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?