7.1 Agr License Cond Use CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
10/22/90 q:OOP.M.
AGENDA SECTION: Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. ? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA:
Planning Division
ITEM
Application #C~gO-7, filed by ~eorge Marshall, requesting a conditional use
pemit to allow a medical office and accessory off-street parking in an
(Multi-Family Residential) District on property legally described as Lots
26, 28 and the North 35' of Lot 30, Block 2, Santa Fe Park Addition to the
City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas (aka 655 S. Santa Fe).
Information
The applicants are proposing to convert a vacant church building located on
the east side of South Santa Fe into a medical office that would house two
doctors and support staff. The church butlding's presence in the neighbor-
hood is well established (since 1947), however, the surrounding neighborhood
is predominantly residential and the subject property is located some
distance away from other commercial uses on Santa Fe. The building formerly
housed the First Southern Baptist Church and then the Fountain of Life
Church. The building contains 6,832 sq. ft. and would be divided into a
reception area, offices and six (6} treatment rooms. The building is more
than adequate to meet the doctors' needs and portions of the building would
be left unoccupied and used for storage. There is currently no paved
parking on the site and the applicants propose to install a paved parking
area. The only structural alteration to the building proposed is a 10' X
10' extension that would serve as the entrance for patients.
The proposed plan calls for a 30 space paved parking lot to be constructed
in front of the building. The 30 spaces shown are adequate to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Traffic would enter the clinic at a
24' entrance/exit drive to be constructed at the north end of the site.
The existing 12' drive at the south end of the site will be removed. The
latest traffic count for this stretch of Santa Fe showed a traffic flow of
about 11,700 vehicles per day. Based on published standards and the size
of this practice, this proposed clinic could generate 187 vehicles trips
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
lN/??/¢~n 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM Planning Division
NO. Roy Dudark
[BY: BY:
Page 2
per day. The applicant's site plan shows no parking spaces extending into
the 25' front yard setback area along Santa Fe. This front yard area would
be landscaped with grass, shrubs and trees. Also, a 6' solid wood screening
fence is proposed between the parking lot and adjacent residences on either
side from the building to the front yard setback line.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On October 2, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on this application. After listening to comments from the applicant and the
concerns expressed by neighboring residents, the Commission adopted a motion
(g-O) to recommend approval of this application subject to the following
conditions:
· 1. That no expansion of the building be permitted beyond the
dimensions shown on the approved site plan.
2. That no parking stalls be extended into the required front yard
setback area.
3. That signage shall be limited to one (1) nonilluminated ground
sign plus one (1) wall sign as permitted by Section 42-517 of the
Salina Code.
In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, 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 (exclusive
of streets and right-of-way) 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 40 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.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMI SS I ON ACT ION DATE TIME
AGENDA SECT I ON: OR I G I NAT I NG DEPARTMENT: APPROV ED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM Planning Division
NO. Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
Page 3
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. If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation to approve
the conditional use permit or if a motion to approve fails to receive
four votes, then a motion to return the application to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration should be adopted along with a statement
regarding the basis for disapproval.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Protest Petition
Excerpt of PC Minutes (10-2-90)
cc: Merle J. Hod§es and George W. Marshall
Joyce Marrs
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
PU'BLICATION DATE September 11~ lgq(l APPLICATION No. CU90-7
HEARING DATE October 2, 1990 DATE FILED August 31, 1990
APP. FOR ZONING CERT. ATTACHED FILING FEE. $75.00
SITE PI,~.NS RECEIPT No.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (EXCEPTION)
1. Applicant's Name: _ Dr. George W. Marshall _ _
2. Applicant's Address 430 S. 7th, Salina, KS Z3pC, c~e: 67401
3. Telephone (Business): 913-825-9024 - (Home): 913-827-4433
4. Owner's Name: Luci 1 l__e Johnson
5. Owner'sAddre~s: 430 S. 7th, Salina, KS 2ipCode: 67401
6. Legal description of affected property (attach additional sheets if necessary):
Lots 26, 28 and N. 35 feet. of Lot 30, Block 2, Santa Fe Park Addition
7. Approximate street address: 655 S. Santa Fe, Salina, KS
8. Zoning of property: R-3, Multi-family Residential
9. Present use of property: Church
10. Proposed use of pmperty: Medical Clinic
11. Arethere any covenants or restrictions of record which would prohibit the proposed development? (Attach copy).
No
12. State or show compliance with any specisi conditions or requirements imlx~md on this conditional use by the
applicable district ;Zoning Regulstions: · ·
Refer to attached site plan. Screeninq and off-street parkin.q is provided
as required.
13. State why the proposed conditional use will not cause substantial injury to the value of neighbo~ property:
The proposed improvements as indicated on the attached site plan will*harm but
trn~eaSe the'value of adjacent properties. Care has been taken to respect and ....
protect the neighborhood through the use of landscaping and screening.
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:
Refer to attached sit~ plan. Parkinq is to have reauired screenina on both sides
as indicated. A 25'-0" set back off of Santa Fe, that will be landscaped, will
oroVide 'an esthetic buffer off of Santa Fa,
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.
Off-street parking is in arcnrdancm with 7nnin~ iqmglllatinn~. So,An is provided
as well as a 25'-0" landscaped buffer at front of property.
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 lawfully binding upon me in this regard.
Date: September 10, 1990 Date: September 10, 1990'
ff the applicant is to be reprseented by legal counsel or an authorized agent, please complete the following mo that
¢orr~pondence and communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE: R. Kenneth Bieberly, Architect
ADDRESS:. 227 N. Santa Fe, Salina, KS ZlPCODE: 67401
TELEPHONE (Business): 823-9221 AREA CODE: 913
White - Planning Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant
(Rev. 12/81) 103
· ~ ~ ~ ~ Application #CU90-7
Merle Hodges/Georqe Marsh
a , ~L~ I
~ 5 6 I 6 7
~ 3
~ m
~ mO , ~ J ~so'
i ~3 I
' ~l ,,. ,o... ,o,. "D' L ' '
~ m ~ PRESCOTT "
5 6 5 ~ I2 ~ 7
, ,, I
m
13 14 13 14
27
32 ~ r8
= f7
- I
' i ~ c RAWFORD
.
,_. De.to'il ~ P~rkin~, &
Sidewolk Cucb
.
o ...... · -- Proposed Clinic
~ I-- I,':. ' ; ~'~.'
............. ~
~ ~ : I', (6,852 square Feel} 0' ~
I - ~ ~=
,-~~. Site Plan
4
~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ 5cole: 1/8"
/
~' o~ saul, ~a~s~s * FILED
: '900CTIG PB 9 90
. CITY
PROTEST PETITION
. CITY CkERK'S OFFIOE
_ The undersigned, o~ers of reel estate 1~cated w~thtn 200 feet of property proposed to be
rezoned, proses~ the proposed ~for properSy
He~s andore'ds description
ACKNOWLEDGENENT
STATE OF KANSAS )
)SS
COUNTY OF SALINE )
The foregoing instrm~nt ~as acknowledged before ~e this 1A~h day of Oo.~nh~ _
19 ~0~ by (LIST EACH P~RSON ACKNOWLEDGED)
wi%nessed e~ch signature on %his ~o%es%
Shirley C Sink a:<~
_
:~ Notary Publ ~ c
Hy Co~ission expires:
EACH SIGNATLq~E HUST ~E .ACI~NO~LEDGEO
Additional statements of acknowle~ent may be attached end ma~ a part of
(Rev. 7/86)
ClT%' OF SALINA, KANSAS
PROTEST PETITION
_ The undersigned, o~ers of real esgete loca~ wi~htn 2~ fee~ of proper~y proposed ~o be
~ezoned, peoges~ ~he p~oposed change of zoning foe
zone change fr~
SECTION/FI. - Protestor(s) Property owned
/ Signature(s) Metes and 5ounas description
Lot(s) Block(s) Addition
ACKNOWLEDGI~ENT
STATE OF KANSAS )
COUNTY OF SALINE )
The foregoing Instrument was ackn~ledged before ~ ~ts !6th day of
19 ~0 ~ by (LIST ~ PE~0N
~vi~nessed each signature on th~ crote~t oetitign,
5hirley~C Sink ak~onnie Sink
Co~ss~on
E.~H S lC~TU~E MUST BE
(Rev. 7/86)
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
October 2, 1990
4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brungardt, Anderson, Denton, Hardman, Haworth,
Kline, Larson, Morris and Seaton
MEMBERS ABSENT: -
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew and Stock
OTHERS: Greg Bengtson, City Attorney
Chairman Brungardt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
#1. Approval of the regular Minutes of September 4, 1990.
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 #CU90-7, filed by Merle Hodges.
Mr. Dudark stated that this is a conditional use permit application to
allow a medical office in an R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) District. The
property is addressed as 655 S. Santa Fe. The property consists of two
lots and part of another lot. Frontage is 135' on Santa Fe. The existing
zoning is R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). The property is a vacant church
building that has been established since 1947. The zoning is primarily R-3
Multi-Family to the north and south and to the west across the street are
single-family homes and to the rear and east of the property along 5th
Street is R-2. The site is north of Crawford between Crawford and Prescott
on the east side. In the R-3 district, professional offices are a
conditional use which requires a permit from the Planning Commission to
establish that use in that zone. Staff has examined the requirements for a
conditional use permit and those are met by lot size, setbacks, coverage of
the building on the site and parking. There are no nonconforming
conditions. All the requirements have been satisfied for the Planning
Commission to consider this request. The plan that has been submitted is to
use the existing church building and add an entryway of 10' X 10' to have a
weather-enclosed area before you enter the building. The parking will be
in front of the building between the church and the frontyard setback line
which is 25' from the right-of-way line by the sidewalk. There are 30
parking spaces which meets the requirements for the use. The parking
standards are 3 parking spaces per treatment room and one per doctor and
one per employee. They are planning on having 6 treatment rooms which would
be a total of 28 required and they show 30. Landscaping is planned around
the entryway with trees and landscaping in the front yard between the
parking and the sidewalk. There will be shade trees and low shrubbery to
buffer the parking and cars from the street. The existing driveway shown
will be removed and an entrance and exit drive would be built on the north
40' of the property. Each side of the parking lot would be screened from
the housing on the north and the south with a 6' solid wood fence, which is
not required, but is proposed. The question is whether or not this use and
this proposed plan is compatible with the neighbors in design so as not to
substantially injure the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The
traffic situation along Santa Fe now carries 11,700 cars per day. This use
will generate additional traffic. Staff has determined that there would 187
vehicle trips in a 24 hour period generated by this use. This would not be
a substantial increase on existing traffic. He stated the alternatives
listed in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application
subject to three conditions. The first condition is that no expansion of
the building be permitted beyond the dimensions shown on the site plan. The
second condition is that no parking be extended into the required front-
yard setback area in the future. The third condition is that signage be
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 2
limited to one unlighted ground sign plus one wall sign as permitted by the
city code for conditional uses in residential districts.
Mr. Hardman asked what enforcement is there so that no expansion is
permitted beyond the dimensions shown on the site plan?
Mr. Dudark stated that there would be no building permit issued for any
building addition to the building unless the commission approves a
conditional use permit that showed an expansion and there was notice to
surrounding property owners and a hearing. To do that, the commission
would have to lift this condition.
Chairman Brungardt asked if the applicant would care to make a comment
regardirJg this application?
Merle "Boo" Hodges, 100 Mt. Barbara, stated that he is a co-owner of the
property of 655 S. Santa Fe. He stated that he would like to refresh
everyone's memory about the chronology of their search for a home for their
office. Dr. Marshall was here last month trying to get the Falta building
and as they saw that it was becoming increasingly unfeasible, they knew that
they were not going to be able to make anyone happy and would not be able to
get the conditions met, they started seeking other alternatives. They
looked into the Westerr) Auto building and the Firestone building and they
were both unattainable in the time period they needed. They looked into
alot of other properties downtown and nearby and this was essentially for
various reasons, the only one that looked good to them. They were
approached by John Heline and he thought he had a building that was perfect
for their needs, both present and future. They talked to some of the
neighbors at that time and they were totally in favor of a professional
office as they thought it was an eyesore and it would help that property.
They went ahead and purchased the building. After they bought the building
they found out there was some problems from the neighbors with what they
were doing. They called a neighborhood meeting to try to work with them and
make it as nice as possible. This site plan is a combination of suggestions
they got from the meeting and as well as suggestions from plannif~g staff.
This was as acceptable plan as they could get from the neighborhood meeting.
They have made every attempt to include the building suggestions regarding
the present zone. Even though this building is not totally similar to
buildings in the neighborhood, this building has been there since 1947 and
he does not think any amount of renovation would make it look like at 1900
victorian home. It would be an excellent thing to be there but this has
been there since 1947. This is a 7,000 sq. ft. building and has everything
they need and they prefer to make it look better and to landscape it and
make it look nice. Their hope is that they would go in and not disturb
anyone in the neighborhood. They are hoping to take ~ neglected property
and develop it to be an attractive part of the neighborhood.
Chairman Brungardt asked if there were any interested persons who would
care to make a comment regarding this application?
Imagene Campbell, 683 S. Santa Fe, stated that her home is south of the
church. She stated that her home is 104 years old and is the first house
placed on the heritage conservation in the City of Salina. Ten years ago
the residents on Santa Fe faced a dilemma about a professional establishment
to be located in a historic house. The immediate community came up in arms
about this and it was not allowed. Here we are today, a decade later, with
the possible changing of zoning so a medical clinic can be allowed in the
middle of a residential neighborhood. She has lived in Salina for 12 years.
The church created no problems for her. Traffic on Sunday and perhaps in
the evenings and that was it. She thought the church would always be there.
Salina has not always preserved its past. Years ago the powers that were in
command initiated and put in place two questionable judgements. Zoning was
very open. A church was built not as a traditional-designed church but with
the look of a plain building. This leaves the building very vulnerable as
with the outcome of the Santa Fe residential district. This is not a 600
block problem. The citizens of Salina should be a partner in protecting
what they have left. Does she think the doctors will take care of the
property? Of course. The issue is the changing of zoning. This is a
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 3
crucial one not just for today but for future years to come. If it is
changed, it might be with extreme lasting implications. She stated that she
is concerned, just as we all should be, about commercial expansion. Houses
on the block can be raised and it may open the door for other ventures to
enter their domain. Look at the 500 block at what has happened tn the past
few years. Houses that were there are no more. Individual heritage listing
of homes has been mentioned as an alternative on this block. She urges the
heritage commission to act. When these-problems arise it is up to the
homeowners to solve. This is a situation that we as a city must address
together. They need umbrella protection put on this area. They need the
legalities that guard them and they need them soon. Today is the day of new
reality. After the use of all the energy present, how could they come up
with a valid plan? They chose to ltve on the street and spend their lives
in their homes. They do not wish to worry about professional buildings or
apartment complexes ever to be built. We can not afford any longer to be
naive and assume that the worse will not happen. We are in a time of
constant change. Let's change for the better with protection in place. She
is but one voice. She wishes for her neighbors and neighborhood a positive
solutton to this problem, a solution we can all live with.
Chairman Brungardt asked if Mrs. Campbell is aware that the commission is
not hearing a rezoning but a conditional use permit?
Imagene Campbell stated some sort of a change.
John Marietta, 760 S. Santa Fe, stated that he has some slides to show. He
showed the commission slides of the Santa Fe area. He stated that he is
the chairman of the Heritage Commission. He is not here in anyway showing
representing the Heritage Commission. He is here as a private citizen
concerned about this historic neighborhood. He stated that when he was a
teenager and walked back and forth to North Junior High he walked past the
building that used to be on the corner of Prescott and Santa Fe. It was a
large red brick home and was quite an impressive structure. He remembers
the home being raised and thinking to himself "somebody should do something
to stop this kind of thing from happening". He stated that today he is that
somebody and is trying to keep this from happening again. When you have
alot of medical offices go in, you have real estate speculation and
development. As the signs went up in the Fountain of Life church yard,
realtors began knocking on doors up and down 5th Street. It would appear to
him that real estate speculation is already beginning. Church's exist
compatibly with residential areas. This church has been here since 1947.
It is interesting to note that it has not expanded on the neighborhood.
Medical clinics expand and take over adjacent properties. There are
alternatives for the two physicians. Statcare would be willing to
temporarily house the two physicians as they are on tight time schedules.
This would be a possibility. There are other commercial buildings downtown.
He also said the old Tony's building, the Huntsinger building and the
Firestone building are all available. The building north of Harbin's clinic
is for sale. Dr. Falta is considering an application for commercial or C-1
zoning for his property. Once you get in, why should you stop. He stated
that the home next to the church building is national register quality and
could make it on. The house north of the church is definitely eligible to
be a national register property in his opinion. He stated that the property
at the corner of Crawford and Santa Fe is a property that approximately 10
years was considered for a change so that an office could go in there. This
was repelled and the zoning board did not approve it. At the time, this was
an ideal property for that because it was multiple-family and had apartments
and was considered going downhill. This is now a single-family residence
and is on its way back up. The question is do we want to endanger these
landmarks? Restoration is going on up and down Santa Fe. These are
properties that will probably eventually go on to be national historic
register homes if we allow them to. The process is slow and we have to give
them time and protect them. He showed the Prescott home. The Prescott home
was once a boarding home and the lot next to it was considered for a
trt-plex and another time for a parking lot for Sears employees. This
was just a vacant lot and it would have been deemed an improvement in the
short-run to develop this property. Look at it now, who could question
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 4
the effect a parking lot would have on that structure. The lot has helped
maintain the historical integrity of the home. After showing the slide
presentation, he stated that he does have some points that he has noted in
the Future Land Use Plan. Plans are designed to truly meet the needs of
enhancing the lifestyles of local citizens. Three elements need to be
incorporated. One of the elements is local attitudes. He stated that
he would like to go over what is called land use extranalities. One of the
primary reasons planning and zoning was created was to control what
economists call land use externalities. The use of land often has impact
beyond a particular piece of property. This impact is often not included
in the property owners decision-making process because it is external to the
efficiency and profitability of the property being used. External costs can
be eliminated by separating incompatible land uses and buffering them from
each other. Strong neighborhoods enhances property values. Neighborhoods
are the building blocks of the community. Strengths or weaknesses directly
affect the community as a whole. General objectives in neighborhood design
that are sought after are immagibility. Easily definable edges or
boundaries without eternal barriers tend to break it up into subareas.
He feels we would be breaking this area up into subareas. Without
immegibility, it becomes more difficult to organize and support neighborhood
causes and to prevent the encroachment of incongruous uses. Incongruous
uses are generally referred to as commercial encroachment into residential
property. General objectives that the community as a whole should strive to
achieve are legibility. The residents of Salina and visitors need to
recognize the pattern of development. This is outside that pattern of
development. Efficiency. We need to retain sufficient clustering of
similar uses. He feels we are not clustering similar uses, we are starting
to spread them out. Planning principles. These principles outline general
relationships between various districts and land uses which, if followed,
will improve development in the city of Salina. Land uses of differing
intensity should generally not be intermixed. Even though this property is
zoned R-3, around the church is still single-family residences and is not
broken up into apartments. The homes adjacent to the clinic are single-
family residences. He feels there is a difference in intensity between a
medical clinic and a single-family residence. He thinks that what the
zoning ordinance was intended so that if you have an apartment complex,
you can put a medical clinic next to it. Residential development should be
located and developed in a manner which enforces the neighborhood structure
of the community. Single-Family residences with a lower intensive land use
should be buffered from higher intensity land uses. Buffering is described
in the next paragraph. Multi-family development can not be an effective
buffer between single-family residences and neighborhood commercial centers
and other commercial uses. Neighborhoods should be easily identifiable and
definable if they have a unique physical character or architectural style.
He can not think of an area of town that has a more distinct architectural
style than this one. Under the developmental policies, policies are
specific enough that they can be construed in the day to day evaluation.
Evaluation of development proposals should be submitted for review and
evaluated determining its compliance with each of the developmental
policies. Conflict should be resolved using the best judgement of the
Planning Commission. Developmental policies should be complied con-
sistently. Since the house at the Crawford and Santa Fe was denied zoning,
he feels it is inconsistent to approve a conditional use for this area and
allowing a commercial enterprise in this area. General development goals
talk about curb-cuts that shall be kept to a minimum. If he was going
to build an office on a corner it would have to be on an access street.
Even though his business would contribute significantly to the amount of
traffic, access would still be restricted to a major arterial. The same
criteria should also be applied to S. Santa Fe which is also a major
arterial. We need to consider design elements to assure the character of
the community is preserved and enhanced. His biggest fear is that adjacent
homes will be bought for parking lots and razed after they become buffer
housing. This is a real possibility. It has happened in the 500 block.
Why wouldn't it happen here. He is not saying it will happen with the
present owners but it may happen with the second generation of owners. We
do have to address the future. Under housing goals, we need to recognize
and maintain the particular residential character of the existing area.
Land uses which create exceptional amounts of traffic should be separated
from residential areas. This use will generate traffic in a substantial
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 5
amount. He finds most interesting the commercial goal. We are to encourage
the development of business downtown. Boundaries of adjacent residential
neighborhoods should be clearly defined and we should discourage spot-
commercial zoning. There is a part in the zoning code that says you can use
lot lines as a boundary. Some of you feel boundary lines are streets,
rivers, etc. But it is stated in the zoning code that lot lines can be
boundaries between commercial and residential. Non-neighborhood commercial
development shall be encouraged to locate-in other commercial centers and
not in residential areas. We should discourage the expansion of strip-
commercial development along the major streets of the city. Single
commercial uses string out along streets. The Salina Central Business
District stretches all the way to Prescott. It says that this area should
be allowed to expand slightly to one-half block east of the railroad tracks
on 4th Street. It further states that surrounding residential neighborhoods
should be protected from the constantly encroaching downtown. Boundaries
should be established to prevent the blighting effect of commercial
expansion on residential areas. It is agreed that it will have a blighting
effect on commercialization of the residential neighborhood. Existing
commercial areas are shown to accommodate expansion. He feels areas are
provided for commercial uses and are adequate. The application says it will
not cause substantial injuries to the value of the property in the
neighborhood. It is common knowledge that medical clinics tend to
discourage single-family residential uses adjacent to them and become
non-tenant owned properties and are divided into apartments and at some
point they become neglected, not always, but usually, and it gets to the
point that where it is easy to approach the zoning board and say that these
homes are in bad repair and it is time to raze them and it would be better
for them to come down. The decision made today affects the long-term
longevity of those homes. In conclusion, he would like to say that the
long-term harm to the neighborhood would be evident in 20 years. In
short-term, no. In long-term, yes. He is sorry the opposition to the
clinic has been taken personally by the physicians. That is not his intent.
His intent is to protect this neighborhood. He hopes the neighborhood can
stay united and leave this issue behind them once it is decided as he feels
they have a good neighborhood here. The zoning board does have the future
in mind in planning this. He does want to apologize to the board if they
felt he harassed them when he called them Sunday evening. According to Dr.
Marshall, three out of the four commissioners did call him and complained
that he harassed them. He apologizes if he had done that. He was under the
assumption that free access to the commissioners was the way it was for the
City Commission where he would call if he had an interest. He is not sure
what we need to do but he apologizes if he offended anybody. He feels the
community good must supersede individual goals. He feels this medical
clinic will impose a threat to the neighborhood. Long-term wise he can see
the eventual commercialization in this area through the vehicle of a medical
clinic. This is not good. A church use is compatible with the neighborhood
and will not cause must damage. Since 1947 there has been no changes in
boundary lines. With the Harbin Medical Clinic there has been large
changes.
Mr. Hardman asked if in a nutshell Mr. Marietta's primary concern is the
possibility of expansion?
John Marietta stated that that is correct. What he understands, according
to the staff report, staff has recommended non-expansion of the building.
That does not mean that you can not expand your property lines and parking
lot. That does not mean that you can not buy an adjacent property or for
example, a real estate speculator could buy an adjacent property and raze
the home and have a vacant lot for a couple of years and then say it would
be better to have something done with it and a parking lot is put in there.
As far as he understands, there is no legal vehicle that can absolutely
guarantee that this clinic can not expand. Because it can.
Mr. Dudark stated that he wants to clarify one thing. Any expansion of the
parking lot on this site or any additional properties would take conditional
use permit approval.
Chairman Brungardt stated that for expansion you have to throw a big "If"
in. There would have to be another hearing.
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 6
John Marietta stated that is correct. But in the future that will be very
easy once these properties become multiple-family homes, it will be easier
to expand into them.
Vice-Chairman Seaton asked if the Heritage Commission considered taking a
position on this issue?
John Marietta stated that the Heritage Commission does not meet for another
two weeks. The Heritage Commission meets quarterly.
Mr. Hardman asked if there are any similarities between this situation and
that of the Harbin Medical Clinic parking lot?
Mr. Dudark stated that that parking lot is zoned C-1 commercial. The Harbin
clinic has grown within the zoning of the site that is permitted. The
parking lot on 5th Street required a conditional use permit for an accessory
parking lot to support the clinic.
Mr. Morris stated that expansion of the clinic was permitted under the C-1
zone and that would not be the case under this particular situation.
Mr. Dudark stated that the Harbin clinic completed multiple expansions
simply by applying for a building permit. Expansion of this would require
lifting of this condition and explicit approval of another conditional use
permit.
Diane Tweedy, 645 S. Santa Fe, stated that she was approached by Dr. Hodges.
She stated that she has no objections. She stated that Dr. Hodges told her
he would put a fence along the property line. Dr. Hodges agreed that he
would put up wrought iron fence to blend in with the neighborhood. She is
very proud of her home and she loves her home. She has had the church next
door to her for 8 years. Alot of times during a meeting, children were
running through the yard. A doctors office will improve the area.
Tim Null, 636 Highland, stated that they just went through this same thing
on Highland Street with these doctors. It was zoned for a conditional use
permit which allows a doctors office. The zoning board gave the doctors
approval to put a parking lot on Highland Street. He was only going to use
the back 75' but if you start razing houses around this with a conditional
use permit, it has already been stated at this hearing that that would be
no problem if the conditions were right. The example has been set. You
can not say it would never happen because it did happen a few weeks back.
This neighborhood has great concerns with what is happening to their
neighborhood just as they did on Highlafid. A precedent has been set. A
conditional use permit was approved for parking around neighborhood areas
for doctors offices. It can happen any place.
Nancy Hodges, 850 S. Santa Fe, stated that they chose to live in Salina and
love it very much. They love South Santa Fe. They moved from the eastern
part of town to S. Santa Fe when the first house they liked became
available. They have lived there for 20 years. They are in the process of
forming a legal incorporation with the Secretary of State and the S. Santa
Fe residents stretching from Prescott to Republic. They also have in the
hopper getting the neighborhood from Prescott to Republic zoned heritage
conservation district. They have gone through a number of steps. She hopes
no one works for Century 21. Century 21 had alot of "For Sale" signs on S.
Santa Fe so they started the process of rezoning as many homes as wanted to
be from R-3 to R-1. Most of the homes in the 800 block and many in the 500
block were zoned back to R-1 to prevent the selling of apartment buildings.
We are doing alot of things on S. Santa Fe that will assure the neighborhood
remaining intact. This is a very unique neighborhood as it has alot of
historical value. She does not have any financial interest in the clinic
except it is her baby that is buying the building. The church has been an
eyesore for along time. The building that is proposed would enhance the
neighborhood. She feels her son would be considerate with things that would
affect their property values as he is a property owner on S. Santa Fe.
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 7
Pastor Nick Hollis, 640 S. 5th, stated that the issue he is gotng to talk
about fs not accepted by many people that may be here. The issue is a fact
of the bustness that is in question. Part of the conditional use would be
that the business that goes in there would help the community as a whole and
fit in and be accepted. As a pro-lifer, the abortion issue because of the
doctors performing the abortion, and hfs understanding as somewhat of a
leader of that irt this community, he would stand in opposition because he is
within 50' - 75' of thetr business and hfs-back yard. Abortion in its legal
term is that of killing the new off-spring. That bothers him as a citizen
in this community. He ts in agreement with everything John Marietta spoke
of and he does not want tt to expand. The two neighbors to the south of him
were both contacted by a realtor who offered them money if they were
interested in selling their property and to make a parking lot possible for
the clinic. It is such a practice of expansion that these people who Dr.
Hodges has stated has nothtng to do with them and have not made contact with
them because they recognize the value of trying to buy adjacent property
that would enter and exit on 5th Street would be worth their purchase and
time of investing money. The abortion issue troubles him and troubles
others. He would ask that the commission consider that it is not similar to
a church and is a long way from it. A church promotes life and these
physicians promote and practice death.
Chairman Brungardt stated that he is not sure that is a fair character-
ization. He asked if Mr. Hollis realized that is not an issue that is
before the commission and perhaps the City Commission would care to hear
that.
Nick Hollis stated that he realizes that. He stated that the feelings and
concept of the community should be applied in considering this application.
From that, he stbnds in opposition. Even though it may not be an issue for
this board as a legal matter of yes or no but as a citizen and homeowner in
that community.
Mr. Hardman stated that from that point Mr. Hollis would be in opposition
to the physicians practicing anywhere in the community.
Nick Hollis stated that he would. It makes it more extreme because it is
right in his back door and not in a downtown area where other doctors are.
He can not, as far as the state laws are now, do a whole lot but because it
is an issue of today, this is the opportune time for him to speak his
opinion and to stand and ask the commission not to consider this request.
Twila Snyder, 626 S. Santa Fa, stated that Dr. Hodges made a point of
calling a meeting with many members of the neighborhood. At that meeting,
which she was unable to attend but her husband did, they expressed concerns
of property values. She thinks Dr. Hodges has a sensitivity that way that
makes her feel good as far as having them as a neighbor as opposed to having
another business as a neighbor. Her concern is that she is not sure that we
have in the system a way of preventing expansion. She does not believe from
Dr. Hodges comments that he plans to expand. Since they plan to retire and
die in their house, she is looking at 50 years from now. If she could be
assured from the future board that they would not expand, she would have no
objections to the conditional use.
Mr. Dudark stated that several landowners have raised that question as to
what could be done to prohibit the future expansion of medical clinics.
There are two basic things that could be done. One would be to downzone
the homes from R-3 to R-1 single-family which would remove the possibility
that any additional conditional use application could be applied for and
convert those structures into professional offices. The second option
would be to remove professional offices as a conditional use in the R-3
multi-family zone. Either one of those things would change it. The
heritage conservation district overlay would not do that. It would not
have anything to do with the underlying zoning, it would only deal with the
architectural style of the building. In 1977 there was a C Apartment House
zone which was changed to the R-3 Multi-Family Residential zone. At that
time, professional offices was not a listed conditional use in the C zone.
In 1977 professional offices was added. Perhaps we need to go back to the
1977 ordinance and take out professional offices in the C zone.
Salina City Planning Commissior~
October 2, 1990
Page 8
Twila Snyder asked what they need to do to change that?
Mr. Dudark stated that the d~cision would start here and a recommendation
would be formulated if that were the desire. It would be submitted to the
City Commission for the final decision as to whether or not to make that
change. If you changed professional offices in R-3 it would be in R-3
everywhere in the city. If you downzoned, it would be just on the property
affected by it from R-3 to R-1. -
John Marietta asked if there is nothing to prevent this property from
upgrading to a C-1 zone in the future?
Mr. Dudark stated that the Planning Commission and governing body can not
make decisions for future governing bodies. Every property owner has a
right to come forward and make an application. It does not mean it is
automatically granted.
John Marietta stated that if the Planning Commission at that time d~cides
that this neighborhood is in bad shape and needs change and needs
commercialization, then once that recommendation is made, it usually goes.
Is that correct?
Mr. Dudark stated that there would be notification and a protest opportunity
which would trigger a super-majority, a 4/5 vote from the City Commission,
to make the zoning change. It is not absolute and thure are built-in
protections.
John Marietta asked realistically, how often are zoning changes denied? It
seems very rare that a zoning change is rejected from this zoning board.
Mr. Dudark stated that some of those applications are screened by the
applicant and some are screened by the staff through discussion. The
success rate is higher because of the previous steps.
Chairman Brungardt stated that Mr. