8th) would be an accessory building to the dwelling on Lot 14 (721 N. 7th).
The applicant's two lots taken together contain 11,700 sq. ft. and on December 23, 1994 a building
permit was issued to allow the construction of a 30 ft. x 36 ft. garage/storage building on Lot 13 subject
to the following conditions:
1. Garage is to be located so that a dwelling can be built on Lot 13 in the event the lot is separated
from Lot 14.
2. The garage will no longer be a permitted accessory use if Lot 13 is sold off with no principal
structure on the property.
3. Storage is limited to personal items only, no heavy equipment.
The garage was built at the rear of Lot 13 so that sufficient space was left to construct a dwelling
between the garage and 8th Street.
Nature of Current Request
Mr. Sterrett has now filed an application to rezone Lot 13 (the garage site) from R-2 to C-5 in order to
split Lots 13 and 14 so he can sell the house on Lot 14 and keep the shop building on Lot 13. He is
proposing to convert the garage on this property to a storage building for construction vehicles and
equipment used in his construction business. The applicant operates General Services
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
06~26~00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NO.
Page 2 BY: BY:
Construction Co. out of his home. Contractor's offices are a permitted home occupation in a residential
district as long as there is no storage of commercial vehicles or heavy equipment on the premises.
Some of the items the applicant has outside today are not permitted under the current R-2 zoning. The
applicant would like to sell the house on 7th Street and move his place of residence to rural Saline
County but operate his business from the building on 8th Street. Rezoning the lot on 8th Street to C-5
is the only option that allows the applicant to sever the two lots and have a full fledged contractor's
shop/storage on the 8th Street property without a residence or any limitations on what is stored there.
Staff would point out that there are other options available to the applicant but they do not involve
turning 724 N. 8th into a business location. One alternative would be to sell Lots 13 and 14 as a
package (a dwelling with a large detached garage). A second alternative would be for the applicant
to construct a dwelling on 8th Street in front of the storage building. This new dwelling when completed
would be the principal building on the lot and therefore the two lots could be sold off separately. A third
alternative would be for the applicant to relocate the 30 ft. x 36 ft. building to another lot in which case
the two lots could be sold off separately.
Requested Zoning
The applicant is requesting a change in zoning district classification to C-5 to allow the existing storage
building to be utilized for commercial purposes. If approved as requested, the site would be subject only
to the development standards and limitations of the C-5 district.
The existing development on this property appears to comply with all C-5 standards except for side
yard setbacks of 7' instead of 10' and the lack of screening along the north and south lot lines.
Suitability of Property for Development Under Existing Zonin.q
The subject property contains 5,850 sq. ft. 18% of which is covered by the existing garage/storage
building. The maximum lot coverage in R-2 is 35% so a similar sized dwelling could be built in front
of the garage on 8th Street. The applicant believes that this lot is more suitable for commercial storage
than residential use and that this block of 8th Street is not a desirable location for new home
construction because of the commercial zoning and uses at the corner of 8th and Woodland. Staff's
research revealed no permits for any new dwellings or major renovations/additions to existing dwellings
on this block in the last 10 years. There was, however, a new duplex constructed at the southeast
corner of Grand and 8th Street in 1997.
The question is whether the subject property and this block of 8th Street is more suitable for continued
residential use or conversion to commercial use.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
06~26~00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NO.
Page 3 BY: BY:
Character of the Neighborhood
The area bounded by Santa Fe, Pacific and 9th Street contains a mix of commercial, industrial and
residential uses. The east side of North 8th Street between Decatur and Woodland is still
predominantly residential while the west side contains such uses as the Finnegan's ice plant, Grand
Avenue United Methodist Church, World Wide Windows and Salina Appliance Center. The entire east
side of North 8th, where the applicant's lot is located, is zoned R-2 and used for residential purposes
except for a contractor's shop three lots to the north. That site is zoned C-5. The property directly
across the street from the applicant's lot has been developed as a parking lot for Grand Avenue United
Methodist Church. The presence of several vacant lots, the mixture of uses and proximity to 9th Street
and Santa Fe tends to make this area attractive to small businesses such as contractor's shops, offices
and storage facilities. Most houses within the area, while modest, are well maintained, however, a few
are in substandard condition. The presence of the businesses along Woodland and Decatur does not
appear to be having an adverse impact on the nearby residential areas.
The applicant's lot is not contiguous with existing C-5 zoned property facing 8th Street. Therefore, if
the City Commission approves this request it will basically be creating a small island of C-5 zoning
along the east side of 8th Street. Even though there are other commercial uses established in the
area, none are located this far south on 8th Street.
Street Access and Traffic
Access to the applicant's storage building comes from a driveway off of 8th Street. The building has
overhead doors facing 8th Street. The building also has overhead doors facing the north-south alley
which separates the building from the applicant's house. This alley is a sand alley which runs south
from Woodland and ends in a T intersection (with outlets to 7th and 8th) before reaching Grand. This
is a public alley which is maintained by the City.
Public Utilities and Services
This site is adequately served by city water and sewer lines. No additional development or building
expansion is planned by the applicant so approval of a change to C-5 zoning should not create any
additional demand on public utilities or any demand for additional public services. However, use of the
property for a construction business could create the need for additional alley and street maintenance
due to the presence of heavy equipment.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
06/26/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NO.
Page 4 BY: BY:
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
The comprehensive plan designates this area as commercial. Rezoning this lot to C-5 commercial
would not be inconsistent with this designation and would not require a plan amendment. However,
such a change would involve the designation of a single parcel of land for commercial use in the midst
of residential use in all directions except to the west as this lot is not contiguous to other C-5 zoned
property.
This is a somewhat unique area in that the zoning is predominantly residential but the Comprehensive
Plan calls for the ultimate future land use in this area to be commercial. If the City Commission believes
that residential housing in this area should be preserved and protected and that investment in new
housing should be encouraged then an amendment of the land use plan to show portions of this area
as future residential may be in order.
Plannin.q Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this rezoning request on June 6, 2000. Staff
presented its report and analysis and the Commission heard comments from the applicant and
representatives of the Grand Avenue United Methodist Church. At the conclusion of the public hearing,
the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Planned C-5 zoning for this lot.
Planned Commercial zoning allows the Planning and City Commission to impose conditions on the use
of the property and to delete potentially incompatible uses from the list of permitted uses. The Planning
Commission recommended the following conditions of approval:
'1. Permitted uses on the property shall be limited to a contractor's office and storage building and
a residential dwelling.
2. Use of the property shall be subject to the C-5 use and bulk limitations, with the exception of the
side yard setback requirements and shall be subject to C-5 screening and landscaping
requirements. Outdoor storage shall be limited to the rear of the garage building.
3. The existing structure on the property shall maintain its existing appearance. No additions to
the existing building footprint or new construction shall take place on the property except
construction of a residential dwelling without the approval of an amended site development plan
by the Planning Commission.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
06/26/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NO.
Page 5 BY: BY:
4. If the owner of the subject property abandons the commercial use of this building for a period
of twelve (12) months the Planned C-5 zoning shall be deemed to be revoked and the property
shall automatically revert back to its former R-2 zoning classification.
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission the attached
ordinance should be approved on first reading. A protest petition containing the signatures of the
owners of 5 adjacent properties was received by the City Clerk's office on June 13. These 5 properties
comprise 21% of the eligible protest area and staff has determined that the petition meets all other
statutory requirements and is therefore a valid protest petition. The effect of this petition is to require
that any motion to approve this zoning change receive four (4) affirmative votes to pass. If this request
receives four (4) votes, second reading of the ordinance would be scheduled for July 10, 2000.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation, it may: 1)overturn the Planning
Commission and deny the request provided four (4) votes are in support of such action; or 2) retum the
application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration citing the basis for disapproval.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Survey/Site Plan
Protest Petition and Map
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes 6/6/00
Ordinance No. 00-
cc: Randy Sterrett
Ordinance Number 00-9985
.PUBLICATION DATE No LaterThan Ma7 11~ 2C)[3(3 APPLICATION NO. #X00-2
HEARING DATE .Tune 6~ 2000 DATE FILED M~.~ 1: ?000
VICINITY MAP ATTACHED KC- FILING FEE $270 .on
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED KC, RECEIPT NO.
{INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION ARE ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM)
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
DISTRICT ZONING MAP (REZONING)
1. Applicant's Name: . _~'~/J,J~' '-~'"~'~'~--~-~L~'~7'~
2. Applicant's Address ~.'~. ? ~ '~ Zip Code: ~ '~ ~'~//
3. Telephone (Businessh ~'~'~'--~)-- ,-~ ~-~)o~'~ (Home):
4. Owner's Name: /~_/~/c~' .~ ;77~'~,,~-z(-~~--
5. Owner's Address ( ~ Zip Code:
6. Legal description of property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary):
Lot(s) ,/~,~ Z~.~-- //~/' P.4~,')C~. ~h . ~',,~,'~/t.-.,¢~-'- In Block No.
In ~, ~,~.'_,~ ,~--~-~ ~ <~'IL~ Subdivision
Metes and bounds description if unplanted (a Surveyor's Certificate must be filed with this application and if approved
will be required to be platted):
7. Approximate street address: -~'(.~7---~"-~-~ O~'~7~¢¢
8. Area of property (sq. ~. and/or acres): ~.~ ~' (~ ~
9. Present zoning: ~-~ Use: ~¢~e / ~+o~.~ ~;l~i.~
10. Requested zoning: ~ '~,: ~-~ Use: ~ ~ ~'~~c'~/~
11. Are there any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development;' {A~ach copy):
12. Li~ r~ns for this requ~t. (A~ach additional sh~ts if nece~w): /~ ~ ~ ~, / .
Zo~,~ /d~ .~ /~' -~ ~J~ ~.~ ~m~ ~Y
13. Supply factual data showing the effect the request will have on pre~nt and future traffic flow~schools, utilities,
refuse collection, surrounding prope~ies, ezc: (Attach additional sheets if neces~ry) ,~ ~
14. Will there be sufficient off-street parking provided for the requested use?
15. List exhibits or plans submitted: .x~ ~... ~(' ~) ( "
PROPERTY OWNE~) ~. APPLICANT'S~,~
SIGNATURE: '-'~~~ ~ .... SIGNATURE:
DATE: ~'~ ~ ~ ~ DATE:
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: ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE (Business): AREA CODE:
White - Planning Canary - Inspection Pink - Applicant
(Rev. 8/84) 101
I I-2
AV WOODLAND AV
R-2 ~
AV GRAND r R-2 C-5~ A
DECATUR c
~ I-2 1 In~h= 210 Feet
MONROE and BODWELL surveying and mapping Inc. O~r ' .
2~0 'vVcst 'vX/oodland, P. O. 13ox 22~7, ~al~na. Kadsas 67402-2387 .
Phc~c: 913-827-3708 FAX: 9,3-827-~333 S~.~e,~e
Sueve o.'s Certificate , .-.
~ This is to certify that on this date, I made a survey of the premises described below and the results of said survey, to the
] best of my knowledge, Information, belief and in my professional opinion, are true and correct. The results of said survey W ' ?;' '
CD scrirtio. , _
[ Lot Thirteen (13), Block Fourteen (14), Pacific Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas.
La.k.a.: 724North 8th ~ ' ~ ~
0 Prope~ Pin Found This Su~ey
~ (P) Plaffe~ ~easuremenf
~ Pm~sed Building . ·
(~) F/aid Maasuremenf
Survey Foc Randy Sterrett
Date:December20, 1994 "'"~f ~ ~ ~'~_~
Survey Numbe~. 94-2149-524 Ude# ~ Bodwe# /c~ I_ico~ed 5t, ffv~j,'or # 1062
CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS *
· City Clerk's Office
~ . Filed
PROTEST PETI T~ ON * '00 JUN 13 P~:09
The undersigned, owners of real estate located within ZOO feet of property propoaed to be
rezoned~ proges~ g~e proposed chang~ of zontng fo~ p~operty de,er{bed ~n Zontng Application #00-2
~on~ eh~n~ fro~ R-2 (~ulti-FamSly R~s~dentSal)eo C-5 {Service Co~erc~al)
724 N. 8th Street.
SECTION II. ' Protester(s) Proper~ o~ned
Signature(s) Metes'and ~unds description
Lot(s) Block(s) Addtt~on
Linda Clough ~'
Eleanor' Fernandez
~ll~e Garre~t 719 R. 7th
e Garre~c
~ ( ~ ')" 19 14 Pacific
Christina Le~cCabe
ACKNOWLEDG~T
STATE OF KANSAS
COmTY OF SALINE )
The foregoing tns~rumen~ was ackn~ledged before me ~ts~'~ day of '~/.~.
2000 by (LIST ~CH PERSON ACKNOWLEDGe)
NOTARy PUBLIC I ' "' ' ~V PuB1 t C
tty Co~iss~cn expi re ST~rE OF
EACH S IC~TURE MUST BE ACK~W~DGED
Additional star.ants of acknowledgemen~ may be attached and made a par[ of ~ts petition as necessary.
I' i ......... APPLICATION//Z00-2
AV WOODLAND AV
~ REQUEST ARE~
XJ
AV GRAND
~ DECATUR
S
~ Salina Planning Commission ~
· ~ 6, 2000 ~
bulk requirer that neigh~~b!ic w.elf.a, re "
~~idC::: t::t:oO:d 'ti°ns rec°mm~ ,
#3. Application #Z00-2, filed by Randy Sterrett, requesting a change in zoning
district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District to C-5 (Service
Commercial) District on property legally described as Lot 13, Block 14 of the
Pacific Addition to the City of Salina (aka 724 N. 8th Street).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report that was sent to the Planning Commission and
applicant.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of staff?
Mr. Pemey asked if it is changed to C-5 you would not have to have a rezoning
to go back and put a house in front of this building if someone wanted to do that
in next 10 or 15 years or whatever?
Mr. Andrew stated if it were zoned C-5 it would not be allowed, a residential use
is not a permitted use in C-5.
Mr. Perney stated ok so that is what I meant we could get set up here for an
unintended kind of compromise.
Mr. Andrew stated if you were to accept the conditions in the report you could
spell out that construction of a dwelling would be permitted because it is a
conditional use in C-5.
Mr. Dudark stated as Planned C-5 you could add that as a specific option but
as straight C-5 it wouldn't be permitted.
Mr. Perney asked then if the residential came back they would have to start
over but not if it is Planned C-57
Mr. Dudark stated right.
Mr. Umphrey asked would the applicant care to make a statement?
Randy Sterrett 721 N. 7th, Thank you folks for being here today and giving me
the opportunity to try to proceed through with this. Dean pretty well covered
most of the issues. I think that some of the main things that I looked at from the
staff analysis was the conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It states in
here that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as commercial.
Rezoning this lot to C-5 commercial would not be inconsistent with the
designation and would not require a plan amendment so it is pretty evident that
somewhere along the line our forefathers determined that this area was
gradually becoming more and more and probably should become more and
more commercial and light industrial and just do this location. North of the
tracks has been a depressed area for quite some time and it has been real
viable for smaller contractors and individuals that want to open up businesses
to come and get a fresh start and so I think that we are getting ready to lose .
Hawthorne Elementary School here in another year and we looked at building
a house in the front of a shop but the neighborhood is really, not all of it, but
some of it is getting in pretty bad shape. There is a vacant house to the north
there, to the right or straight up, that house has been vacant for about a year
now and there has been a lot of riff raff and drug addicts and this and that in
that area and likewise to the south there are a couple of houses to the south
that have really been just unimaginable as far as what has taken place. We
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
Page 4
have had problems with children playing with needles and syringes that have
been laying in the alleys and we have called the police many times and
basically it is kind of a junky haven in the nighttime. When I bought those lots
about 20 years ago they were really dilapidated and condemned and we built
a new house on the one on 8th and we built this new shop on 7th and we have
really enhanced the area, but to go residential any longer it just doesn't seem
viable. As Dean mentioned, Porter Construction is two doors down to the north
and there has been no problems there and I think the house to the north of me
is going to be on the market here right shortly. And I think that one of the
neighbors who live next door to me is going to buy it and put a building up like
mine so I think that it is all coming that way and it is probably better for the
neighborhood to be that way. If you take 8th Street where you see that blank,
now that is Grand Avenue Methodist Church and what is across from my lot
there where that building is is just an old parking lot. And over on 9th Street
where you see the R-2 that is all Hawthorne School so it is not like that is all
residential or anything, it is kind of a situation of who knows what is going to
happen there.
Mr. Umphrey asked Mr. Sterrett there are two lots directly north of yours on 8th
Street, there are two houses there, is one of them occupied at this time and one
of them vacant? Or do you know?
Mr. Sterrett stated yes one is occupied and one is vacant. They are both
rentals. I do want to say one other thing that I have been dealing with. First of
all as they outlined here the presence of the businesses along Woodland and
Decatur does not appear to be having an adverse impact on the nearby
residential area so there is no negative impact in the area that is taking place
from any construction that has gone on. The main thing, another issue that has
been getting, or bothering me here, I have been paying taxes on this building
as commercial since I built the building and I didn't think that it was very fair for
me to have to pay taxes at a commercial rate and I have the rate here, the
classification. Actually I am paying 30%, one better than commercial, for a
building that I am being dictated upon my usage, in other words I am only
allowed to use a garden shovel and this and that and for residential purposes,
but yet the appraiser comes back and says we are going to nail you for 30%
because we consider it commercial. And I have appealed that for the last five
years and every time I appeal it, it comes back no change in classification.
They still determine that building to be as far as taxes to be commercial. So I
am kind of stuck in a box here because I don't get to use it but at the same time
I am paying triple the taxes on there and I didn't think that was right also, so
where do we go from here, I don't know, I was hoping that if we could rezone
it commercial so that I would at least be able to use it, I would feel that that
would be fair for me since I am paying and have been paying the commercial
rate on the taxes. There was one other issue about some screening and we
have applied for a permit to put a nice fence up and we have that ready to go
so I wanted to let you folks know that we are trying to do everything we can.
The way the building looks today I think it didn't look all that great, there is an
old tractor in the front yard, I collect John Deere D tractors, that was a 37 D and
I have a 26 D in the shop and I didn't know that that wasn't permitted, I know
there are a lot of people that have tractors and collect tractors here in town and
restore them and one thing or another and I wasn't aware that I might perhaps
have been violating an ordinance but that is my hobby that I do in the evenings
and weekends and whatever when I get time and can get the parts and one
thing, I just kind of refurbish them old John Deere D tractors. I don't know what
other equipment that he may have been talking about was on there, but what
I want to do is I would love to put up some good landscaping, some nice
fences, more like a rough cedar fence and make it attractive. We have put in
a drive so we have adequate parking. We put in a 120' x 11' wide drive, plus
we have 20' x 50' parking in the rear which Dean didn't have a picture of that
but there is plenty ample parking and we are not trying to take anything from
the neighborhood by no means. We want to enhance the neighborhood as
much as we possibly can and of course we would like to make our building
much more attractive and kind of improve the area. Here is a good indication
of what we are next to there, I have a few things out back there that I am in
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
Page 5
transition right now, moving from one place to another so I am kind of
unorganized looking a little bit, but you can see this building to the right on the
lower right in the picture and actually it goes throughout the whole
neighborhood there in the back it sits there and it is terrible. So I want you folks
to know that we are going to try to improve it and make it a plausible and where
it is not unsightly for everybody concerned. The only thing that I am concerned
with, and the one thing that I want to assure you of is that we do have Grand
Avenue Methodist Church across the street and it has always been one of my
concerns that we don't have any equipment or anything in the streets, during
Saturday and Sunday. We try to make sure that there is nothing there because
they have, their church is expanding and growing quite a bit as far as
congregation and a lot of times, parking is a problem for them and we want to
send the message to them that we will not interfere with any of their parking
and we will make sure that any of our equipment orvehicles will not be in the
street and we are not trying to be a problem with anybody I am just trying to get
something that will work for me.
Mr. Umphrey asked you are in the concrete construction business, how many
employees do you average?
Mr. Sterrett stated there are three of us.
Mr. Umphrey stated so it is not a large operation.
Mr. Sterrett stated no sir we mainly do sidewalks and driveways and things like
that and there has been a time or two when we have done some work for the
Engineering Department and so forth.
Mr. Hass asked have you considered selling the house and the garage as a
package? Or have you tried that alternative?
Mr. Sterrett stated we have, and the thing with that area, it is real depressed
and the market just wouldn't bring what we have in it. Take my house for
example, when I bought it it was appraised at $7,000 and now it is appraised
at $50,000. My neighbors are appraised at $15,000 and they are still at
$15,000. So I have overbuilt on 7th because I built a two-story, nice new home
so it pretty well killed me and then when you throw a big building like this in with
that big house and this area, the market is just not going to happen as far as
somebody wanting to go down there and rent a four bedroom home and then
having a big shop like this, I haven't found any buyers, I mean if somebody
came up and wanted to buy I would sell. And I also, one thing that I forgot to
mention is we do own, that is General Services Construction, we do own 6 lots
of I-2 which is Light Industrial over on North Cherry so we have adequate space
for any heavy equipment that we may have. Anything over 24 ton for example
is what Mike Peterson told me, couldn't be there and anything like a front end
loader or something of that nature we keep over on Cherry along with the
backhoes so we wouldn't have any heavy equipment in the area to speak of
because we have adequate spots for that already. The only issue I have here
and the main use of this building is security that we can lock up our smaller
stuff, you know our hand tools and our power tools and radial arm saws and
things of that nature that you can't keep in the truck and that you can't keep in
the open and so basically that is all we have and I wanted to let you know that
we do have I-2 ground for the heavy stuff and we are never going to do that at
this building. Basically what this does is give me an office. I bought some
property out in the County and we are going to build a home out there and this
gives me an office, a place to answer the phone and do my paperwork and
what have you.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any interested citizens that would like to speak
either for or against this application?
Jack Frain, 324 E. Jewell. I am trustee chairperson at the Grand Avenue United
Methodist Church. First of all I would like to stay that I am not necessarily
against the rezoning of the property in question but I would like to express
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
Page 6 '
some possible concerns and may obtain some assurances from Mr. Sterrett
about these concerns. Our church's main parking lot as he has already
mentioned is right across the street from the property in question.
Approximately 6 months ago we had to have our parking lot repaved because
we had an excess amount of large truck traffic that was using our parking lot to
turn around in. We had it resurfaced with about an inch and a half of new
asphalt so this one concern is that our parking lot may become an unloading
spot or a parking or a turnaround for large heavy equipment or large trucks.
With the thickness being only approximately an inch and a half, well it probably
would not withstand too much of that. Also being in the contracting business
as he is there is a tendency to accumulate scraps and excess building material .
and so that could lead to an unsightly appearance of the property. These are
just two of the main concerns that I have and that I think we might need to
address before considering this.
Rick Just, 621 N. 12th, Pastor of Grand Avenue United Methodist Church. We
have had no problems with Randy before and I just wanted to make sure in light
of what Jack has said and what Randy has referred to here with regards to
vehicles parked in the street and so forth it sounds like you talked about
keeping that off the street and so forth for our Sunday morning and Sunday
evening and Wednesday services and so forth. I would just like to be assured
of that to happen as well as the equipment and so forth not accumulating there
so that would not cause a problem for our parking as well. We have had
amazingly enough, I know that area is somewhat depressed as he said but yet
if we go right southeast of our church there have been new residential areas,
new duplexes, built there within the last year to two years by Wayne
Montgomery so what we have is kind of a combination of some new buildings
being built. New houses as well as commercial coming in so we as a church
obviously are in the people business, we obviously would hate to have
construction all around us. Not that we are against construction because we
are out to build people's lives as he is out to build people's houses and so forth
but we would like to be able to work together in this process. I don't know that
we have a major problem here but those are some concems that we have that
Jack has mentioned already and just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Mr. Umphrey asked have we had any other comments or telephone calls from
interested neighbors or citizens?
Mr. Andrew stated we had contact from an adjoining property owner to the
south and they were concerned and expressed their opposition to the proposed
rezoning. They have taken a petition around that was signed by 6 different
owners on N. 8th and also on N. 7th that have indicated their opposition to this
rezoning request. It is not a formal protest petition at this time but it does
express the ones that are in opposition to this.
Mr. Umphrey asked Mr. Sterrett would you like to comment further or would you
like to address the comments of the church?
Mr. Sterrett stated yes I would. We have had that building up for five years now
and as the reverend just mentioned we haven't had any parking problems. We
have tried to work with them and we will continue to do so. We will not burden
them with the parking on 8th Street and we would never ever consider
unloading in their parking lot and we don't have anything to unload basically,
but if we did as I said we put a concrete driveway 11' wide by 120' long going
down the side, the south side of our building.
Mr. Umphrey asked and your building is accessible from the alley?
Mr. Sterrett stated yes sir. We have two overheads in the rear and two
overheads in the front. And this petition here, I would like to look at that
because I have talked to all my neighbors and I knew the man to the south was
going to be objective to it, however he is a renter and they have probably been
through 20 renters there, we don't get along very good unfortunately. I would
like to see that petition to see because I have talked to all my neighbors and
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
Page 7
nobody had any opposition and I just wondered how many of them were
actually owners. Is that possible that I could take a look at that?
Mr. Umphrey stated I have no objections. In the interest of time however I think
I will bring the discussion back to the Commission for possible action.
Mr. Sterrett stated what I am looking at here, I only see one person that actually
owns there.
Mr. Umphrey stated thank you for that so now we will go back to our discussion
and as I said take possible action.
Mr. Andrew stated before you begin your discussions we did want to point out
that on Condition Number 2 we indicated there that if these conditions were
accepted they would include screening and landscaping requirements. The
literal requirements for screening would only apply on the north and south
property lines because those abut residential property. It would not directly
address any kind of screening that would have to be placed on the west or 8th
Street side of any storage area so if that is a concern and the Commission
wishes to recommend approval of this then that would have to be addressed
separately.
Mr. Sterrett stated I don't have any problem putting up a fence or doing anything
else you folks deem necessary. We already have the permit and are prepared
to do whatever will work.
Mr. Perney stated it is hard to get enthused one way or the other on this for me.
When I had just read the report and hadn't looked at the actual site it seemed
to have some similarities to things like the warehouse that the newspaper
wanted to build behind their building a few years ago. But then you go and look
at this and see that you really only have three residential blocks that are pretty
well surrounded by commercial and industrial development and it does seem
that the comprehensive plan may be right that maybe this is an irreversible
trend toward commercial development. And then on the other hand you turn
right around and we have some people that put some substantial money in their
homes very close to this in recent years and the brand new residences being
built down on Grand so it is an awkward situation and we got here unfortunately
by a compromise it seems like of the whole issue of having the very large
garages on houses that are supposed to serve the house and we are trying to
prevent this very sort of thing from happening. So now here we are, five, six
years later, plainly he would like to have a commercial use in that building, the
prospects of getting a residential one in front of it and converting it back to a
private garage seem pretty slim. So I think the staff report is right, we either
ought to reject this or we ought to go with the C-5 Planned use with as much
restriction as possible that it be used just as a contractor's office and as a
storage building. If we go for PC-5 does Mr. Sterrett have to resubmit any
documentation or since it is an existing property do we have enough
documentation?
Mr. Dudark stated I think that we have enough documentation. There is that
survey that is in your packet that essentially shows where the building is. I think
the big question on the PC-5 is what happens to the outdoor space. His office
and equipment in the building is one thing, but if backhoes and bobcats and the
front end loaders and trailers start appearing, then you are going to have a
contractor's storage yard there and I think that is a big question for the future.
Should that be allowed or not? You could with C-5 zoning do that.
Mr. Perney asked you can have outdoor storage of equipment in C-57 Could
we limit that?
Mr. Dudark stated you could limit that. As PC-5 you could make that a condition
that there be indoor equipment and an office and parking of non-construction
equipment like pick up trucks or vehicles or something like that. The question . .
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
Page 8
is where do you want to draw the line on that. How far would you want to go on
that if it was a business?
Mr. Umphrey stated it is an unusual situation but the applicant isn't asking to
build a building there, the building exists, so we need to find what is a
reasonable and proper use for the building and the land.
MOTION: Mr. Perney moved to approve Application #Z00-2 as a Planned C-5 district
restricted to the restrictions listed on page six, the four items in the staff report.
In so doing it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood
and would not have substantial adverse affect on the neighborhood.
SECOND: Mr. Hedges seconded the motion but raised the question with the exceptions
or the restrictions listed here, I don't see anything specifically addressing
outdoor storage.
Mr. Dudark stated that is correct.
Mr. Hedges asked so is that an additional condition that we may want to choose
to impose on this should we approve it?
Mr. Hass stated I think so.
Mr. Umphrey asked do you want to amend the original motion then?
AMENDED
MOTION: Mr. Hass stated yes I would amend the original motion to include limitation on
outside storage of heavy equipment.
Mr. Umphrey asked can you elaborate a little on limitation? Is that banning it
or is that allowing a little bit? What do you want?
Mr. Perney stated you get right away into the definitions. The air compressor
that is setting there is that heavy equipment? The tractor is an antique it is
personal property. If it was a residential garage I wouldn't be surprised to see
the man's hobby tractor inside or outside the garage.
Mr. Umphrey stated I am not trying to be too harsh or too lenient, I just think the
man needs direction on what we want to have him do.
Mr. Perney stated but that little compressor trailer it is smaller than a pickup
truck is that heavy equipment or not and it is not particularly ugly.
Mr. Hass asked so how do we define it, like contractor's equipment but that is
pretty wide?
Mr. Umphrey stated we haven't heard any comments from staff regarding our
dilemma.
Mr. Sterrett stated Mr. Peterson stated anything over 24,000 pounds because
that would require going from a class C to a class B or A licensing.
Mr. Umphrey stated I think we need something a little more confining than that.
Does staff have any comments?
Mr. Dudark stated well I think there are two questions. What is the nature of the
equipment you want to allow and not allow. And then the other question is
where on the property do you want to allow and not allow it. In the side yard
next to the building or off the alley is different, I think, from the building to the
street. So I think you need to look at two things, what can be stored outdoors
and where could you store it? So small pieces of equipment in the side yard
and in the rear yard might be ok, but when you get into the backhoes and front
end loaders and that kind of thing then you are into heavier equipment.
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
Page 9
Mr. Sterrett stated I can go along with no front end loaders and no backhoes
period. But in the rear I mean there may be a time when a maintenance issue
may come up but we could always use the back because there is a pad 20' x
50' in the back plus the two overhead doors.
Mr. Perney stated ok.
Mr. Umphrey asked do you want to amend your motion?
Mr. Perney asked did we ever actually do the motion on the amendment yet
anyway?
Mr. Umphrey stated no we haven't.
Mr. Perney stated because I interrupted before you finished.
Mr. Umphrey stated we are working on the amendment.
Mr. Dudark stated you could have the amendment by Commissioner Hass or
you could have an amended motion by the one that made the motion, Mr.
Perney.
AMENDED
MOTION: Mr. Perney stated ok I will attempt to amend my own motion, this is the
rephrase: I would move that permitted uses on the property be limited to
contractor's office and storage building and a potential future residential
dwelling and that limited to outside storage be limited to the backyard of the
present building.
Mr. Umphrey asked is there a second to the amendment?
Mr. Hedges asked was that an amendment or a new motion?
Mr. Perney stated that was a whole new motion.
Mr. Umphrey asked are you abandoning the odginal motion? We have a motion
that has been seconded so we really need to deal with that.
Mr. Perney stated ok that is the amendment to my original motion.
Mr. Umphrey asked let's vote on the original motion and hopefully it will die.
Mr. Dudark asked was there a second on the amendment?
Mr. Hedges stated I would be willing to withdraw my second if you want to
withdraw your motion.
Mr. Umphrey stated that would be a lot simpler.
Mr. Hedges withdrew his second.
Mr. Umphrey asked now we will deal with the new motion. Does everyone
understand the new motion?
Mr. Perney stated it is pretty garbled.
Mr. Umphrey stated what we are saying is that we are going to allow the
Planned C-5 and not allow any outside storage except at the rear of the
building. Does that sound correct?
Mr. Perney stated that is correct.
SECOND: Mr. Hedges seconded the motion.
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
Page 10
Mr. Webb asked if the property across the alley sells, then Mr. Sterrett has the
right to store all of his equipment across the alley from the new ownership of
that house if that house sells across the alley, correct?
Mr. Umphrey stated he has the right to store equipment from the alley on the
8th Street side.
Mr. VVebb stated but what I am saying is that you can have a lot of equipment
stored on the back side of the garage that may be facing the backyard of a new
owner across the alley.
Mr. Pemey stated however he has a screened fence across the entire backyard
of the house. I drove down the alley.
Mr. Dudark stated between the building and the alley would be where the
allowable storage area would be on this lot.
Mr. Umphrey asked on the 8th Street lot?
Mr. Sterrett stated that is just for heavy equipment right? We can have our, like
we have our little forms down the side on that north side can't we?
Mr. Perney stated it is all outdoor storage is the way that we worded it.
Mr. Sterrett stated all outdoor storage.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Sterrett asked does that mean that I can have a sign in the front yard?
Mr. Perney stated C-5 allows some signage yes.
Mr. Sterrett stated you said 36 sq. ft. is the way I understand it. Because we
are going to put some fence up and try to beautify it and screen it.
Mr. Umphrey stated I think you understand what we would like to have and we
are counting on you to do it.
Application #P00-4/4A, filed by the Salina Airport Authority, requesting approval
of a replat of Lots 9 and 10, Block 15 in Schilling Subdivision No. 5 (SW corner
of Scanlan Avenue and Bailey Road).
Mr. Dudark gave the staff report that was sent to the Planning Commission
applicant.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of staff? Hear ,ne would the
)licant care to comment?
Shelli 3237 Arnold Ave. As this is a pretty straight
forward As you recall we about 468 acres in Schilling
Subdivision No. this you think that your are orienting
all the lots in the in this particular circumstance we have a
distribution facility that I to purchase the proposed Lot
1 with this aid it is a distribution facility and it would
allow them to shipping and in a drive through fashion. We still
believe Lot 2 would be ~cive to any potential buyer. The
access from two roads would continue. Lot one
also have the frontage on Bailey Court. I ; glad to answer any
questions that Commissioners might have at this point.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of the applicant? none I
will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion and I
(Published in The Salina Joumal July ,2000)
ORDINANCE NUMBER 00-9985
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE
NUMBER 8526, THE SAME BEING CHAPTER 42 OF THE SALINA CODE, AND THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP THEREIN AND THEREBY ADOPTED AND PROVIDING FOR
THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY AND PRESCRIBING
THE PROPER USES THEREOF.
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent for the amendment of the Zoning District Map, the
rezoning of certain property therein, hereinafter described has been timely complied with, SO NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Governing Body of the City of Salina, Kansas:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DISTRICT "PC-5", PLANNED SERVICE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. That the Zoning District Map of the City of Salina, Kansas, duly
adopted and published as a part of Ordinance Number 8526, the same being Chapter 42 of the Salina
Code, be and it is hereby amended so that the following described property be rezoned as follows, to-
wit:
Lot Thirteen (13), Block Fourteen (14), Pacific Addition to the City of
Salina, Kansas.
The above described tract of land being addressed as 724 N. Eighth Street.
shall become a part of DISTRICT "PC-5", PLANNED SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Section 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The use of said described property shall
be subject to all the conditions, restrictions and limitations as made and provided for in Ordinance
Number 8526, the same being Chapter 42 of the Salina Code with reference to the "C-5", SERVICE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT regulations, except for side yard setbacks which may be reduced to
Seven (7) feet. Development of the property shall also be subject to the following conditions, to wit:
1. Permitted uses on the property shall be limited to a contractor's office and storage
building and a residential dwelling.
2. Use of the property shall be subject to the C-5 use and bulk limitations, with the
exception of the side yard setback requirements and shall be subject to C-5
screening and landscaping requirements. Outdoor storage shall be limited to the
rear of the garage building.
3. The existing structure on the property shall maintain its existing appearance. No
additions to the existing building footprint or new construction shall take place on
the property except construction of a residential dwelling without the approval of
an amended site development plan by the Planning Commission.
4. If the owner of the subject property abandons the commercial use of this building
for a period of twelve (12) months the Planned C~5 zoning shall be deemed to be
revoked and the property shall automatically revert back to its former R-2 zoning
classification.
Section 3. That all prior ordinances in conflict herewith as they relate to the above
described real estate are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption and publication once in the official city newspaper.
Introduced: June 26, 2000
Passed: July 10, 2000
Alan E. Jilka, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Barbara R. Weber, Acting City Clerk