7.1 Lambertz Addition PDD
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 1
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
ITEM: Ordinance No. 08-10450
Application #PDD 08-2, filed by Steve Panko on behalf of Salina Partners, LLC, requesting a change
in zoning district classification from C-3 (Shopping Center) District to Planned Development District
with underlying zoning of C-3 (Shopping Center) District with some modifications. The subject
property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Lambertz Addition to the City of Salina, Saline
County, Kansas which is in the process of being replatted into multiple lots and blocks.
BACKGROUND:
The property that comprises the Lambertz Addition was originally part of the Mid-State Mall (now Mid
State Plaza) site. The Mid-State Mall was constructed in 1969 on unplatted property that was outside
the Salina city limits. The mall was annexed shortly after construction as was the undeveloped
property south of the mall (the Lambertz property). The final platting and zoning of the Lambertz
Addition did not occur until 1984. It has remained undeveloped since that time.
The Lambertz Addition was originally platted as one large lot and block with a 40 ft. frontage road
parallel and adjacent to 9th Street. A replat of this property which subdivided it into two blocks
bisected by an internal public street (Planet Avenue) was approved on April 15, 2008. The property is
currently zoned C-3 (Shopping Center) district the same zoning classification as Mid State Plaza and
Belmont Plaza to the south.
Nature of Request
This application has been filed in order to comply with the terms of a Development Agreement related
to the TIF Redevelopment District created for this property that was approved by the City Commission
on March 17, 2008.
A paragraph in Section 4.05 of the Development Agreement reads as follows:
Section 4.05. Project Zoning, Planning, Platting and Construction.
A. Conformance with Proiect Salina. The Project Area shall be developed, and the Project
constructed, in accordance with this Agreement and the Project Plan submitted by the Developer and
approved by the City. No "substantial changes," as defined by K.S.A. 12-1770a, shall be made to the
Project, except as may be mutually agreed upon, in writing, between the Developer and the City, it
being the intent of the Parties that the layout and size of particular buildings, parking facilities and
private drives will likely change through the planning, zoning and marketing process. Any "substantial
changes" shall be made only in accordance with the Act.
B. Site Plan. The Developer shall prepare and submit a Site Plan for the Project Area to
the City for review and approval pursuant to the City Code. The Site Plan shall be in conformance
with the Project Plan and this Agreement.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 2
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
C. Zoninq, Planninq and Plattinq. The City agrees to consider and act on any zoning,
planning and platting applications by the Developer in due course and good faith. The Developer
shall submit a rezoning application for a Planned Development District pursuant to Article 7,
Chapter 42 of the City Code, which Planned Development District shall encompass the entire
Redevelopment District. Such rezoning application shall provide that the Planned
Development District will contain covenants including but not limited to covenants contained
in this Agreement regarding land use, infrastructure, buildings, design and other related
provisions. The Developer shall diligently pursue approval of such application. Approval of such
Planned Development District rezoning shall be obtained by the Developer prior to the Developer's
request that the City consider the issuance of TIF Obligations pursuant to Section 6.04(A}(9}.
D. Construction Plans. After approval of the Site Plan, the Developer shall submit
Construction Plans for the Project for review and approval pursuant to City Code. Construction Plans
may be submitted in phases or stages. The Construction Plans shall be sufficient completeness and
detail to show that construction will be in conformance with the Project Plan and this Agreement. The
Developer agrees that all construction, improvement, equipping, and installation work on the Project
shall be done in accordance with the Site Plan, Construction Plans and related documents to be
approved by the City in compliance with City Code.
The primary purpose of the Planned Development District is to take the covenants referred to in
subsection C. above and convert them into a zoning district that would run with the land and outlive
the TIF Redevelopment District which will no longer exist once the bonds are paid off.
The PDD process allows the Planning Commission and City Commission to create a
customized zoning district for a proposed development including limitations on and the
addition of uses as well as modified lot size, setback, parking, and landscaping requirements
as well as bulk and density limitations.
Review of Preliminary Development Plan for Lot One. Block One
Site Coveraqe
Total Land Area = Lot 1, Block 1 = 350,962 sq. ft. (8.05 acres)
Lot 1, Block 2 = 85,682 sq. ft. (1.96 acres)
Proposed Building Area = 78,293 sq. ft. (Block 1)
Total Lot Coverage = Approximately 22% (Block 1)
C-3 Maximum = 40%
Buildinq Orientation - The buildings will be oriented to face Planet Avenue and 9th Street.
Buildinq Heiqht - 24 ft.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 3
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
C-3 maximum = 35 ft.
Buildinq Setbacks - The buildings shown on the preliminary development plan have more than
adequate setbacks from a public street (Planet Avenue) and from side and rear property lines. Paved
parking and driving areas may cover only 60% of the 25 ft. setback area required adjacent to a public
street.
Adequate space for a 20 ft. paved access road for fire apparatus has been provided around the back
of the buildings shown on the plan.
Parkinq - The parking ratios shown on the preliminary development plan for the proposed retail
portion of the development meet the City's requirement of 4 spaces/1 ,000 sq. ft. of floor area for retail
space. Parking requirements for any restaurants proposed on individual outlots would be determined
on an individual basis at the final plan review stage. Also, any restaurant that has drive up service
must have sufficient stacking space for vehicles at the ordering station and pick up window. There is
currently only one pad site or outlot shown on the applicant's plan but it could be further subdivided in
the future.
Siqnaqe - The preliminary development plan proposes one multi-tenant pylon sign location along 9th
Street and one location oriented to 1-135.
The signage plan for the development of the outlot would be reviewed and approved at the final site
plan review stage. Staff is recommending that signage along the 9th Street on the outlot be limited to
a monument or ground sign and that no individual pole signs be allowed on the outlot.
Landscapinq - A landscape buffer is proposed between the rear of the buildings and the pond
adjacent to 1-135. A streetscape buffer is proposed along Planet Avenue, Key Avenue and South 9th
Street but it contains less area (depth) than required by the City's Landscaping Regulations for a lot of
this width and depth. The applicant has requested relief from the strict application of the front yard
landscaping area requirement based on the oversized detention pond which has caused the buildings,
parking and landscaping to be pushed farther forward (east) on the site than originally anticipated.
Parkinq Lot - Proposed landscape buffers are shown around the perimeter of the parking areas and at
the ends of the parking rows. Parking lot islands/landscaping islands are shown in the interior of the
parking area, which would improve the appearance of the lot by breaking up the wide expanse of
paving and provide future shade for cars and the lot surface thus reducing heat build up. Those
islands could also be used for parking lot light poles.
Streets/Access - The primary design feature affecting this proposed development is the extension of
the frontage road (Planet Avenue) across this property from south to north and the location of the
median crossover in 9th Street, which matches up with Key Avenue on the east side of 9th Street.
Primary access to this property will be from the Key Avenue intersection with 9th Street. There is the
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 4
possibility of a future right in/right out driveway opening on 9th Street.
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
Traffic control was addressed in detail in the approved Development Agreement however; the Traffic
Study called for in the Development Agreement indicated that a traffic signal at the South Ninth Street
-Key Avenue intersection would not be warranted by the addition of this commercial development.
Therefore, the proposed PDD ordinance focuses on the need to develop a suitable plan for allowing
vehicular traffic to cross the Mid State Plaza property.
CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This factor deals with whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the goals, objectives and
policies of the plan and whether the proposed rezoning would require an amendment to the plan and
whether an amendment could be reasonably justified.
The City's Future Land use Plan designates this area as future commercial retail. This designation
envisions that the area could be developed with retail and service commercial uses. Approval of a
PDD (C-3) zoning district would be consistent with this designation.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN:
GOAL #1: The City will create a community of quality, mixed-use development and
redevelopment.
