7.1 Zone Hanson Court Add CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
AGENDA SECTION: Development O~GINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
7 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
NO.
1 BY: Roy Dudark BY:
Item
Application #Z93-10, filed by the Salina ~City Planning
Commission, requesting a change in zoning district classification
from the C-5 (Service Commercial) District to C-3 (shOpping
Center) District on property legally described~ as Bl~ock 1 and
Lots 1-10, Lots 12, 14, 16, 18 and the West 20' of Lot 20 in
Block No. 2, Hansen Court Addition to the City of Salina, Kansas
(aka 1300 and 1400 Blocks of E. Iron.)
Background
On August 3, 1993, the Planning Commission considered an
application filed by Bill Medina to rezone adjacent property from
R-2 to C-5 to allow construction of offices. Following
discussion and comments from the applicant, the Commission
determined that C-3 zoning would allow the applicant to do what
he was proposing and would be more compatible with the
surrounding office and residential development than C-5 zoning.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend a lesser change to
C-3. The Commission then expressed interest in having staff
initiate an application to downzone the remaining C-5 area to
C-3. The original application was filed on September 3, 1993 and
all affected property owners were notified of the proposed
change. The Planning Commission requested on October 5, 1993
that this application be tabled to November 16, 1993 to allow the
application to be amended to include Block 1. All property
owners who would be directly affected and all adjacent property
owners have been notified by mail.
COMMISSION AC~ON
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
Page 2 CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/13/93 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: O~GINA~NG DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM:
NO.
BY: Roy Dudark BY:
Staff Analysis
All of the uses that have been developed in this area or that are
being proposed (business and professional offices) are permitted
in the C-3 district. If this downzoning were approved, the
status of existing uses would be unchanged. The types ~of uses
that could occur on the undeveloped tracts would be more
restricted under C-3.
. It is staff's observation that some of the city's greatest land
~ use compatibility conflicts have occurred where C-5 zoning abuts
directly against residential zoning. The primary difference
between C-5 zoning and C-3 zoning is that C-5 allows a number of
uses that involve outdoor display and storage such as used car
sales, equipment sales and rental, and contractor's storage
yards. C-3 requires all storage and display of goods to be
within an enclosed building. C-3 also allows less lot coverage
(40% vs. 50%) and restricts the amount of paving coverage in the
front yard to 60% vs. 100% in C-5.
Staff believes a lesser change to C-3 zoning would be more
compatible with the surrounding office and residential uses than
the current C-5 zoning. The Executive Plaza office park
development is zoned C-3 and a portion of Mr. Medina's holdings
were recently rezoned from R-2 to C-3. Downzoning Block 1 as
well as the remainder of Block 2 would make the zoning
designation uniform in this area and would be a closer fit with
the character of the existing development than C-5. If the City
Commission believes that C-3 zoning is more appropriate for this
East Iron corridor you should proceed with approval of this
zoning map amendment.
COMMISSION AC~ON
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
Page 3 CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/13/93 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SECI/ON: O~GINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM:
NO.
BY: Roy Dudark BY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this
amended application on November 16, 1993. Following presentation
of the Staff Report and discussion and questions, the Commission
voted (6-0) to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment.
The Planning Commission cited the following reasons in support of
their recommendation: 1) the area is adjacent to a C~3 District
and 2) a change to C-3 zoning would be more compatible with the
surrounding office and residential development than the current
C-5.
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation, the
attached ordinance should be approved on first reading. The
protest deadline expired on November 30, 1993 and no petition was
filed. Second reading would be scheduled on December 20, 1993.
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)
return the application to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration citing the basis for disapproval.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of 10/5/93
and 11/16/93
Ordinance No. 93- 9610
COMMISSION AC~ON
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
PUBLICATION DATE No Later Than Sept. 14, 1993 APPLICATION NO. Z93-10
HEARING DATE October 5. 1993 DATE FILED Seot. 3, 1993
VICINITY MAP ATTACHED YES FILING FEE -0-
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED FIR 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: Sa]tna City Piannincj Commission
2. Applicant'sAddreas 300 W. Ash, P.O. Box 736 ZipCode: 67402-0736
3. Telephone (Business): 826-7260 (Home):
4. Owner's Name: (Multiple Owners)
5. Owner's Address ?1p Code:
6. Legal description of property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary): ~)A.~.q~
Lot(s) Lots 1-10· Lots 12, 14, 16, 18 and the W 20' Of InBIockNo. 2, and ali of 1
Lot 20
In Hansen Cou~t Addltinn Subdivision
Metes and bounds description if unplatted (a Surveyor's Certificat~ must be filed with this application and if approved
will be required to be platted):
7. Approximate street address: 1400 £. Iron
8. Area of property (sq. ft. and/or acres):
9. Present zoning: C-5 Use: Fast food restaurant: offices, vacant
10. Requested zoning: C-3 Use: No change
11. Are there any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development? (Attach copy):
12. List reasons for this request. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): C-3 zoninq would be more
compatible'with the surroundinq office and residential devel0pment.
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)
No change in existing dewlo.nment
14. Will there be sufficient off-street parking provided for the requested use?
Explain: Existing development meets city parking gtanda~d~.
15. List exhibits or plans submitted: Vicinity Map
PROPERTY OWNER(S) APPLICANT'S
If the applicant is to be repr~nt~ by I~al coun~l or an authoriz~ agent, please complete the following ~ that
corr~nd~ce and communications pe~aining to this application ~y ~ fo~ard~ to the a~horiz~ individual.
NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE:
ADDRESS: ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE (Bu~n~): AR~ CODE:
~ite - Planning Cana~ - CiW Clerk Pink - Ins~ion ~ld - A~i~nt
(Rev. 8/~) 101
IPLEASE DO NOT D~ACH)
~'- ''~x:-~-~; I ' A 1 i cati on #Z93-10
................. SalinaPP 't
~~ C1 y Planning Commission
R'S !LAT
.:.. R-2
· Iron Avenue
"03
II
lB
I0
mmmllimm
m~
· Stapl er ·
, , PDD j R.2· R
s ~ mmmmmmm 21
. . J uest Area
. Glenni fe,l Hi 11
School ·
7.
~ "' Indian Rock Park
4 3 4 2
6 5 8 3
8 7 8 4
Salina Planning Commission
October 5, 1993
Page 2
~. Andrew said it would give us so~e time to allow us
~ r~ew it before it ts presented.
~ Mr. ~orris said at the last meeting he did e~ u ~. a
conce~ with others who questioned the balance of
':" ground~up there, and I would hope that their
in thatN would involve the anticipated use the
balance that ground.
~, Chairman said the ground and are not
· included particular application. She the
'~ applicant if was clear on what the concern there?
· : Mrs. McArthur .d no, not fully.
~.. Chairman Seaton if we had a map.
;.. Mrs. McArthur aske¢ he was discussing common areas?
.... Chairman Seaton said
Mr. Andrew showed the around to the east.
Mrs. McArthur said that goes with that house.
Mr. Andrew Said he thought Mr. Morris Is saying, is
that there was some concern about this Lot 5, or
the tract that goes with the ina1 house up there, that
should somehow be addres! whether there Is any
anticipation or whether it ~ible to further divide
that lot to create an add~ out of this property~
what the contours are, re~ :ic that is, whether
there is any plan to do
Mrs. McArthur said it depend he buyer. I have
no interest in doing there, whoever buys
that lot with the 2 acres.
Mr. Dudark said if plan were to be with that
Lot 5 shown it is, it would be .l~ited to one
dwelling be( of the PDD, unless there were a
reapplication a new plan presented and a d~w hearing.
They wouldn't ~ any right to add a second d~lling, or
third dwelli~ or something like that in there b~cause it
would be a ~q . you wouldn't be able to do any m~re than
what was a~o. d. That's not to say that some time,in the
future s ~bo. who owns that may come forward with ~plan
for that ~rea but the plan could be nothing other tha~ one
home. ~
MOTION: Mr.! n moved that Application #PDD93-8 be ~able~J
until meeting on November 2, 1993. ~
SECOND= Mr seconded the motion.
VOTE= vote was unanimous (6-0) in favor of the motion.
carried.
#4. Application #Z93-10, filed by the Salina City Planning
Commission, requesting the rezoning of Lots 1-10, Lots 12,
14, 16, 18 and the West 20' of Lot 20 in Block 2 of the
Hansen Court Addition from C-5 (Service Commercial)
District of C-3 (Shopping Center) District. (1400 Block E.
Iron)
Mr. Andrew explained that this was an application that was
initiated by yourselves and carried out by staff. On
August 3, of this year, you considered an application
filed by Bill Medina to rezone land from R-2 to C-5 to
allow additional commercial office area to be developed
and at that time we recommended that the property be
approved for a lesser change to C-3 which would be
Sallna Planning Commission
October 5, 1993
Page 3
-'. consistent with the executive office plaza to the east.
f During that meeting the possibility was discussed of
."~ -initiating an application for the remainder of that area
· . zoned C-5 to downzone it to C-3. That has been initiated,
the affected property owners notified and the adjoining
':" property owners notified. As we noted at that time, C-3
~ would allow all the uses that have already been developed
-' in this area and are being proposed, which include
~? business and professional offices. If this downzoning
-.,~ were approved the status of those properties wouldn't
change, if they were conforming under C-§, they would
i remain as conforming uses in C-3. The only changes would
· ... be the types of uses that could be developed on the
:. undeveloped tracts would be more restricted. The primary
.. differences between C-3 and C-5 are outlined in your
report. C-3 does not allow any outdoor display or storage
.. of goods or equipment. C-3 has more restrictions on lot
coverage, you can only cover 40% of your lot and the type
of parking paving coverage that you can have, you've got
to have additional landscaping out adjacent to the street
" where as in C-5 you could .basically pave out to the
property line. So those are the primary differences. Our
belief is that this change to C-3 would be more compatible
"' with the surrounding development and would be compatible
'~ with the existing development that is there.. What could
of and should have been done was including the property
one block to the west, the Marketaide and the Top Hat Dry
... Cleaners' property in this application. If you believe
.: this is a proper step, we could, at a later time bring an
-. application forward and notify them and initiate a change
.. for that block as well. That would provide more
- consistency along this corridor and more protection for
. the surrounding area. With that I'll see if you have any
'- questions.
· ' Mr. Hardman asked if there was the possibility of amending
the application to include Block I rather than file a new
separate application?
Mr. Dudark said at'this point you couldn't expand. You
could only reduce it in size. So it would take another
advertisement to do that. You could table this
application and you could file an amended application and
publish that notice and then combine the two together for
another day, if you wanted to do that, it is possible.
Mr. Hardman asked if that would be more efficient?
· . Mr. Dudark said it is going to take time whether we
':. proceed with this and come back and take the other block
.. on its own, it would be the same amount of time,, it's
whether or not you want to have both of them considered
-: together.
Mr. Hardman said that it seemed 'that the two are so
closely tied together that there's not inclined to be
opposition in one block and not in the other and it would
require City Commission action only one time instead of
two.
Mr. Dudark said that was true, also some advantage to one
ordinance published.
Mr. Andrew said the primary time consideration said is
Just collecting the list identifying the property owners
and compiling that list and getting the notices out. That
would be the same whether it were filed separately or
attached to this application.
Chairman Seaton asked If there were further comments from
the public. She asked if everyone was notified and was
.'- there any response.
Salins Planning Commission
October 5, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Andrew said yes, we got a response from Dr. Huseman's
· veterinary clinic. He Just had questions about whether
that would change the status of his business and that is a
~.~ permitted use in C-3 and well as C-5, so there wouldn't be
¥. any change.
Chairman Seaton said she knew he was concerned about the
effect on the marketability of the property area.
Mr. Andrew said it. is all developed along Indiana Ave.
The portion that's along Iron, they were planning business
and professional offices there anYWay, Which is allowed in
Mr. Hardman asked if we would Consider this in 4 weeks?
Mr. Dudark said November 16 would be the hearing, if you
-i~ were to combine the two and you want to go to that
... alternative.
Mr. Hardman said in the .best interest of the City
Commission, we should Just table this and vote Jointly.
Mr. Dudark said or Just direct that the application be
amended to include the block to the west and that the
hearing be scheduled on November 16, 1993.
MOTION: Mr. Hardman made a motion to direct the application to be
amended to include the block to the west and that the
hearing be scheduled on November 16~ 1993.
SECOND: Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Mr. Hardman asked if Mr. Dudark had a call from Block 1.
Mr. Dudark said yes, I got a call from Gary Ray of
':' Marketaide about it. He wasn' t aware that some
· undesirable uses could go in there. I think he would be
in agreement on this.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (6-0) in favor of the motion.
.-~ Motion carried.
95. A~lication #Z93-11, filed by William J.. stove~
re,sting a change in. zoning district classificat~n
from ~1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-2 (Multi-F2~lly
:- Residen~al) on property legally described as ~e~ 11,
Block 7 ~L~ the Replat of Faith Addition to thC/City of
i.. Salins (aka~ Meadowbrook). /
Mr. Andrew re,wed the Staff Report. /The applicant,
~'~ Wil 1ism Stover wa~resent. /
..~' Mr. Andrew said you' ~ceived an iden~cal a~plication for
this particular lot ~n Decembe~w 1992, and it was
~. considered by you on JanUary 5,/~993. In the background
, ~ghlights the history on
thi~~p at the C ty~ Commission
: l~~ng did not receive
~~a result the ordinance
. ~ n~ter ~.denial of a zoning
~ h~ months before
th~catigK can be f~led agate. That six month
~. ~~piicant ~s brought this
'-- applicat~on f~n. He is seeking ~ go from R to
.. R~~I x~ this lot,
i~ s~me. This proper~ has been
.. zoned S~le~as originally p~tted in
1961~e City at a tax sale~ 1989'
a~.e_ ap.plicant: ~The
.. ~cxano~ £teheilsS l:~ta~th~atn las sm~nr;le:_efal~e ~o°me.C°nS~erU~~.
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
November 16, 1993 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Duckers, Morris, Hardman,
Haworth, Allen, and Garnett
MEMBERS ABSENT: Seaton, and Larson
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew
OTHER STAFF= Dahl
The hearing began at 4=00 p.m.
Mr. Hardman welcomed the newest member to the Planning
Commission, Clarke Garnett.
91. Approval of the regular minutes of October 19, 1993.
MOTION= Mr. Morris moved that the regular minutes of October 19, 1993
with one correction on page 12 be approved as corrected.
SECOND: Mr. Allen seconded the motion..
VOTE: The vote (6-0) was unanimous in favor of accepting the
corrected minutes.
#2. Amended Application #Z93-10, filed by the Salina City Planning
. Commission, requesting the rezoning of all of Block i and Lots
1-10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and the West 20' of Lot 20 in Block 2 of
the Hansen Court Addition from C-5 (Service Commercial)
District to C-3 (Shopping Center) District. (1300 and 1400
Blocks E. Iron) Tabled on October 5, 1993.
Mr. Dudark gave the Staff Report. He said this application
goes back to a zoning case that was submitted for a tract of
land off of Iron Avenue. The request, some of you may
remember was to apply for a zoning change from R-2 to C-5.
During that process, with input from surrounding property
owners and also some Staff comments that related to some of
the uses that were permitted in C-5 that could be of some
concern, particularly automobile sales, contractor storage,
~ boat and RV sales, various things that were allowed in the C-5
District that would not necessarily be compatible with an
office type area and this is primarily that kind of an area,
the rezoning was changed to a C-3 recommendation. That was
what was approved because the applicant wanted to build a
professional office and that was permitted in C-3. We got to
looking at that, in fact all of the uses in here that are
existing are allowed In the C-3 District. There is some
' vacant property here in front where this office building is
planned. There is some vacant land over here on the south
side of Marketaide which could be developed. Staff presented
this to the Planning Commission and you concurred in a
down-zoning application. We notified everyone in the east
block, didn't include the west block, and the suggestion was,
why don't we combine the two together. Let's have a total
application instead of two separate ones. We did that and the
hearing on the combined application is today. So our
· recommendation which is in the report is to approve C-3 for
both blocks. We believe that all the uses that are there are
in fact, permitted in C-3 and the C-3 List of Uses is a more
compatible list as well as the development character, you
would have less front yard parking, there would be some open
space in a front yard in a C-3 zone but it is not required in
C-5. Also some of the building coverage is more extensive in
C-5 than in C-3 District. Given the character of this area,
more or less in an office area, starting with Marketaide and
'- going down, with Just the one exception, really the Hardee's
-'- Restaurant, even though it is a C-3 use, you wouldn't expect
· to find it there, and then the executive office plaza. The
overall C-3 plan in here is more compatible with the
businesses and the surrounding residential area, so our
recommendation is to proceed with the change in zoning to C-3
District with reasons of compatibility, based on adjacent uses
. Saline Planning Commission
:'-. November 16, 1993
Page 2
In the surrounding area. X'd be happy to respond to any
questions.
Mr. Garnett said the only question that I had was that if
paving covers your yard at 60% versus 100%, I would think that
Hardee's paving exceeds the 60% maximum tn C-3.
Mr. Dudark said they have already completed that so we would
not require them to convert.
Mr. Hardman asked had there been any correspondence?
Mr. Dudark said there were calls from existing property
owners. Once they understand what the objective Is they are
generally supportive.
MOTION= Mrs. Duckers said that since we recommended that Planning
Staff do this, combining two different things together, I
would move that we approve the Application #93-10 to C-3 In
that the area ts adjacent to a C-3 District and a change to
.. C-3 zoning would be more compatible with the surrounding
office and residential than would the current C-5.
SECOND= Mr. Garnett seconded the motion.
VOTE: The vote (6-0) was unanimous tn favor of the motion. The
motion carried.
93. A~pltcation #Z93-13, filed by First Bank Kansas requesting
c~nge tn zoning district classification from
(Agricultural) to PC-5 (Planned SerVice Commercial) on
East\ 200' of a 5.2 acre unplatted tract located on the
side f South 9th Street between Sullivan Drive a] the
Subdivision (aka 2850 S. 9th.)
Mr. said this is an application to rezone tract of
land on 9th Street Just north of the Wal-Ma: property.
Earthcare located on this tract of ground. You have a
va=ant then the Shoney's Restaurant here, Just
to give you location. The applicant ts the
front 200 feet f this property which ts foot across,
which is a an acre in size. want to develop
a branch bank on property. They have site plan drawing
of the proposed ~lopment. This Is frontage road.
There ts an entrance lrive here off of Street. This ts
Sutherland Drive, has only been for Just a little
ways in here. The 3f it ts a y platted street,
the north half has )letted, south has not. This
whole tract ts unplatted, agricultural now. The
plan ts to construct the In this location, to
have the drive-through traff: off of the frontage road
on Sullivan Drive, the new ng would be extended back to
this point, they would turn l; where there is an existing
paved area for the Earthca3 and drive around the
rear, go through the drt and then out and exit
either right or left on road. There would also
to the parking here
be a drive going off the/. .for
walk-tn customers. TOre would be exit out here at the
same location. There/is a small pond ~ this area. It was
Just constructed as/a part of the ] o~ect, it was not a
requirement at the/~tme. The property ls~ever been rezoned,
it has a Condltt~hal Use Permit for the nt~sery observation
and was never p~tted. It ls in the city t~ough. Changing
the zoning on ~hts, we had to formalize the drainage plan and
: that provide~/ for slight relocation of th~ pond, some
enlargement ~f that. It will essentially colle~ water from
· . this prope~y and also from part of the Earthcare~slte which
will run ~nto the pond. There's an outlet here ~lch will
drain ov)6r to the ditch, here between the Frontage~oad and
9th street, and then go north along with other dralnag~tn the
.area./This is between other developing areas. You've ~t C-3
zont~ to the south, there's C-5 zoning to the north. Al~the
Sa~/s Club area ts C-3 zoned area. The application ts~or
P~nned C-5 w~th this site plan as part of ~he proJed~.