Loading...
7.2 Agr Lic Parking Lot CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME ... 2/5/90 4:O0 P.M. AGENDA SECTION: Development ORIGINATING DEPARllMENT: APPROVED FOR NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA: Planning Division I TEN NO. 2 Roy Dudark Item Application #CU89-8, filed by Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a parking lot and storage building on property legally described as the South 14 feet of Lot 6 and all of Lot 8, Tenth Street, Seitz Second Addition, Replat of Blocks 1 thru 3, Plat 10, City of Salina, Kansas (aka 715 S. Tenth). I nforma ti on The applicant proposes to construct an additional parking lot to serve a parking shortage at the church. Currently, the church has 65 on-site parking spaces; at least 100 spaces would be required if the church were built today. The property located immediately south of the church (lot 8 or 715 S. lOth) is to be acquired and the house removed. The parking lot would be located on lot 8 and the south 14' of lot 6, which is already owned by the church. The existing detached garage on lot 8 would remain and be used for storage. The applicant's site plan shows a 64' wide paved parking lot containing 19 spaces. The 25' front yard setback along lOth Street would be landscaped with grass, shrubs and trees. A 6' cedar fence would be placed along the south property line and a 4' buffer strip would exist between the fence and the parking lot. The two existing driveways on lOth Street would be removed and replaced by a single 10' exit drive from the parking lot. Traffic would enter from the 9th Street lot and a chain would restrict access to the new lot at the alley except during major church events. Pl.annin~ Commission Recommen. dation On January 2, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted the initial public hearing on this application. The hearing was continued for two weeks to receive additional information. Following further questions and comments on January 16, 1990, the hearing was concluded and a motion was adopted COMMISSION ACTION MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION QATE TIME ... 2/5/90 4:00 P.M. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR NO. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA: ITEM Planning Division NO. Roy Dudark BY: BY: Page 2 (6-2) to approve the application subject to additional landscaping of the site to create a visual barrier and buffer from 10th Street and retention of existing trees within the 4' setback along the south property line and in other locations where possible. In accordance with the Salina Code, affected property owners may protest conditional use permits to the City Commission under the same procedures as in rezoning cases. To be valid, a protest petition must be filed within 14 days of the conclusion of the hearing and duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of 20 percent or more of the land area within 200' of the property affected by the permit. In that a petition was filed within the allotted time containing the signatures of the owners of 41.7 percent of the eligible area, the protest is valid and the conditional use permit must be approved by a 3/4 majority vote of the City Commission. Cit~ Commission Action The following alternatives are available to the City Commission at this time: 1. Concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the conditional use permit. (Four or more affirmative votes are necessary to take this action). 2. Return the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration along with a statement regarding the basis for disapproval. Encl: Application Vicinity Map Site Plan Protest Petition EXcerpt of PC Minutes (1-2-90 and 1-16-90) cc: m.~... Jebn~on George Yarnevich COHHISSION ACTION HOTION BY SECOND BY TO: ~-~ ~, Item #2 PUBLICATION DATE December ]2: ]gRq APPLICATION No.'" CI_IBq-R HEARING DATE January 2:]989 DATE FILED Dpc~mhe~ 1_. l_qRq APP. FOR ZONING CERT. ATTACHED. FILING FEE SITE PLANS Yes RECEIPT No. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL- USE PERMIT (EXCEPTION) 1. Applicant's Name: Trinity EvanKelical Lutheran Church 2. Applicant's Address Tenth and Crawford~ S,alina KS 7~p Code: 67401 3. Telephone (Business): 913 823-7151 (Home): 4. Owner's Name: Chuck Powell 5. Owner's Address: 715 S. Tenth, Salina, KS 7.ipCode: 67601 6. Legal description of affected property (attach additional sheets if necessary): Lot 8, Tenth Street, Seitz Second Addition ReDla't of Blocks One thru Three, Plat Ten, Sallna, Saline Co. Kansas 7. Approximate street address: 715 S. Tenth~ Salfna Kansas 8. Zoning of property: [%-1 9. Present use of property: residential 10. Proposed use of property: parking lot and storage building 11. Are there any covenants or restrictions of record which would prohibit the proposed development.; (Attach copy). no 12. State or show compliance with any special conditions or requirements imposed cn this conditional use by the applicable district Zoning Regulations: none 13. State why the proposed conditional use will not cause substantial injury to the value of neighboring property: Conditional use will relieve on street parking and provide storage. 14. State how the proposed conditional use is to be designed, arranged, and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district Zoning Regulations: see attached 15. Present data in support of the standards specified in Section 36-1201(2)(a)(4) of the Zoning Regulations (attach addi- tional sheets if necessary). These standards may be found on the back of this application, see attached request a one year permit I hereby certify that if this conditional use permit application'is' approved, I will complete construction in accordance ./"" with plans submitted and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals and I agree to abide by all restrictions, conditions, and requirements la~ upon..~Q~me ~egard. ~Ge6rge ~. Jonson . Char£es w. ~owerA a~ent for Trinitv Lutheran Church If the applicant is to be represented by legal counsel. or an authorized agent, please complete the following so that correspondence and communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual. NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE: George Johnson ADDRESS: ].].0 E. Tron, Saltna, ES ZIP CODE: 6740]. TELEPHONE (Business): 9].3 827-364]. AREA CODE: 9].3 White - Planning Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant (Rev. 12/81) 103 Aopl ical~ion I#CU89-8 s 6 Trinity/Evan. Lutheran $ 6 ~ 6 : m I ~ 7 8 g ,o g ,0 ST. / 7 B ~ 7 B '9 ~0 'ADD. CRAWFORD ~ . ,.,. ,,,. .. ,,, ~ 2 I A ~g ~8 6 5 6 2 2~ 20 7 , [ ,o Brown s: 2 I / 20 z ~ I I' ,o I ~ . t ~ ' ~D~LTERS~ ~1 ,o ~ r Frost s: s NINTH ST i ~ - 7 ~ ~ 6 7 5 5 "z Z s ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~o~o Request Area 'm' ,, e ~ e ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ 9 lO 9 ,~ L, i I', 14'I' 71' I "' 7 ~ ~ ~'" '~ " '~ Existing Church Holding _6 X9 4 , ~-..~ ~ ,. ,. ,. * FILED * C~TY CLERIC'S OFFICE PROT~T ~ITION ~ ~st~ed~ ~e~s of real estate loca~d wt~hln 2~ fee~ of pr~er~y req~es~Ln~ a ~nd~tio~l Use Pe~it~ protest th~ pro~sed ~ditio~l Use Pe~it described in Applicat~ ~t 8. ~enth Street. Seitz Second Addition~ Replat of Block ~ = 3~ Plat ~0~ to the Cit~ of Salina] Saline Count~ ~nsas (a/k/a 7~5 S. ~enth). $]~a~ure(s) ~ and ~ds Lot(s) Block(s) ~dt tton T~ fore.trig t nstr~nt ~s ackn~led~d befor/ ~ this ~/ day of E.~H SIG~TURE HUST 8E Addlt~al star--nfs of ackn~Iedg~nt eey be attached and ~de · pa~= of (~v. 7/86) ~ : PETITION NUMBER . · : FILED ' CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS * ~T P~ITION * CITY C~E~,, o OFFICE T~ ufl~rsi~ed, ~ers of real es~e loca~d ~tn 2~ feet of pr~erty ~s.a-- ~dX~Xo~al Use Pe~1t~ p~otes~ the ~op~sed Co~dXt~on~ U~e Pe~ft desc~fbed ~ Appllcatfo~ : T~t R. T.n~h g~r..~: gmi~m R~mnd Addition. Remlat of Blocks 1 - 3, Pla~ 10, ~o the City of Saltna. Saline County, ~nsas (a/k/a 715 S. Tenth). Signature(s) ~s and ~ description Lot(s) Bl.~k(s) ~dit~on / ) J.A.-"'. ' .-,./'.. ,., ~.. ~T(/"~.:', j, ,'~'~,'. ~.:~ '. ~ '~ ,~ r ~?~ s' .~1~ ~ ..~ C~..,'/ ACKI~LEDGE)4ENT STATE OF KANSAS ) COUNTY OF SALINE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befor6 me ~hts ~'~/ day 19Y~;~, by (LIST EAO'I PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED) . ' - Nol~ry Publtc Hy ~tssion exptres: E~ SIG~T~E NUST BE ~KN~L~G~ ~.. Addttt~al ~t~t~nts of acknowle~nt may be attached and mp~ a part ~f this petition as ~es~r~. (R~. 7/86} . MINUTES SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COMMISSION ROOM .January 2, 1990 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brungardt, Anderson, Denton, Hardman, Naworth, Kline and Seaton MEMBERS ABSENT: Gaines and Morris DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew and Stock OTHER STAFF: Don Hoff, Acting City Engineer Chairman Brungardt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. #1. Approval of the regular minutes of November 21, 1989. Chairman Brungardt asked if there were any comments or corrections to the minutes? There being no comments or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. Mrs. Denton arrived at this time. #2. Application #CU89-8, filed by Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church. Mr. Andrew stated that this is an application for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory church parking lot and storage building in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District. The location is 715 S. lOth which is south of the corner of lOth and Crawford. The parking lot would be an addition to the existing parking lot that serves the church located at the corner. The applicant's proposal is to purchase the house at 715 S. lOth and to tear down and remove the house from that lot to allow construction of additional parking to serve the church. The existing detached garage that is on that lot would remain and would be used for storage. The applicant submitted a site plan which shows approximately 20 additional parking stalls and a 22' driving aisle down the middle. Their proposal calls for removing the two existing driveway cuts on lOth Street and having one exit drive. Traffic would enter on gth Street and exit through the parking lot onto lOth Street. The zoning ordinance requirements for off-street parking for churches requires that there be one parking space provided for each four seats in the sanctuary plus additional spaces to be provided based on the amount of classroom space in the church. The ordinance states that no more than 60% of the required front yard (which is the area between the property line and the 25' setback line) can be used for parking, driving and maneuvering areas which means that it must be left open either as some landscaped or grassy area. All off-street parking areas have to be surfaced with concrete or asphalt. The ordinance also requires screening of all parking areas that are adjacent to a single-family residential district. There are also requirements on lighting and the location of parking in relation to the use it serves. The application that was submitted did not state why the additional spaces were needed but the applicant can provide that information. One possible benefit staff saw for allowing this parking lot would be a reduction in the number of cars that are parked along lOth Street on days that there are church events, specifically Sunday morning. On the other hand, this would require the removal of a well maintained residential home and be a further intrusion of the church into an established residential neighborhood. The church is well established in the neighberhood. There was an addition to the church when it purchased the former Mammel's store at 9th and Crawford. The removal of a house and construction of a parking lot would be a further intrusion down lOth Street into the neighborhood. However, this parking lot would line up with an existing parking lot on 9th Street that actually penetrates further south than this property. The church's holdings go all the way to Lot 11 on 9th Street. The 9th Street lot is currently buffered by a tall evergreen hedge. Staff feels that the impact of this proposed change in use could be reduced if some kind of buffering or landscaping were added to soften the effect. This would also include pushing the parking area back s~o it lines up with Salina City Planning Commission January 2, 1990 Page 2 the existin§ setbacks and would not intrude into the front yard and shortening the fence so it does not extend into the 25' setback. The church's plan is for a one-way parking lot with cars entering onlY on 9th Street and exiting through this lot onto lOth Street and turning either direction. The ordinance does not have any requirements for interior landscaping of parking lots. The only requirement is for screening along the south side either with a 6' hedge or a solid fence. The applicant's site plan does show a proposal for a 6' solid cedar fence along the south property line. The house adjacent to this lot to the south sets only about 4' from the side property line. In order to extend that fence beyond the 25' setback, into the required front yard, the applicant's would have to get a variance from the Building Code Advisory and Appeal Board because there is a 25' setback established on lOth Street. We have laid out several alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider. Staff's recommen- dation is to approve this application with some revisions to the site plan proposal. Specifically, that the applicant's eliminate the front two spaces along lOth Street which are within the 25' setback line and that the southern parking stalls be moved back away from the property line so they do not run right up to it but line up with the existing 4' setback that the garage has. This could mean moving the fence back as well. Also, that there be a termination of the 6' cedar fence at the 25' setback line and that they submit a revised site plan that reflects these changes prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits. Mrs. Seaton asked if staff is proposing that the fence be moved in 4'? Mr. Andrew stated that staff is proposing to move the fence in 4' from the property line. As the site plan shows now, the fence is on the property line and the stalls would run up adjacent to the fence. Staff proposes that the fence and stalls be pushed back 4' which would give an additional cushion to the neighbor to the south. Mrs. Seaton asked if there is enough room for maneuvering if you decrease the width by 4'? Mr. Dudark stated that it is a one way exit drive so cars would not be meeting each other. It would still be 18' wide. Mr. Haworth asked what the advantage is if you leave the fence on the property line? Mr. Dudark stated that this would make a green belt between the parking, the end of the pavement, and the fence itself rather than having to maintain the other side. Mr. Haworth asked if the fence could be on the property line? Mr. Dudark stated that the applicant has the option of having the fence on the property line and having the green belt inside the fence or moving the fence and having the parking lot and the fence on the same line 4' inside the property line. Mrs. Denton asked if there are two parking spaces on each side for a total of 4 or one on each side for a total of two? Mr. Dudark stated that it would be one on each side for a total of two. This would leave a parking space with part of it extending into the front yard and part of it not. Chairman Brungardt asked if the applicant would care to make a comment regarding this application? George Johnson stated that he represents the applicant. He stated that with him is Don Williams, a member of the church, and the owner of the residential property, Chuck Powell. Chairman Brungardt asked if there are any interested persons who would care to make a con~ent regarding this application? Salina City Planning Commission January 2, 1990 Page 2 George Yarnevich, United Building, stated that he is an attorney representing the adjoining neighbors. He presented the commission with a protest petition. He stated that this has the signatures of all the neighbors that would be affected by this application. He stated that the neighbors do not want the residence removed and changed into a parking lot. He stated that a parkin9 lot for a church is not an intrusion like the intrusion of a convenience store but it is still an intrusion upon their neighborhood. Although this would give them additional parking space that is not on the street. All the neighbors are here to say that they would rather have them park on their street during the time church is in session. He asked the neighbors that were present to stand and show the commission how many were present. He stated that they are definitely opposed to this conditional use permit and do not think that it should be allowed. He stated that it has no benefit to the neighborhood and the homes that have been existing there for many years. He stated that they are concerned about the parking lot as well as the storage facility with the possibility of theft. It will cut down a buffer. He stated that one of the primary people he is representing are Mr. & Mrs. Brooks. Their house is adjacent to the house that is proposed to be torn down. If that house is torn down then they will have no buffer. They would have a parking lot right against them. Fred Brooks, 717 S..lOth, stated that the parking provided by this lot will not take any cars off the street. The will still park on the street and make the street full of cars. Eugene Bachofer, 716 S. lOth, asked ~f they would be coming in to the parking lot from the rear? Mr. Dudark stated that they would come in from the east side. Eugene Bachofer stated that alot of cars that park on 9th Street will try to leave through this lot. There will be a traffic signal at 9th and Crawford, they will come down lOth Street and make it a thru-street. In order to get into this parking lot, there can not be any cars parked close to the church from behind because they will have to come through the parking lot on 9th Street. Chairman Brungardt asked if Mr. Bachofer's concern is that people would come through from 9th Street to lOth Street and thereby, circumvent the light on Crawford? Eugene Bachofer stated that the people who come to church first are going to come in and park as close as they can to the north door. When they come from the rear then they wil} exit onto IOth Street. If they never get it filled up which there will be empty places on 9th Street but they will fill this lot up first because they have to in order to get close. This will make a traffic jam when all those cars come out through this parking lot on to lOth Street. There are approximately 2 cars from the church parked in front of our house every Sunday. Chairman Brungardt asked if the parking lot on 9th Street will still have egress to the lot on 9th Street? Mr. Dudark stated that they could go back to 9th Street in a circle- driveway effect or 9o between the church and the former grocery store thru the alley to Crawford. Eugene Bachofer asked why not push the parking lot closer to the church? He stated that he is very much against tearing down this house because they are eliminating it from the tax rolls. That is a nice looking house to just be tearing it down. The taxes are high enough now without having people tear places down in order to get a place to park. There would only be less than 20 cars parked there. He asked if the area in the front of the parking lot would be paved or grass? Mr. Dudark stated that it will be grass? Fred Brooks stated that the whole block has trouble trying to get on Crawford. Most of them go south because Crawford is a big jam already. There will be a big traffic jam there at loth and Crawford. Salina City Planning Commission January 2, 1990 Page 4 Karla Clark, 710 S. lOth, stated that with the parking lot creating thru- access, from 9th Street to lOth Street there will be people all week long avoiding the traffic light by coming through the parking lot. The reason people park on lOth Street is because the front door of the church is facing lOth Street. That is why they continue to park in front of our houses whether there is a parking lot there or not because they will still have to walk around to the front door. Chairman Brungardt asked if the applicant would care to make any additional comments? Don Williams, 3061W. Pleasant Hill Road, stated that he represents Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, He stated that they have a severe parking problem on Sunday with their early service. That is the main time they have a problem. Normally, with most of the other services, the one parking tot serves their needs. On Sunday mornings we are parking at the corner of 9th Street and Crawford. Presently, they are letting us park in the Phillips station which is not real convenient as it jams up the station corner. We are parking on the north side of Crawford Street next to the chicken place. We are parking wherever we can find. As far as access- ibility to the church, that is not necessarily the case. They are parking there because of the need. Most people would sooner park in the parking lot as it is not any farther from the parking lot if you have to walk a block from the south on lOth Street. As far as the thru-traffic, with the new proposed parking lot that can be eliminated with a gate. They have a gate in the alley now. He stated that he was parked there the other day and the gate was not latched and somebody came zippi~lg through there and avoided the stop sign. They can eliminate that situation as normally they only need the additional parking on Sunday morning. It is a severe situation on Sunday mornings. There are some evenings that it might be needed also. Mr. Kline asked what the percentage of members are to the number of parking spaces? Don Williams stated that on a normal Sunday morning they have approximately 450 people. Mr. Andrew stated that there needs to be one space for every 4 sanctuary seats plus additional spaces based on the amount of classroom space. Don Williams stated that according to that they would need about 120 spaces. They are parking all over the place. He stated that he appreciates the neighbors concerns. They are trying to come up with a better parking situation. It is a busy intersection and will not get any better for awhile. Mr. Hardman asked what the setback is on the house that is going to be removed between the two homes from the property line? Chuck Powetl stated that there is a driveway there now and there is at least 10' between the house and the property line. Eugene Bachofer stated that these houses were well built a long time ago. There were different laws on setbacks and restrictions than are there now. That is the reason for the 4' discrepancy. He stated that he built his house and there were restrictions on it then. He stated that you had to have a 25' setback. He stated that he has his 29' because he wanted to have his porch out and did not want to crowd it. He stated that the main reason why the commission should reject this is because Crawford is widening out and this church has no place to go but south. It will be a real traffic jam. If the commission approves this they will not have many thanks from the neighborhood. Mrs. Seaton asked if the church is running two services on Sunday morning? She asked if there is any consideration of running three? Don Williams stated that most people want to come to the 8:30 service. The 11:00 service is not a problem. We could change the direction of flow. He Salina City Planning Commission January 2, 1990 Page 5 just thought this proposal was the best situation. They could enter on loth Street and exit on 9th. He stated that getting onto Crawford is no different than getting onto 9th Street. The direction of flow would not change. Bob Brooks, 724 S. lOth, stated that as far as the busyness of the services, there are very few cars parked in front of the house at the early morning services. He stated that he can not see that this will help. The people that come to the 11:00 services still park in front of their houses on lOth Street when the parking lot is vacant. Donette Tillberg, 720 S. loth, asked if the parking lot has to be 25' away from the church? She asked why they couldn't use the grassy area? There are several churches in Salina that have the parking right next to the church. Mr. Andrew stated that there is no requirement on the distance from the church. The only requirement is that there be a 25' setback area between the street property line and where the parking area starts. There is quite a bit of space between the north edge of this lot and the church building. Fred Brooks asked why the parking lot could not be where the grassy area is going to be? Don Williams stated that they have plans for that. Chairman Brungardt asked if the commission would care to make any comments regarding this application? Mr. Kline asked what the neighbors propose would be better than not having a parking lot when people are parking at a station, in front of homes and all over the street now? Craig Brown, 712 S. loth, asked why don't they buy the gas station and the low-income housing over there on 9th Street? Don Williams stated that it is not available. Chairman Brungardt stated that the church can acquire whatever they can acquire. The question is the property they have brought to us for us to decide on. He stated that he thinks the neighbors are saying they do not object to people parking in front of their homes on Sunday morning but they do object to a parking lot in their neighborhood. Craig Brown stated that it is a once a week deal for two hours. That is the bummer deal about it. He stated that he lives right across the street from it and does not want to look at a parking lot. Mrs. Denton asked if the neighbors are going south instead of going on to Crawford only on Sunday morning or is this anytime? Craig Brown stated that it is anytime. Mr. Hardman stated that he sees the parking lot mostly as an intrusion into the neighborhood. He stated that he does not think the traffic problem will be as severe with the widening of Crawford. Chairman Brungardt asked if the commission would care to take action? Mrs. Denton stated that if the church is facing lOth Street it would be logical to assume that the parking lot would be by the church on loth Street. If they were just coming to town it would be different. Since the church was originally built on lOth Street and they have later gone back through towards 9th. A new application would have probably had a parking lot on loth Street. It did not happen in that order but that is probably what would have happened if they were coming new to the area now. Chairman Brungardt asked if they were coming new to the area now what would happen? Salina City Planning Commission January 2, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Andrew stated that staff would review the proposed size of the building and proposed sanctuary size and calculate for the applicant how much' required off-street parking would be needed, One of the problems is that this church has been in place for so long before there were the off-street parking requirements. Mrs. Denton stated that we do require churches to have off-street parking. We would not tell them to go in there and park on the street. We would tell them that they had to have parking. Since this is only used once a week and is an accessory use and is similar to the situation with other churches all over town. Most churches do have lots that are in residential areas. Chairman Brungardt stated that the neighbors have a concern about what the neighborhood will look like and concerns about additional expansion of the church. We will need to entertain a motion of some sort. Mrs. Denton stated that the direction of flo~ through the parking lot being reversed and gates were mentioned. She asked if it would make a difference if there was a gate that would prevent traffic from comi~g through this parking lot and if the people were entering from lOth Street and going out on 9th Street. Mr. Hardman stated that there would be more traffic that way than using the parking lot off of loth Street as a driveway to access the parking lots on 9th Street. Bob Brooks stated that there will be the same amount of flow of traffic no matter what. Mr. Hardman stated that there could be a gate to control the exiting of traffic only from that lot onto loth Street as a possibility so the rest of the traffic does not use that lot. Mr. Anderson asked if Chuck Powell is present? Chuck Powell stated that he is. Mr. Anderson asked if the pastor of the church is present? The pastor was not present. Mr. Anderson stated that for many years the commission has liked to work with churches. He stated that the church may have some work to do. He stated that the commission is at a standstill. He stated that there is a hostile neighborhood but he can see where the church sure needs the lot. He knows that it is very difficult to get on Orawford Street at any time. He has seen traffic stacked up past the intersection. He stated that he does not have the answer. Hr. Hardman asked if the removal of the garage would be of any benefit. Eugene Bachofer stated that you are only talking about 10 parking spaces. There would only be 20 less 2 if you take out the front. Craig Brown stated that they would either be looking at a nice home across the street or looking at a paved parking lot. Jennifer Brown stated that she prefers to live in a residential neighbor- hood. Mr. Hardman asked if they were to deny the application today, what length of time is it before the church could come back with another application? Mr. Dudark stated that the applicant could come back in 6 months with another application. The commission could also table the application to the next meetin9 in order for an alternate plan to be worked out. Chairman Brungardt stated that either side could petition ~he City Commission no matter what the Planning Commission's decision is. Salina City Planning Commission January 2, 1990 Page 7 Mr. Dudark stated that if either side did not agree with the Planning ~Commission'$. action they could appeal it to the City Co~aission. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to delay this application with the hope that some of the plans could be worked out. He stated that the commission is not going to sit here and work the problems out. That is up to the church and neighborhood. MOTION: Mr. Anderson moved that the commission table the application and that it be brought back within a 6 month period. Mr. Dudark stated that the commission should table the application to its next meeting and specify a specific piece of information the commission needs. Chairman Brungardt stated that the issue is defined. He stated that he is not sure what the additional time frame is for. Mr. Haworth stated that the applicant should have the option of bringing a revised site plan back to the next meeting. If they have a revised site plan by then the commission could review and discuss that option. Chairman Brungardt asked what if the applicant does not work out anything other than where it is now? Mr. Haworth stated that we should give the applicant that option and if they do not bring back another site plan, then the commission can make their decision. Don Williams stated that all we are trying to do is clean up that corner as far as parking is concerned. We felt it was best if we could purchase this property and have parking in one area instead of congregating it all over the corner. We thought we would be doing a benefit. He stated that he did not realize that they would get into this type of situation. He stated that they have an 8:30 service with Bible class following from 10:45 - 11:00. The parking lot is full. The 11:00 service starts and the parking lot is still full. That is why alot of these people are parking on loth Street because the parking lot is still full. He stated that he does not think the majority of the congregation park on lOth just so they can be close to the front door. Walking is good for any of us. That is not the idea. We want to clean up the parking so we have it in one area. SECOND: Mrs. Denton seconded the motion. She stated that she feels it would be desirable if the neighbors could meet with the church. This would lead to the most amicable decision. Mr. Hardman asked if the motion is to table the application to the next meeting? Mr. Anderson stated that the motion is to table the application to the next meeting. VOTE: The vote was unanimous (7-0) in favor of the motion. Motion carried. #3. Application #P88-7/7A, filed by Realty Associates, Inc. Mr. Andrew stated that this is an application for final plat approval of a replat of 5 residential )ors that were originally platted as part of the Mayfair Addition. The location is the lots running north from the corner of S. Ohio and Oxford Drive, The number of lots proposed is 2. The original zoning on this property is R-1. There is a pending application for C-1 (Restricted Business). That application is pending until the property is satisfactorily platted. The staff report contains a review of the time frame of this application. The application for final plat was filed in November of 1989. Ohio is classified is an arterial street. Presently, the right-of-way south of Wayne is inadequate for the city's standards for arterial streets. The size of Ohio Street decreases from 100' of right- of-way with 63' of pavement down to only 60' of right-of-way and 33' of MINUTES SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COMMISSION ROOM January 16, 1990 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Seaton, Anderson, Denton, Gaines, Hardman, Haworth, Kline and Morris MEMBERS ABSENT: Brungardt DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew and Stock OTHER STAFF: Vice-Chairman Seaton called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. #1. Approval of the regular minutes of January 16, 1990. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if there were any comments or corrections to the minutes? Mr. Gaines stated that the same paragraph is printed on the top of Page 7 as on the bottom of Page 6. There being no other comments or corrections, the minutes were approved as corrected. Mrs. Denton arrived at this time. #2. Continuation of Application #CU89-8, filed by Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church. Mr. Andrew stated that the revised staff report contains much of the same material as the original staff report. He stated that he will highlight some of the changes that were submitted on the revised pla~]. These include a chain across the entrance between the existing parking lot on 9th Street and the proposed parking lot on lOth Street. The applicant has moved the parking area along the south side 4' away from the fence so there would be a 4' grassy strip between the end of the parking stalls and the proposed 6' cedar fence. That fence would stop at the 25' front yard setback line. The applicant is proposing a landscaped area between the sidewalk and the setback line where the parking lot will start. We have done some checking with the church and examined the zoning and building codes and have determined that there are 65 marked off-street spaces. This proposed parking lot would increase that total to 84 but our estimate shows that that addition would still leave the church short by anywhere from 15 - 25 spaces from what would be required under the current code for paved off-street parking. That is based on if their church and educational wing were built today we would estimate between 100 - 110 required parking spaces. Mr. Dudark pointed out that the proposed parking lot would be located on both the acquired property and some of the church property. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the staff report? Mr. Hardman asked what type of additional landscaping would be required under' Alternative #2. Mr. Kline arrived at this time. Mr. Dudark stated that staff has additional suggestions in terms of landscaping if the commission is interested in pursuing those. Landscaping should be done a little more heavily along the edge of the lot with a hedge or evergreen shrubbery 3 or 4' high also a couple of trees on either side of the driveway that would come up above the hedge into a canopy which would screen the parking lot from the neighborhood. This plan indicates some landscaping but is not specific as to what that would entail. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if the applicant would like to make a comment regarding the application? Salina City Planning Con~,~ssion January 16, 1990 Page 2 George Johnson, 110 E. Iron, stated that Don Williams has some comments on behalf of the church. Don Williams, 3061 W. Pleasant Hill Road, stated that we covered most of this at the last meeting. He stated that he revised the plan hoping that the neighborhood and the con~ission would go along with it. If we do proceed with this, it will be very neat. At any given time on a Sunday morning, we could have as many as 450 people at the church that do need to have parking spaces. Currently, we only have 65 parking spaces. We have private individuals who have graciously let us park in their parking spaces on property across the street on Crawford and across the street on 9th and north at the chiropractic clinic. We also park on the north side of their hall which gives us 4 parking spaces. As soon as the intersection is widened, they wilt be eliminated. We are trying to do something that will benefit the neighborhood and congregation. The thing that concerns him is the safety of the people who come out of the Sunday School classrooms. The southeast door is right by 9th Street. He stated that he sees children darting across the street. We are asking for additional on-site parking spaces. If we were to build tomorrow, the City would require more than what we are asking for now. Mr. Hardman asked Don Williams if the church conducted a meeting with the neighborhood to try to resolve the problems? Don Williams stated that they did not meet with the neighborhood at this time. He stated that he submitted a revised site plan to try to work it out this way. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if there were any interested persons in favor of this application who would care to make a comment? Harold Eagleton, 2525 Argonne, stated that he is the Executive Director at the church. He stated that they had an executive meeting to discuss having a meeting with the neighborhood. We felt that we are not trying to push anything through that is wrong. We have been good neighbors and they have been good neighbors. We do not want any problems within the neighborhood. We feel that the property is available. This is one way we can accumulate more parking. We are trying to comply with the rules and regulations. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if there were any interested persons who would like to make a comment in opposition to this application? George Yarnevich, United Building, stated that he is the attorney on behalf of the neighbors. Most of you were here at the last meeting and went through a thorough discussion as to the reasons why we are opposed to the application. He stated that he will not go into alot of detail today. The neighbors still do protest the application. Their protest petition is in the file. He asked the neighbors to stand to show the commission how many are opposed to the application. We are not disagreeing that the church has not been a good neighbor. We do not want this intrusion in this neighbor- hood. We do not want the house, one of the buffer zones, leveled and made into a parking lot. We have a general objection which is very legitimate. We spent quite a bit of time at the last meeting and he does not want to spend that much time at this meeting unless the commission has questions. Mrs. Denton asked if the neighbors met after the revised site plan was drawn up? Does it address any of the concerns? Her understanding was that they did not want to look through to 9th Street. If there were a good buffer, that it would not be quite as objectionable. George Yarnevich stated that he agrees with her comment that it is not quite as objectionable. The problem is that it is still objectionable. It is a matter of leveling the house even though the church has made a bona fide attempt to try to do what they can. It is still a matter of leveling a house to put a parking lot in a residential neighborhood. Vice-Chairman Seaton stated that she will bring it back to the commission for additional questions or comments. Mr. Kline stated that there are quite a few trees on the property. Are those trees going to remain? Salina City Planning Commission January ]6, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Dudark asked if he meant on the church property? Mr. Kline said he is referring to the house at 715 S. 10th and the house adjacent to it to the south. There are trees between them, some in the front and rear. Don Williams stated that they would have to be removed in order to make the proper amount of spaces we are requesting. Mr. Kline asked if the fence is taking the place of the hackberry trees? Don Williams stated that he does not recall the exact location if those trees are on the south property line and in the 4' buffer zone then there is no reason why they could not stay there. Mr. Kline asked what about the larger trees in the back by the garage? Don Williams stated that he does not recall any trees in the back. Mr. Dudark stated that there is a hedge along the alley adjacent to the existing garage. Mrs. Denton stated that as unfortunate as she thinks the removal of a house in a residential neighborhood is, she feels that it is the commission's duty in line with the health, safety and welfare of the community, to provide off-street parking for this conditional use in a residential zone. She stated that all the other churches in town with a few exceptions do have parking lots in a residential zone. It seems like the church has made a good faith effort to try to lessen the impact of the parking lot as much as possible, she would think with a little of adjusting on tying down the landscaping in the front with trees and hedges to attempt to block the view through to 9th Street as much as possible, that we could answer the concerns of havino a gaping hole. With a small egress driveway, this would not be that muc~ different than if a house were there. She stated that although she is concerned about the removal of the house from the tax rolls, she feels like the commission would be remiss if we did not try to bring the required parking up to standards. This appears to be the most desirable lot for expanding the parking on 10th Street. We would not want to go across the street or skip a house and try to pick up parking. Since the house is available, it seems like it is the best solution to something that is probably going to have to be a compromise. Mr. Gaines asked if there is room to put this parking lot between the existing house and the church? Mr. Dudark stated that the church has about 150' of frontage on 10th Street. The distance from the sidewalk around the church to the house to the south is about 45 or 50'. This is a 60' wide parking lot. It may or may not be large enough. It would certainly put the parking right up next to the church on the north side. The church has indicated that they have future plans for that area. Mr. Gaines stated that if he were buying a house in a residential neighborhood and his neighbor was only home a half a day on Sunday, that would be a big plus. He asked if a residence right next to a parking lot would decrease the value of a property? He asked Mr. Morris, being an appraiser to co~nent on that. Mr. Morris stated that he would be remiss to try to give an off-hand opinion as to whether the value would decline. Mr. Gaines stated that the fact that there are 50 - 60 citizens of Salina crossing a very busy intersection two times a day is a concern of his. Mr. Haworth stated that he knows of people who have moved into a particular residence because a church is right across the street. Mr. Gaines stated that that would depend on whether or not you go to church there. Salina City Planning Commission January 16, 1990 Page 4 Mr. Haworth stated that he has heard no objections to being across from a . church.parking lot from buyers of residences he has.helped develop. Mr. Hardman asked if anyone shares the opinion that it would be less intrusive if the 9arage were removed from the parking area? Don Williams stated that it is a new garage and they need the storage space. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if the commission would care to take action? MOTION: Mrs, Denton moved that the commission approve Application #CU89-8 subject to the conditions in alternative #~, specifically relating to the land- scaping as far as attempting to block the view through this parking lot and provide a pleasing view at the front of the parking lot. She stated that the conditional use does comply with the requirements in the zoning ordinance and will contribute and promote the welfare and convenience of the public. Although there is evidence on both sides, she does not believe that it will cause substantial injury to the neighborhood. The change will probably not increase the impact of the church in the neighborhood as it is already a dominating factor. She stated that she does not believe this parking lot with this number of parking spaces is going to change the balance of how the church is viewed in the neighborhood. There should be no problem with drainage and we have addressed the access with the chain the church is proposing to prevent people from driving through this area to avoid the stop sign. SECOND: Mr. Gaines seconded the motion. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked how the additional landscaping would be monitored? Mr. Dudark stated that the church would have to get a demolition permit. This condition would be placed on the permit for final inspection. Mr. Kline stated that near the south property line where the large hackberry trees are, it would be a benefit to leave those in that 4' area to be a buffer zone. Mrs. Denton stated that she would be glad for Mr. Kline to amend the motion to tr~ to save the trees, Mr. Kline stated that we amend the motion to try to save the trees if feasible. Mrs. Denton consented to the amended motion. Mr. Dudark asked Mr. Kline if h~ is talking about retaining existing trees in the 4' setback area? Mr. Kline stated yes if they are relatively close to the 4' buffer strip, Mr. Gaines consented to the amended motion. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if the commission needs to take action on the motion before hearing any additional comments from the audience? Mr. Dudark stated that it is up to the chair's discretion whether you want to hear additional comments from the audience? Vice-Chairman Seaton stated that she would hear a few additional comments. Bob Brooks, 724 S. lOth, stated that the neighbors did specify that they wanted a chain so the parking lot on the east side can not go throu9h the west side at all hours of the day. Mr. Dudark stated that the church already has a chain across the alley. That is for times when the parking lot is not in use. The practice would be that the chain be connected when the church is not in service. Salina City Planning Commission January 16, 1990 Page 5 Don Williams stated that he is not oPposed to leaving any trees but they ~will be.an, intrusion into the parking area. He will.leave every tree that he can but if they are an intrusion, he does not know. He stated that he does not know who will draw the line as to what trees can stay and which ones should go. Mr. Kline asked if there is 4' between the proposed parking lot and the property line. He stated that he is talking about the neighbors to the south of this propertY. Those trees are probably within 7 or 8' of the 4' area. As large as those trees are and as good a buffer they are, if it requires a 6' setback instead of a 4' setback to save them, it would be very valuable to leave the trees. Don Williams asked if he is suggesting that if they are within the 6' zone they should be left alone. Mr. Kline stated that if it is entirely possible, the trees should be left. Mr. Dudark stated that the commission could make it mandatory that no trees were removed within the 4' setback and if at all possible, to retain any other trees in the installation of the parking lot. George Yarnevich stated that from the tone of the commissioners discussion, he thinks they need to talk a little more. He stated that he did not want to waste alot of time today and have all the neighbors say something like they did at the last meeting because he thought the commission listened to what they said at the last meeting. Nothing has changed other than a couple of minor revisions, We are all right here and we are all protesting. This is simply not satisfactory to the neighbors, to the ones who are directly affected by what you are trying to do. Somewhere we have lost our power or feelings. At the last meeting the neighbors all stood up and expressed themselves. That has not changed. These revisions are not satisfactory to them. If the commission feels it necessary for the neighbors to talk again about the many problems this creates, he will ask them to go ahead and do so. The minor revisions do not solve the problem. This is an intrusion on the neighborhood and is not for the general public. The public is right here and these are the people who will be affected. Anyone else could have come today and supported the application more than they have. The neighborhood is here at the meeting and opposed to this. He stated that the commission should consider this. If any of the neighbors want to speak at this time they should do so. Vice-Chairman Seaton stated that additional information brought before the conmtission at this time had to deal with how underserved the church was in respect to parking. The commission is responsible for seeing that zoning regulations are enforced. We did not have the information at the last meeting specifically regarding how many spaces the church already had and how many they were obligated to have due to the attendance. The commission feels a need to meet the off-street parking requirements for the church. We are not disallowing what the neighbors are saying. The information is different than what we had last time. George Yarnevich stated that he understands that the commission is concerned about the off-street parking. Do not forget that the neighbors did not create the off-street parking problem, it was created by the church. They have created the problem and that should not help their application in any way. tt is still an intrusion on the neighborhood by having one of the homes removed. If the church increased their attendance two-fold, does that mean that they have a right to come back and ask that a couple more houses be torn down? Eventually, you could just erode the entire neighborhood. Vice-Chairman Seaton stated that the responsibility involves the city with regulations changing over time as needs are identified. We are not blaming the church or the neighbor's. The parking need has not been met. The commission is trying to find a solution that will meet the needs of the church without adversely affecting the neighborhood. Bob Brooks stated that he proposes that the church use the grassy area by the church. Salina City Planning Commission January 16, 1990 Page 6 Vice-Chairman Seaton stated that that was brou§ht up at the last meeting. ~ The application stands that the church needed to submit the proposed parking lot plan with some changes. This is what the church feels is their best position. She stated that she would like to bring it back to the commission at this time. Mr. Haworth asked if someone could rephrase what the amended motion is? Mr. Du~ark stated that the motion is that the conditional use application be approved subject to the conditions in alternative #2, with additional landscaping and the retention of existing trees within the 4' setback to the south property line and the retention of other trees where possible. Mr. Anderson stated that we had a motion and then an amendment. Are we voting on the motion or on the amendment? Vice-Chairman Seaton stated that the commission is voting on the motion as amended by Mr. Kline with Mrs. Denton's consent. VOTE: The vote was in favor of the motion (6-2) (Anderson and Hardman). Motion carried. #3. Application #P89-9/gA, filed by Dan King. Mr. Dudark stated that this is an application for final plat approval for a 2.1 acre tract of land at the southwest corner of Cloud and Ohio. The land is vacant and zoned C-1. This block is partially developed. Security Savings office is along Ohio, an animal hospital on Fawn, a dental office on Cloud and professional office under construction along Cloud. This property has been replatted once before. Through the sell off of parts of the lots, new lot lines have been created. Under the subdivision regulations, you can split a lot once. Any further division of the lot would require a replat of the area to reestablish the lot lines. The applicant is proposing a replat in order to establish more suitable lots and building sites in order to continue development of the area. There are 7 lots proposed. Three lots along Ohio and a portion of a fourth lot extending out to the frontage road, and three lots in the back by Fawn Street. The corner lot will have access to Cloud with a 30' driveway west of the intersection. An opening along Ohio is shown for the slip off to the frontage road. There will be restrictive access from the opening to the corner and from the opening to the south so there would not be any curb cuts through the median. All driveways would be from the frontage road and for the rear lots the access would be from Fawn. There are utilities present. Some additional easements are proposed because of the changing lot lines. The property is not being rezoned to a higher density so no additional drainage is being required. The property is not within the I00 yr. flood plain, Staff's recommendation is for the commission to consider approval of the final plat subject to minor technical corrections as listed in the staff report. Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if the commission had any questions of the staff report? There being none, would the applicant care to make a comment regarding the application? Dan King, 524 Camden, stated that he agrees with the staff report. Vice-Chairman Sea,on asked if there were any interested persons who would care to make a comment regarding this application? There were no comments. Mr. Anderson stated that he is having a problem trying to pin-point the access on Cloud Street? Mr. Dudark showed Mr. Anderson the map. He stated that the curb-cut would be 88' west of the corner of Cloud and Ohio. Mr. Morris asked how that lines up with the curb cut on the other side of the street?