Staff believes this retail development project conforms with this goal as it will bring to Salina a high
quality development that will compliment our current retail offerings and expand our retail pull within
the region.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this PDD application on May 20, 2008.
Following presentation of the staff report, comments from the Deputy City Manager regarding the
conclusions of the recently completed traffic study, comments from the applicant's design engineer
and comments and questions from Commissioners, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend approval of a PDD zoning designation for this property, including the modifications to the
zoning and subdivision regulations requested by the applicant subject to the following conditions:
1. Development limitations shall be as follows:
a). Permitted uses on Lot One (1), Block One (1), and Lot One (1) Block Two (2) (the
"outlot") shall be limited to the listed permitted uses in the C-3 (Shopping Center)
District, plus any conditional uses approved by the City Planning Commission.
b). The following types of land uses and retailers are prohibited within this Planned
Development District unless approved as an amendment to the district by the
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
ITEM
NO.
Page 5
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
Board of Commissioners:
1. Any use which emits an obnoxious odor, noise, or sound which can be
heard or smelled outside of any building in the project (except that this
provision shall not prohibit normal cooking odors which are associated with
a first-class restaurant operation).
2. Any operation primarily used as a storage warehouse operation and any
assembling, manufacturing, distilling, refining, smelting, agricultural or
mining operation;
3. Any "second hand" store or "surplus" store, thrift shop or other business
principally engaged in the sale of used merchandise;
4. Any mobile home park, trailer court, labor camp, junkyard or stockyards
(except that this provIsion shall not prohibit the temporary use of
construction trailers during periods of construction, reconstruction or
m ai ntenance);
5. Any dumping, disposing, incineration, or reduction of garbage (exclusive of
garbage compactors located near the rear of any building);
6. Any fire sale, going out of business sale, bankruptcy sale (unless pursuant
to a court order) or auction house operation;
7. Any central laundry, central dry cleaning plant or Laundromat (except that
this provision shall not prohibit nominal supportive facilities for on-site
services oriented to pickup and delivery by the ultimate consumer as the
same may be found in first-class shopping centers);
8. Any service station or automobile, truck, trailer or recreational vehicles
sales, leasing, display, body shop or repair operation;
9. Any bowling alley or skating rink:
10. Any movie theater, night club or live performance theater;
11. Any living quarters, sleeping apartments or lodging rooms;
12. Any veterinary hospital or animal raising facility (except that this prohibition
shall not prohibit pet shops or pet supply superstores and veterinary
services which are incidental thereto;
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
ITEM
NO.
Page 6
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
13. Any mortuary, funeral home or crematory;
14. Any adult book store, adult video store, adult movie theater, other
establishment selling, renting, or exhibiting pornographic materials or drug-
related paraphernalia (except that this provision shall not prohibit the
operation of a bookstore or video store which carries a broad inventory of
books or videos and other materials directed towards the interest of the
general public [as opposed to specific segment thereof];
15. Any bar, tavern, restaurant or other establishment whose reasonably
projected annual gross revenues from the sale of alcoholic beverages for
on-premises consumption exceeds forty percent (40%) of the gross
revenues of such business; provided, however, that the foregoing
restriction shall not be construed to limit or prohibit the operation of national
restaurants which current operation under the trade names "Chili's",
"Applebee's" and "Ruby Tuesday's" and other national casual dining
restaurants similar to such restaurants.
16. Any health spa, fitness center or athletic facility which occupies more than
five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor area:
17. Any flea market, amusement or video arcade, pool or billiard hall, car
wash, tattoo parlor or dance hall (except that this provision shall not
prohibit a restaurant from including three (3) or fewer video games as an
incidental use to its operations);
18. Any training or educational facility, including, but not limited to, beauty
schools, barber colleges, reading rooms, places of instruction or other
operations catering primarily to students or trainees rather than to
customers (except that this provision shall not prohibit on-site employee
training (whether for employment at the Project or at another business
location of such occupant] by an occupant incidental to the conduct of
its business at the Project);
19. Any church, school, day care center or related religious or educational
facility or religious reading room;
20. Any massage parlor (except that this provision shall not prohibit massages
in connection with a beauty salon, health club or athletic facility); and
21. Any casino or other gambling facility or operation, including but not limited
to, off-track or sports betting parlors, table games such as black-jack or
poker, slot machines, video gambling machines and similar devices, and
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 7
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
bingo halls (except that this provision shall not prohibit government
sponsored gambling activities or charitable gambling activities if such
activities are incidental to the business operation being conducted by the
occupant).
22. More than one fast food restaurant with a drive-thru; and in no event shall
the Planned Development District contain one or more fast food
restaurants totaling more than 4,000 square feet.
c) Development of Lot One (1), Block One (1) and Lot One (1), Block Two (2)
(the outlot") shall be subject to the minimum building setback, maximum
building height, and maximum lot coverage limitations and use limitations of the
C-3 (Shopping Center) District. Outdoor storage of vehicles, material and/or
equipment shall be prohibited. Outdoor patios offering food and beverage service
shall be permitted.
2. Parking - Parking for retail uses shall be limited to five (5) spaces per one thousand
(1,000) square feet of floor area unless an exception for additional parking is approved
by the Board of Commissioners.
3. Signage - Signage on Lot One (1), Block One (1) shall be limited to two (2) freestanding,
multi-tenant pylon signs, one on Interstate135 and one on South Ninth Sreet. The
interstate oriented pylon sign shall have a maximum permitted sign area of five hundred
twenty (520) square feet and a maximum permitted sign height of fifty (50) feet. The
South Ninth Street shall have a maximum sign area of one hundred fifty (150) square
feet and a maximum permitted sign height of thirty (30) feet. Signage on Lot One (1),
Block Two (2) (the "outlot") shall be limited to one (1) monument (ground) sign per
business with a maximum permitted sign area of forty-eight (48) square feet and a
maximum sign height of eight (8) feet. Facade or wall signs for individual businesses
shall be subject to the C-3 sign regulations. No pole signs shall be permitted on the
outlot and no signs for businesses located outside the Planned Development District (off-
premise advertising signs) may be erected within the district.
4. Site Lighting - A site lighting plan for each zoning lot shall be submitted for City staff
review and approval that includes the following items: the location on the premises
and the type of illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors and other
devices; a detailed description of the illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports,
reflectors and other devices; a detailed description of the illuminated devices, fixtures,
lamps, supports, reflectors and other devices including manufacturer's catalog cut
sheets and drawings and sections upon request; photometric data such as that furnished
by the manufacturer showing the angle of cut off or light emissions to reduce or eliminate
light spill onto adjacent properties.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 8
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
5. Building Orientation - The City reserves the right to review and approve the building
orientation for each building constructed with the district.
6. Exterior Building Materials - No plain pre-cast concrete panels, metal siding, vinyl siding
or lap siding shall be permitted within the district, provided that the City may deny or
restrict the use of other exterior building materials that would be inconsistent with the
design theme with the district.
7. Screening - The screening of trash dumpsters and loading docks is required within the
district. No loading docks or trash enclosures may be placed on the South 9th Street
side of any building. Loading docks and trash enclosures may be located on the
Interstate 135 side of buildings subject to the screening requirement. Materials used in
screening materials shall be similar to the exterior material used in the building they
serve. The City reserves the right to review and give final approval to all screening plans
within the district.
8. Landscaping - Landscape plans within the district shall be designed to incorporate
xeriscaping principles and shall be subject to City staff review and approval. Plantings
used In landscape plans shall be from the City's Recommended Tree List and
Recommended Xeriscape Plant List. All planting areas shall be maintained In
accordance with Section 42-65(9) of the City's Landscaping Regulations.
9. Sidewalks - Public sidewalks shall be required on the west side of Planet Avenue and
the south side of Key Avenue. Construction of sidewalks shall be tied to the issuance of
building permits and sidewalk construction shall be completed prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any building site that abuts a required sidewalk section.
10. Waivers and Modifications - Requested modifications of otherwise applicable zoning
and subdivision regulations approved by the Planning Commission under the authority of
Section 42-403 (12) are specifically enumerated as follows:
a). A reduction in the amount of required front yard landscaping along Planet
Avenue, Key Avenue and South 9th Street due to the requirement for an oversized
detention pond on the rear portion of the property.
b). A waiver of Section 42-552(d) to allow parking in the front yard to cover more than
sixty (60) percent of the total front yard area along Planet Avenue, Key Avenue
and South 9th Street.
c). A waiver of Section 42-69(5) to allow a portion of required front yard landscaping
to be located in the public street right-of-way and certain median area in Key
Avenue that will be maintained by the developer.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/02/08
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Development Services
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 9
Planning
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
d). A modification of Section 42-521 to allow signs located on Lot One (1), Block One
(1) to advertise off-premise businesses located on Lot One (1), Block Two (2).
11. Development of Lot One (1), Block One (1) shall conform to the approved preliminary
development plan, including parking lot layout and lighting, landscaping, signage and
proposed building elevations which are herein incorporated by reference.
12. A final site development plan and final landscape plan for Lot One (1), Block Two (2) (the
"outlot") shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building
permits for any building sites on that lot.
COMMISSION ACTION:
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission the attached
PDD ordinance should be approved on 1 st reading. The protest period on this application will expire
on June 3, 2008 but there has been no indication that a protest petition will be filed. If this ordinance
is approved on first reading, second reading would take place on June 9, 2008.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, it may return
this item to the Planning Commission together with the reason for the disagreement with three (3)
affirmative votes or it may overturn the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny this
request provided there are four (4) votes in support of such action.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff believes that the proposed preliminary development plan is compatible in design, layout, scale
and character with existing development in the 9th Street corridor and with the Development
Agreement approved as part of the TIF Redevelopment District component of this project and would
therefore recommend approval of the creation of a Planned Development District for this property.
Enclosures: Application
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Development Plan
Proposed Sign Elevations
Proposed Building Elevations
Landscape Plan
Excerpt of 5-20-08 PC Meeting Minutes
Ordinance No. 08-10450
cc: Steve Panko, V-Land Corporation
Jonathan Neville, Esq., Arnall, Golden, Gregory, LLP
Jason Mohler, P.E., Crafton, Toll, Sparks
Cityof
~ Publication Date April 24, 2008 A Ii cation No. /lPDD 08-2
Hearin Date May 20, 2008 Date Filed April 18, 2008
Salina
Vicinit Ma TB Filin $375.00
Planning & Fee
Community
Develooment Ownershi Certificate TB J C:,? 0" Recei t No. 100392
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P.D.D.)
1. Applicant's Name Steve Panko
V-Land Corporation
2. Applicant's Address 321 N. Clark Street
Suite #2440
Chicago, IL 60610
3. Telephone (daytime) (312)379-5101
E-Mail Address
spanko@vlandcorp.com
4. Project Name
Replat of Lambertz Addition
5. Owner's Name
Jeckllnvestment Company, LLC
6. Owner's Address
Attention: Chuck Lambertz c/o Lambertz Company, LLC
812 N. Waco
Wichita, Kansas 67203
7. Legal Description of Property to be developed (attach additional sheets if necessary
Lot (1), Block (1), Lambertz Addition, to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas.
8. Approximate Street Address 9th and Key, Salina, Saline County, Kansas
9. Area of property (sq ft &/or acres) Approximately 10.74 acres
10. Present Zoning C-3
Use
Undeveloped
11. Proposed Zoning PDD/C-3
Use
Commercial Retail
12. Is the P.D.D. to be utilized in conjunction with another zone or independently? In conjunction with C-3
13. Are there any covenants of record which affect the proposed development? (attach copy) No
14. List reasons for this request (attach additional sheet if necessary)
Requirement of Developers Agreement between the City of Salina and the Owner
15. Anticipated time period for substantial completion December 2008
16. Total ground area occupied by buildings (sq.ft.) Approximately 94,500 square feet
17. Describe any non-residential uses proposed Kohl's Department Store and other commercial retail stores and
restaurants
Applicant(s)
Signature
-N/A
l'
/
Owner(s) / I
Signature t4dw
Multi-famil - N/A
lJ. ~^'cr
j ,)
If the applicant is to be represented by legal counselor an authorized agent, please complete the following in order that
correspondence and communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
Name of representative
Mailing Address, City, State, Zip
Telephone (Business) and E-Mail
Name of representative
Mailing Address, City, State, Zip
Telephone (Business) and E-Mail
Jonathan L. Neville, Esq.
Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
171 17th Street, NW
Suite 2100
Atlanta, Georgia 30363
(404) 873-8643 Jonathan.Neville@agg.com
Jason Mohler, P.E.
Crafton Toll Sparks
200 East 34th Street North
Building 1600, Suite 1603
Wichita, Kansas 67226
(316) 634-6776 Jason.Mohler@craftontollsparks.com
PLF - 046, Application-Preliminary POD, Rev. 10-2005
1 Inch = 300 Feet
Application #PDD 08-2
Filed by Salina Partners
PARfWVAY V
Re uest Area
C-5
EYAV
~
PC-5
.--J
BELMONT
~
A-1
C-5
~
I-
UJ
Z
~
a.
.:-_-=--------=--=-~-----:...-~~-;:~~~-'=
..-
F'L ------
-- rr--~ :::1 ~~'\~~
---- llr:. -::11 ~ ~ ~ I
nL. '.11 ~al ~
nIL.- ::.-11 ~ '\.'\.'\.~'\!
aIL-- ~ ~'\::>o..~
HI!." C IN3~]SV] J,lIlUn
~ "" ........ 03S0dO~d .or
-,
~'~,.:'~~
. ,,::
8
i!:
-~,.
n ",_..tJ~
I. ,,_ I?'" <0
' ! I' t qF-~~r-V)w
· · : I f I 1.1 r i I I ~m
'-~=\m~~-;:JJ ! l I 5e
r
L,
p,
I ~ I'!:
I ; 1--
~ ~
~
I
I .o~1I
I
I
:.~~.~:~ ~'~ I
/~ ~~~~ ,
/<L.:::. ,
~'-'-...1_/"1
~-~~r::-~ ::~... j=:...~~ f
--, - - ",/ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I I
L+-
I
I
--r
I
I
I
I
- -----,;;j----i
-- i5~
~:;;
~-~
~ -~B
- .' ~ ~~1
-3~
"""
- ~-~I=~-~
--.......+~ ~........
-.... ..._~~
-~~-.:-- --
-_~. I
~.... -....
"T"\,oq
"'~~
~~
~~
~~
~~ ~"~~"'\:'\I
~~~~""""~~
'"
c ~::1
- ,~
' "',"~
i,'~~~~~~~~'U.~
~~
,~~
"-'>.'l
~-~., .1.._
:-....---t.._
(.
J
--t~ I
I oJ
.iI
....4'-~
~ ,3 ~
~ tl!! ~
~ ~~< ~
_ 2~~ ~
II =>,,~
~ ~;:~ 1
~ ~:~
~'"'~ :
I-)- ... tm..
VII_ 0,,""" po) _
v .J11JlY:J.F-...._.
r ___
.
~
z
ow
z~
o~
~w
~~
~=>
"-'"
~
I,
~i
~~
o
~ ~
~~ o~
0: _ ,
<.:> 0:
'"
~~
"3
~'"
uw
~$
~~
~~
~
~
5
is
~
is
:;
;s
nlll
I ! ~ f g
JIJIOI
-.;~,,;;;;;;;;=;;;;====:;;-===
~ /.,,-
' !>J .m _m _-my t______=======
====~=_t~_:~~=:~..._.( .- """ _~_==_====_::::::::::::~~;
,========--- =r__~~L.~.i' \..-- T~if_l_s> H.LJ.{~N -~~~-=-=-=-- -----""I""""-- ,</
- ~ w~~a, --.... --=f- -...-- -c"';'=
- - '" - - =~- -= "==-=- --_c=__ "
c~~~_-~~..!._' ---.. i, :"='=::.:.:.:_~_=_;~~=====_ ____ .' =--r=~==-- 1\/
cccc===~ ~__-=-==__ __,
~====-- ~~~~~~ ---========-====----~==~--=--- ~ ';
-..=- - "- .
# .
'---# - .
'=====;r.- "=====)......44_ ~ ~~r--- ,
-~~"" ....;.,...... : i
- .
.e-~
.p
~
II
II
II
~ -
E E: . I ,
'!i- i~~' I
II "<
II
II
, ~~.
\, ~'IIII
\- ""d-~ =
IN. :>rBW ,GO> ,
v~= ~.
'I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ '"
z~ ~~
o -a.
:I ~~ ~--J
::>v .-<
a:: ri I 0::
:c ~~ zG
8~~g~
QO::: o::~~~~
m Z(,)~~a::
I .:;: ~ II. La.J <
~ w9lL!o~
iiI~~~~a:~
~
lb
~
~,
I
~
~
~ i
~
o !
--==--
-=-=-
------==-
~-
-::::::--
-----:::::--:::
-::::-::: -
0.
~
~ I
1Il I II,
i ! ~ ~Ibn
~ Ii L,B..
1Il u ~~Ii~!
o
~
90/1.0/90 018 ~O:
I H 'I
en , ~: a: 'j! i.. I I I \ .J
~; I . j , 0 j, I~, I~'~' I, I · h i~
~ 5 I ~ I ~ I i cl I I I" II ! II I II II ' , 14 I
>- i I I : ! i ! l U i.1 .. r .. I .. .. I I .11.
\:! I I! I ~II I I S <J ~~<B~'
Zlr!l! iil ,f IIII! 'I
~ III ( I ! I · I j I! I" ~ 1li I I ! Ii i r I I I I
~ nh ~ t i ! Ii: Ii ~ I II H I ~ Ip:, 'HI !!: h I',I( I
wilU:sddddl:ilnii Id!ilild: IIl!!i! Ii: It
i_~
-'U (Y)
!ll~! 81 I " <:t:
l!!k ,I, I Il en G
ii~'1 .Ill i. i" ~ I 5 3i
to H III I' ll;' - .-
l!llj dl!H P ~ I !;;: .~ L !
i:;ilfcbD :11 ~I ; I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
n!il I;, ~I i 1III1IIII1 ffi ~ " ~!
Ill. gl<l<J<J<J<J<J<J<J<J<J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t')
"<t
II)
a
w
1Il
::l
I-
o
Z
j ~~
:,. ~rr
I ],
i ,I
~
~
0---
i~ii Ei,
\~r 1 r
1111
G---!J,I "
'I
<0
t~ i;~
~~. ~~
I I ,I
I I
0---
a
w
1Il
::l
I-
o
Z
@---
~
~
a
w
1Il
::l
I-
o
Z
~
a
w
1Il
::l
I- ~
0
z
N ~ ..r;
Cl ~
Z
i5
::l
.....
<.)
~
z~ z~ z~
Q~ Oll 5~
~ f= O'
<( ~ f=
a w ~ [j <(
..... [j
w w .....
1Il w~ .....
::l I- ~ w~ uJ~
ZI j:.
I- 0, a:. t$
0 S2! ~ ,
Z ft. w'
a:. a:. ......
'O'-{),"
I 14'.{)" I
I 14'-3' I
T
3'-0'
1
MAJOR
TENANT 3'-jl' 3'-4'
#2
TENANT
11'-4'
TENANT 1'-jl' 1'-4'
J.-~
TENANT
TT
30"-0'
CUSTOMER: KOHL'S
NAME: CHIII$1Wl ABUlH
lOCATION: SAUNA. KS
DATI!: 3/28/0B
DESIGN NO.: JM-14859
ARlIST: MH
SCALE:
3/B' = "
SPECIFlCAnoNS
. 30' OVERAlL HEIGHr, DOUBLE
FACE, INTERNAllY IllUMINATED,
POLE SIGN WITH INTERNAlLY
ILLUMINATED TENANT SECllONS.
10 SECTION TO HAVE PANAFLEX
fACES DECORATED WITH
3M TRANSlUCENT VINYl GRAPHICS,
(BlACK OUlUNE ON COPY IS
PROPORTIONATELY EQUAl. TO 1/4"
FOR EVl'RY l' OF TEXT HEIGHT.)
. TENANT PANELS TO HAVE WHITE
lfXAN FACES WITH 3M
TRANSlUCENT VINYl GRAPHICS.
BRUSHED AlUMINUM TENANT
CABINm, POLES AND ACCENTS.
, COlORS: MAP BRUSHED
AWMII'IJM.AAZ.O OOBEL404F5.
MAllHEWS #MP 08112 BUIlGUICI'
OR 10 MATCH PMS 1 BB BURGUfVf,
36J0..49 BURGlK1f, WIm COf'f,
36JO.22 BlACK ounJNE.
. FONT: OJSIOMER lOGO,
TEIWIT COf'f 10 BE DETERMINED
APPROVED:
DATI!:
CI 2007 WMINOUS NEON,INC.
ThlldeIlgrll5....ptopeI1yol
LlA'l1NOUS NEON. INC. Rigtlb are
~ed 10'" C\II&clmer upon
compIMIon 01 ordeL ThII dIorlgn .
noIlObIIlIuM<:l...'oItIlMorlnparl
'oIlftPw:lul ... wrttM penMslcn 01...
CClI1lPQl1\I.ltIeIMfOHEf'MSJ
arQ'orWlylcoklnltlown on printed
document are a Iol.It-coIoI pcocMl
~andrncJ'f'rooImoll;:h
PNnONE andW1yl~ IPO'I
c:oklf dandordI. ~ a PNnONE
Colot~ ManuoIOI vinyl
IlIfOt:ft boot Igr OCClIraM diIpkJy
..-..
. . ~ ~ .:1 l5i5~
3 o ~x ~ --~ ~ z ~zZ~ ~
~~>. ~ ~~2~~ ~~~ ~~~8 ~
!ilI~ ~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~e~!;~~g~ qp! H api II
f'
.. $ ~ ~~*~~o~~~~oi~~~~~~-~ ~ bt ~lf8 h .
~-li 151~1 ~!I~lo~1
>: .. >: "~~~~O~g~~O~ ~~~~~l~~;2
gn~ ;; ::0 z ~o ~ - w..z~ ~ ::o~ ~o~ ~ I Cij hH
= z 5~m~~~~I~~i~~~~~3~~ ~~~u D H~bit~ 0 hi~ r
:Ii! 0 .0 - ~u.. ~i ~~~ z ~~OZ6.~ ~
~ .. I; ~ I ~ ~~~~~~~~a 2~ ~58~~3~~~~ .. 5 lUHHHn;gl! E.
lliB L =.
D .. . . ~ -
",w
zO
g~
ow
w"
"''''
wO
0"-
<0
~~l:l
Z:Ew
~~B
0;;:<
'?
1
9
N
~
w
5
o
z
w
TI
9
Sl
~i'-- I-- r- I-- r-
OZ Z Z Z Z
9 ~<CN <( <{ <C <C 9
'" Z~ Z Z Z Z ;<;!
'"
~ UJ UJ W W
I-- r- I-- ~-
~
~
~-l
.,
f- ~ -----1
~
'--
Salina Planning Commission
May 20, 2008
Page 3 of 32
there anything that you're proposing to do other than those garage doors for
the aesthetics of the area?
Ms. Wilson stated well I know that there's been a lot of repair made to it.
The siding that's broken and torn has been repaired. The color doesn't
match because of the new siding and the old siding but all the holes and
things as far as I know have been repaired.
Mrs. Soderberg asked so there won't be any paint done now, painting done
or anything that would upgrade the appearance?
Ms. Wilson stated I don't know of any plans to do that. I don't know that
he'd be opposed to doing it, but I don't know of any plans to do that.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked any other questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Any comments by interested citizens? There being none we'll bring it back
to the Commission for possible action.
Mr. Mikesell stated I believe that certainly the north end of Salina is an area
that we need to think about in terms of aesthetics and certainly our focus
groups have kind of aligned with that thinking.
MOTION: Mr. Mikesell stated I would make a motion that we approve Application
#CU08-2 as a mini-warehouse use and give the applicant my personal
thoughts that I would hope that in the process of doing this that they would
sincerely think about some aesthetic improvements to that area as it is very
close to an area that is getting a lot of improvement right now, at that end of
town anyway.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and do you want to add the two staff
recommendations?
Mr. Mikesell stated with the two staff recommendations about signage, yes.
SECOND: Mr. Funk
VOTE: Motion carried 6-0.
Item #3. Application #PDD 08-2, filed by Steve Panko on behalf of Salina Partners,
LLC, requesting a change in zoning district classification from C-3
(Shopping Center) District to Planned Development District with underlying
zoning of C-3 (Shopping Center) District with some modifications. The
subject property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Lambertz
Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas which is in the process
of being replatted into multiple lots and blocks.
Mr. Andrew presented the staff report with visual graphics which are
contained in the case file.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated I have one question. There's parking in the northeast
corner up there that's separated from the businesses by the entrance and
also separated from Kohl's, I take it by a road that goes past there, whom
does that parking serve?
Mr. Andrew stated this really indicates, and I'll let Mr. Mohler speak to that,
but I interpret it that the cross hatching is indicating areas where the paving
is going to be reinforced to support trucks or heavier traffic but you will have
access aisles here, here and here to get into the parking lot. This will also
be an access aisle but it's probably primarily going to be used by delivery
trucks and truck traffic. Most of the customers entering will probably use
these three aisles here along Planet Avenue. Anybody parking here would
have to cross over that and then get up to the store by that way. I'll guess
Salina Planning Commission
May 20, 2008
Page 4 of 32
we'll ask Mr. Mohler, maybe he can expand on whether this is a sidewalk or
what is planned there, but my guess would be that the primary users of that
parking lot would be employees who worked at the store because I don't
think it will be heavily used by customers except in a busy shopping
environment.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked that's part of the required parking for Kohl's?
Mr. Andrew stated yes it is, part of the Kohl's site comes out into that
configuration, but this parking is tied back to the Kohl's store.
Mr. Mikesell stated I have a question regarding the outlot. Is it conceivable
that that could be divided into multiple units say Barnes and Noble and a
Starbucks?
Mr. Andrew stated from an ownership standpoint it could be divided into
ownership by just splitting it one time and have two separate owners or if
you had somebody who wanted to develop that and build a multi-tenant
building and then leases out, that could certainly be done. It's almost two
acres in size so it certainly can accommodate multiple uses or tenants.
Mr. Mikesell stated bearing that in mind then, Condition #3 in your
Supplemental Staff Report, if I'm reading this right on the outlot the signage
shall be limited to one monumenUground sign with maximum permitted sign
area of 48 square feet so if there was two buildings there, they would be
sharing that 48 square feet, is that what you're saying?
Mr. Andrew stated I think we would look at that probably either from a lease
line or a lot line standpoint, but I think part of that is going to be decided by
you anyway because it will come back to you for site plan review, but if
there were four businesses there, I would anticipate you could have four
ground signs depending on how that was laid out.
Mr. Mikesell stated I just didn't want to limit future development by keeping it
to only one ground sign there.
Mr. Andrew asked would it make you feel better if it said "shall be limited to
one monumenUground sign per business"?
Mr. Mikesell stated that would make me feel much better and I'm sure the
applicant would feel better.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked would it remain the same square footage then?
Mr. Andrew stated it would still be 48 square feet per tenant or business and
that would be our recommendation. Most ground signs that are being put in
are generally four by eight or close to, in some cases, 40 square feet.
Forty-eight square feet would be considered large for a ground sign. The
other thing is that it's anticipated that the tenants would also be identified on
the pylon sign, the larger, taller pylon sign. I think that would be reasonable
since we anticipate multiple businesses there to make that one ground sign
per business.
Mrs. Soderberg asked in the Standards and Criteria for Planned
Developments, the third bullet there regarding traffic control signals, does
that need to extend forever, is the developer always responsible for the
expense of a traffic control signal, if it's 10 years or 20 years?
Mr. Andrew stated well the Development Agreement has some very specific
terms on that subject, but it requires that a traffic study be done and it
requires that if a warrant is met that traffic signals be installed and that the
cost of that be borne by the development.
Salina Planning Commission
May 20, 2008
Page 5 of 32
Mrs. Soderberg asked so at the time of development not down the road if in
five years we find that with the new businesses out front that it's really
creating a need?
Mr. Andrew stated well if you're doing it right then your traffic study is based
on the anticipated maximum buildout. I'll let Mr. Place speak to that a little
bit about the way he would interpret a traffic study but if you have, we know
what one use is, we don't know what the other uses are, but I'll let Mr. Place
speak to that. Generally you're projecting what the maximum traffic would
be, not just looking at the first development.
Mr. Place stated Mr. Andrew is exactly correct. That's what we've asked
them to do on their traffic study is to take all the vacant lots that are in that
corridor, assume maximum or just conservative traffic flows that would be
anticipated once they are developed and what conditions that puts the
whole corridor in. That's what we asked them to do.
Mr. Mikesell asked is that somewhat limited by the number of parking
spaces as well?
Mr. Place stated I don't understand your question.
Mr. Mikesell asked would the traffic in and out of there be limited by the
parking spaces, the turnover of parking spaces?
Mr. Place stated well that would be somewhat, I mean I've not reviewed
specifically what it is, but like I said we just asked them to, what would be
the projected traffic in each location, what would be the maximum, what
they would feel would be the maximum amount of vehicles that could be
produced by each currently undeveloped piece of ground right now. So that
would have some effect on it, yes.
Mrs. Soderberg asked so if in two years after buildings are up and it's
determined that actually a traffic signal needs to go there, then the
developer no longer has the responsibility for that, if the traffic study didn't
show it was warranted at this point?
Mr. Place stated correct.
Mr. Funk asked those interior streets and drives are all private streets and
drives and will be maintained by the developer?
Mr. Andrew stated no, Planet Avenue will be a public street built to public
street standards and maintained by the City as will Key.
Mr. Funk asked Planet?
Mr. Andrew stated Planet will be public and Key as well.
Mr. Funk stated oh, okay.
Mr. Andrew stated this section to the south is a public street.
Mr. Funk stated okay there's also a note up there between Ashley Furniture
and the bank that says cross access to be determined. Is that going to
happen? Maybe we need to ask the developer that.
Mr. Andrew stated we'll let Mr. Mohler speak to that. The idea was that if it
was determined that signals were not warranted, which I understand it has
been, I think the best thing we could do is to let Mike Schrage, the Deputy
City Manager, speak to the options available without signalization.
Salina Planning Commission
May 20, 2008
Page 6 of 32
Mr. Schrage stated thank you, Dean. I'll just point out here that a traffic
study was part of the Development Agreement I helped negotiated but there
were no results or conclusions reached, at least until very recently. The
traffic study has been done. It has been forwarded to Wilson and Company
for review and we just saw comments today. I believe the City Manager
shared those comments with the developer. The conclusion of the traffic
study that was conducted, as well as Wilson and Company's review on our
behalf, was that a traffic signal wasn't warranted as part of this project. In
answer to your question, that's not to say that future ultimate development
of the Ninth Street Corridor might not require that at some point, but even
that's questionable, but it would be something the City would have to
address somewhere down the line, not necessarily as part of this
development. Negotiating the Development Agreement we didn't have that
traffic study and so we were trying to take into account a number of
scenarios and so that in part is why the site plan includes the reference of
cross access to be determined at a future date. Now that we have the traffic
study and it's concluded that a signal is not warranted, the Development
Agreement provides that access across Mid State would be included into
the project. The developer's been in initial contact with them and actually
has a set of easements that Mid State's already agreed to. If you just kind
of envision a true square intersection going straight up between Cap. Fed.
and Ashley's and then intersecting that access road that runs east and west,
that's the alignment of the easements. We indicated as part of the
Development Agreement that we wanted to have further discussion with the
developer about the actual layout and see if there isn't a better way to
configure that as well as control traffic. If you're familiar with the Mid State
property, as you come in off of Ninth Street, that's just a wide open parking
lot and you can hang a left as you choose and weave through that parking
lot and so we need to clean up those easements to make sure we can get
some traffic control in there. We're also trying to come up with a
configuration that may create a better intersection at the north end there in
the middle of that parking lot. I'm not sure exactly how those layouts might
work, but the Development Agreement language basically provides that
there will be ongoing discussion about that configuration subject to City
review and approval. So we're trying to take into account that all of that is
going to have to play out in kind of a progression. At the moment, we've
reached the conclusion a traffic signal is not warranted. We're now at a
point of having to work throl,lgh those cross access easements on Mid State
property. Additionally then, the Development Agreement contemplates the
timing of all that in relation to this project going forward and their completion
target of March and making sure that all that's resolved by then and now we
have some, basically some alternatives so we've now narrowed down the
scenario that we're under thanks to the traffic study and it will now be
necessary to finalize the configuration of the cross access across Mid State.
While I'm up here if I can take the opportunity, I understand there was some
question about the signage and they did share with us their proposed sign
configurations. I think, if I understand correctly, there is the need for one
sign at a height of 50 feet or at least a request for that so I believe Jason
Mohler was intending to come up and clarify that as well. I've been a little
bit more involved with this communication as a TIF project and a Kohl's
project than typical and I've been in receipt of that signage information and
I'm not sure where we're at in terms of getting that passed on to Dean, but
they have communicated the desire for a 50 foot sign in one instance.
Mrs. Soderberg stated I would just, I'd say that depending on how difficult
it's perceived to get into this property, people I can understand may use the
light there going into the Mid State Mall and then come across. So I think
it's very important too.
Mr. Schrage stated and then there's also the Belmont connection to the
south with another light and then I would tell you from staff's perspective, we
Salina Planning Commission
May 20,2008
Page 7 of 32
certainly scrutinized the methodology of the traffic study because we I think
came into it with the expectation that a traffic light would be warranted and
recognizing that there's also concern that a traffic light may have negative
impacts on the flow of traffic in the Ninth Street Corridor.
Mrs. Soderberg stated sure and I understand all that, it's just what people
perceive as do I want to wait to turn across traffic here or just go down to
the light and then cut through. I think it's just going to be something to
watch.
Mr. Schrage stated from City staff's perspective we certainly were mindful of
wanting to do the traffic study, make a determination of whether this project
warranted the need for a traffic light so that we weren't in the situation
where we realized after the fact we should have gotten one and we're
comfortable, both from the traffic study that was provided by the developer,
as well as our review on our behalf by Wilson and Company, that it is not
warranted and for what it's worth, there's kind of a pre-determined Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices that was the standard by which they
made that determination. It's not just an arbitrary individual opinion.
Mr. Funk asked are those so called traffic ways across Mid State Mall public
right-of-ways?
Mr. Schrage stated those would be provided for by cross access easements
and so they would be available to the public but they wouldn't be public in
terms of City maintenance like a standard street but our expectation would
be the easements would be sufficient that it wouldn't preclude public
utilization of those in the future.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked would there be a way to direct traffic, I'm not sure I've
heard this, is there a way to direct traffic through Mid State Mall parking lot
so that it's safe and maybe to the east along Ninth Street and around so
they aren't weaving in and out through the parking lot to get there?
Mr. Schrage stated yes now that we've identified that a traffic signal isn't
warranted and we're going to go the route of cross access on Mid State,
that's exactly what we're going to be looking at in the way of design plans.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked does that need to be included in any motion we make
today?
Mr. Schrage stated I think it could go either way. It's certainly provided for
in the Development Agreement and we're trying to incorporate the
Development Agreement terms into the conditions of the PDD Ordinance,
but that would be at your discretion. It's currently provided for in the
Development Agreement.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and just, not that I need to know this necessarily, but
I'm just curious, I understand that the developer develops a relationship with
the Mid State Mall people and gets that access worked out and there's
some kind of compensation to Mid State Mall and if they decide we need
some bollards or something along here then who's responsible for all of
that?
Mr. Schrage stated the developer. In fact as we negotiated the terms of the
Development Agreement there certainly was a presumption that there's
going to be some physical improvements involved and those will be at the
Kohl's developer's expense. I think the expectation is that there will be
traffic controls such that it isn't the free-for-all that it is today.
Salina Planning Commission
May 20, 2008
Page 8 of 32
Mrs. Soderberg stated well and I think it can be a plus for Mid State Mall
too. I mean there's more traffic and it's not a negative it's just who's going
to be responsible for what.
Mr. Schrage stated right in the end it's going to take some coordination to
come up with a design that's acceptable to all three parties.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and the traffic light that's now at Mid State Mall is
certainly able to withstand even more traffic, there's nothing about that light?
Mr. Schrage stated yes, if anything it might be timing changes, but yes. In
fact part of the traffic study included considering the benefits of
synchronizing the Ninth Street Corridor to try to offset any impacts but my
understanding is it just initially didn't meet the traffic generation
requirements to even warrant a light to begin with.
Mrs. Soderberg stated we hope some day it will.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked so there will be a left lane, a left turn lane then or will
you stop traffic in the left lane in order to turn?
Mr. Schrage stated it will be the current configuration. I don't know that
there will be a turn lane. There won't be any reconfiguration at the Ninth
Street and Key intersection.
Mr. Andrew stated those turning lanes are already built in, there's already
island cuts there in for that.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated oh yes, I do remember that.
Mr. Schrage stated I'll be happy to answer any other questions if you have
them and I'll be here if needed.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated thank you very much.
Mr. Mikesell stated I guess I have a question for Dean. This handout that
we just got in regards to the signage, besides the 50 foot issue, the Kohl's
sign up above is 171 square feet by itself but back to your Supplemental
Staff Report on Condition #3, did the 260 square feet include all of the
tenants?
Mr. Andrew stated it probably didn't take into account the other tenants. I
think it was anticipated that would accommodate Kohl's and the major
tenant to the south but I think based on what I'm seeing here, it's going to
be more like....
Mr. Mikesell stated I get 310 square feet for all of the tenants, the major and
then the four smaller ones and plus the 171.
Mr. Andrew stated yes I'm coming up with closer to 500 square feet.
Mr. Mikesell stated total, right.
Mr. Andrew stated yes.
Mr. Mikesell asked so the 260 square feet should be just for the main the
main anchor?
Mr. Andrew stated well since we're now talking about multi-tenant signs and
we're talking about accommodating the tenants from the outlot, then I'm
looking at a number that is essentially double that which is up to 520 square
feet.
Salina Planning Commission
May 20, 2008
Page 9 of 32
Mr. Mikesell asked which we would be okay with them?
Mr. Andrew stated I think this would fit within that concept because this
accommodates up to four tenants on the outlots in addition to what you
consider a major tenant south of the Kohl's store.
Mr. Mikesell stated maybe I'm getting the cart ahead of the horse here a
little bit. For this issue today for the Planned Development District, do we
need to be concerned with the sign height on this right now, is that
something we need to build into our motion today or do we need to...?
Mr. Andrew stated yes we do because the standard cap on the height of a
sign in the C-3 district is 30 feet and they're requesting 50 feet along the
interstate which is not unusual but the 50 foot sign heights that we do have
along the interstate are not in the C-3 district, it's in our highway commercial
districts. So we do have some signs to the south of here that are 50, and
some above 60 feet in height, but because we have existing zoning of C-3
and that's the underlying zoning, that line #4 there should now say pylon
signs shall have a maximum permitted sign area of 520 square feet instead
of 260 square feet and with a maximum sign height of 50 feet along 1-135 is
what I understand was being proposed. These drawings here don't show a
50 foot prototype but essentially both signs would look like this, one would
simply be taller along the interstate.
Mrs. Soderberg asked how large is the sign did you tell us at the other mall?
Mr. Andrew stated I'm going back and recalculating that now. There's a
sign that says Mid State and it's about 100 square feet and then there's a
sign that has the tenants on that below that and that's about 399 square feet
so the total would be close to 500 square feet.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and the other mall?
Mr. Andrew asked Central Mall?
Mrs. Soderberg stated yes.
Mr. Andrew stated I don't have any information on that but again they have
the one very large tenant pylon sign but I don't have a square footage on it.
Mrs. Soderberg stated I'm just trying to visualize 500 square feet.
Mr. Andrew stated well I think the closest visualization is, and I have a
picture of it here so maybe that will help, this is the Mid State Plaza pylon
sign and that's about 500 square feet and so we're looking at close to or
slightly above the size of that sign.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and what is in our Code right now?
Mr. Andrew stated our Code right now does not limit the number of signs, it
limits the total square footage so one of our challenges that we had
historically at Mid State Plaza was the fact that they could have somewhere
near 8000 square feet of sign area based on their 1-135/Magnolia/Ninth
Street frontage and because they didn't have a limit on the number of pole
signs, so what this would do would be to congregate the square footage into
two large signs as opposed to what you had at Mid State. Because if you
do not have a Planned Commercial District or a Planned Development
District then if somebody wanted to have seven pole signs they could as
long as it fit within the square footage limitations. So this calls out the
locations of the signs so you know that there's one here and one here and
Salina Planning Commission
May 20, 2008
Page 10 of 32
then if you specified a maximum height of 50 feet for the 1-135 sign and I
think 520 square feet is the right number for a total square footage.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and what would be another interstate sign that's 50
feet at this time?
Mr. Andrew stated I believe one of the, I don't know if it's Country Inn and
Suites or another user there that would be close to that, but most of the
signs that are at Schilling and 1-135 are higher than 50 feet.
Mr. Mikesell stated the Baymont sign would be 60 or 65 I think.
Mr. Andrew stated yes, I believe the Comfort Suites sign that's proposed
would be in that range. The Hampton Inn sign is at 70 feet. I know the Kwik
Shop sign is at 55 feet so it would be in that neighborhood. I don't think,
there is not any sign on Ninth Street that is higher than 30 feet, but we have
numerous signs on 1-135 that are higher than 30 feet so I think that's the
difference.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked did you say that this is C-3 and that the height of that
sign should be what?
Mr. Andrew stated 30 feet.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated 30 feet, so we're going outside of that. Is there a
problem with other C-3 tenants that are going to want 50 foot signs?
Mr. Andrew stated what we're doing here is creating a customized district
based on a specific plan for this site.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated okay so that's not a problem for you.
Mr. Andrew stated right, I mean if somebody who also had a Planned
District wanted to come in and make that case that their interstate sign
should be different. What has been consistent, and I keep a chart here and
it has about 22 signs on it, but the Planning Commission has been steadfast
on Ninth Street in keeping everything at 30 feet so you don't get in the
situation where this one's 30, this one's 35, well then I need to be 40 to be
seen above that one. So there's a level playing field on Ninth Street. On 1-
135 it's variable, we have signs at 35 ft., we have signs at 50 ft., we have
signs at 70 ft.
Mrs. Soderberg asked do we know if any of these signs will be digital or
moving?
Mr. Andrew stated I think I would defer that to the applicant but most of us
have seen the standard Kohl's sign age and they are the standard internal
illumination signs.
Mr. Funk asked they are internally lit?
Mr. Andrew stated they are internally illuminated, that's what these show
right now. I'd let Mr. Mikesell translate for you but that's the way we read it
as internally illuminated signs.
Mr. Mikesell stated that is correct.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked any other questions of staff? Would the applicant
come forward and state your name and address and open yourself for
questions. If you have any statements to make please do so.
Salina Planning Commission
May 20,2008
Page 11 of 32
Jason Mohler, Crafton, Tull, Sparks. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I
don't know that I have a lot to add. Dean answered the question about the
portion of parking up there towards the northeast corner very accurately. It
would function as part of the overall parking requirement for Kohl's and
would probably serve as employee-type parking. I think our request
regarding signage is accurate as well. We would ask for the 50 foot sign.
Beyond that I would just be here to answer any questions you might have.
Mrs. Soderberg asked can you talk a little bit about what the landscaping
will look like?
Mr. Mohler stated yes, certainly and in fact Dean mentioned the island, the
buffer island in between parking stalls there, that is intended to be
landscaped area with the Xeriscaping types of plant material, mulch and
what-not. Almost all of the internal islands would be plant material and not
just turf. Some of the blue areas around the perimeter would be turf and
trees but the intention there is landscaped area as well, finished, irrigated
landscaping.
Mr. Andrew stated one thing I would clarify as well. The area along Planet,
Key and Ninth as far as just the green area is less than what our ordinance
formula requires, the number of plantings is the same as if the area was
there. So they're not requesting less plantings or less plant material.
There's just less total green area so what it amounts to is less grass area,
but in terms of shrubs and trees, they're not reducing those from what would
normally be required.
Mrs. Soderberg asked but the overall area is less?
Mr. Andrew stated the overall, basicallY we're talking about the width of this
area on the private side of the property line here and here is less deep than
what our regulations would require for a property that has that much
frontage and depth. It's a formula based on the depth and width of a lot.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and it's less because of the parking requirement?
Mr. Andrew stated because of the pond primarily.
Mr. Mohler stated a very tight parking lot.
Mr. Andrew stated primarily because of the size of the pond. We're not
getting extra over-and-above parking spaces and reducing landscaping. It's
primarily because the pond, the size of it and Mr. Mohler can explain to you
how he sized the pond, but the width and the total size of the pond caused
the building to be pushed forward which caused the parking to be pushed
forward and the introduction of the street there and it's not because of the
over-abundance of parking, it's because of the pond area at the rear is
much larger than would normally be required because of the off-site water.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and remind me again how many acres you said that
property has been draining?
Mr. Mohler stated a little over 60 if I remember right.
Mrs. Soderberg stated I thought that. I've been telling people that and they
just absolutely don't believe me.
Mr. Mohler stated the one evidence of that is if you look at the box culvert
that's right in front of Subway coming underneath Ninth Street, it's a very
large drainage structure, I don't remember the size, it's a big box.
Mr. Andrew stated it's not a tube. It's a box like you'd have for a stream.
Salina Planning Commission
May 20,2008
Page 12 of 32
Mr. Mohler stated I would add to one comment Dean made regarding the
landscaping. We were short a little bit in terms of landscaping area along
Planet Avenue, however, we were at some excess landscaping relative to
Code along Ninth Street. So the overall area of landscaping provided is
more than Code requirements.
Mr. Funk asked you also have a big drainage ditch coming in from the south
behind Office Max don't you?
Mr. Mohler stated actually it is my understanding that the Office Max
property and Belmont Plaza has its own detention pond so I'm not aware of
any drainage.
Mr. Funk asked they probably have detention ponds but they still drain
across the back of your property don't they?
Mr. Mohler stated I believe that the detention pond for the Office Max
discharges into the KDOT right-of-way and goes right along the highway.
Mr. Andrew stated it is pumped into the 1-135 right-of-way and then it
meanders actually outside the boundaries of this property up along the 1-135
right-of-way.
Mr. Funk stated okay well I noticed there was a huge ditch back there.
You're going to have sidewalks on both sides of Planet Avenue?
Mr. Mohler stated actually sidewalk on the west side only.
Mr. Funk stated west side only, and this one on Key Avenue it says future
five foot sidewalk, you're not going to have that, that won't be in place at this
time?
Mr. Mohler stated at this time we've not indicated that sidewalk. As the
outlot develops and the use there becomes more clear, when we know what
it is, we will revisit that.
Mr. Funk stated weill guess I'm thinking of these people that live here to the
east of Ninth Street. I see them with two-wheel shopping carts going to
Wal-Mart and places like that and they could certainly use a sidewalk on
Key Avenue.
Mr. Mohler stated and that is provided for in the Development Agreement.
Mr. Funk stated but I think it should be now rather than later.
Mr. Mohler stated okay.
Mr. Funk stated that's my own opinion.
Mrs. Soderberg asked would you show on the diagram the sidewalk area,
would you please?
Mr. Andrew stated this is the sidewalk on the west side and then this is the
sidewalk proposed along Key on the south side, so the sidewalk will extend
here and then you'd have a sidewalk on the west side.
Mrs. Soderberg asked not extending then up into Mid State's area?
Mr. Andrew stated there are really no internal sidewalks at Mid State.
Salina Planning Commission
May 20,2008
Page 13 of 32
Mrs. Soderberg stated yes, I know. It's just crossing over there would be,
there's a street but you'd have to, I mean there's paved area but if you had
a stroller or a bike or....
Mr. Funk asked is there a pedestrian crosswalk at Key Avenue on Ninth
Street?
Mr. Mohler stated no sir, and that's really what we've wrestled with in terms
of that sidewalk along Key. As of right now, I'm not aware of any pedestrian
provision out there along Ninth.
Mr. Andrew stated if it remains an unsignalized intersection then it's
probably not going to be an attractive place for pedestrians to come across.
Mr. Funk stated very unattractive.
Mr. Schrage stated Jason referred to me as possibly addressing the
sidewalk and I guess our approach is consistent with any other development
when you expect a sidewalk to be installed at the time that it develops, but
the outlots that he was referring to are a future phase. So our expectation
as we negotiated the Development Agreement was it would be required and
we wanted to get that acknowledged but it would actually get laid out as part
of the site plan and site plan review once the outlots developed.
Mrs. Soderberg asked so there's no question there will be a sidewalk there
when those outlots develop?
Mr. Mohler stated correct.
Mr. Funk asked do you have any potential for those outlots to be developed,
do you have Starbucks on the line?
Mrs. Soderberg stated because that could make a difference in the traffic
study.
Mr. Mohler stated the traffic study considered that parcel to be fully
developed. We would like to know as much as you would what those out
parcels are going to be and I don't have an answer for you tonight.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked are there any other questions of the applicant? Are
there comments by interested citizens? There being none, we'll bring it
back to the Commission for action. Dean, I just wanted to clarify that the
conditions for approval are actually 1 through 13 with #3 being modified.
Mr. Andrew stated #3 has been modified several ways and I can read that if
you want to jot down for your own notes how that had been modified, but it's
"signage on Lot 1, Block 1, shall be limited to two freestanding, multi-tenant
pylon signs; one on Interstate 135 and one on South Ninth Street. Pylon
signs shall have a maximum permitted sign area of 520 square feet and a
maximum sign height of 50 feet on Interstate 135 and 30 feet on Ninth
Street" and then the sentence following, "signage on the outlot shall be
limited to one monument (ground) sign per business, with a maximum
permitted sign area 48 square feet."
Mrs. Yarnevich asked when we make our motion, need we go through all
that again?
Mr. Andrew stated if you wanted to refer to Condition #3 as amended, you
could do that and I think that would accurately reflect that. What's going to
occur is that your recommendation will be converted into an ordinance that
will be considered by the City Commission. The only other thing I could
think of, if we wanted to just be more specific or clarify on Condition #9 it
Salina Planning Commission
May 20,2008
Page 14 of 32
MOTION:
SECOND:
I VOTE:
Item #4
currently says, "public sidewalks shall be required on Planet Avenue and
Key Avenue". We had that worded I think kind of the way that Mr. Funk was
speaking to it and we may want to clarify that to say that sidewalks shall be
required on the west side of Planet Avenue and the south side of Key
Avenue and then I think if we want to break that out then we'd say the
construction, although I think I got that from the Development Agreement,
but the way that is worded today, they would have to construct the Key
Avenue section before a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the first
development in there. If we want to clarify that then we would break out
those two sections of sidewalk.
Mrs. Soderberg asked Mr. Mohler, how do you feel about leaving it the way
that it was apparently in the initial agreement?
Mr. Andrew stated in reviewing the agreement it doesn't specify that timing,
so the reason in a residential or even some commercial settings we don't
build sidewalks ahead of time is they can tend to get busted up by
construction equipment or things related to construction on that site and I
think the way that that could be clarified would be to add the word abutting
and if we said construction complete prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for any abutting lot within the Planned Development District
which means that the section on Key wouldn't be built until the abutting lot
was developed.
Mrs. Soderberg asked so there are four lots, is that correct?
Mr. Andrew stated there are two lots.
Mrs. Soderberg stated two lots, but they can be divided.
Mr. Andrew stated we could anticipate I believe as many as four individual
businesses or tenants on the outlot, depending on how it developed.
Mrs. Soderberg asked that means if we start from the south building up then
the sidewalk doesn't get put in until when?
Mr. Andrew stated until that abutting lot is developed. Again, that would be
consistent with the way we do sidewalks throughout the city. If you live in a
residential subdivision and there's three vacant lots there, you're going to
have a gap in the sidewalk system until those three lots get built on because
we build sidewalks at the time lots are developed because they tend to not
stand up or tend to have to be rebuilt if you have construction occurring.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked so we could refer to Condition #9 as amended also?
Mr. Andrew stated yes and to clarify that the Key Avenue sidewalk doesn't
have to be built until the abutting lot is developed.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked any further questions of staff or of the applicant?
would entertain a motion.
Mr. Mikesell stated I would go ahead and make a motion that we approve
Application #PDD 08-2 with the 13 staff recommended conditions, with the
amended stipulations on #3 and #9.
Mr. Ritter
Motion carried 6-0.
Application #P08-3/3A, filed by Landcore Development, LLC, requesting
approval of a final plat of the Stone Creek Addition, a proposed replat of a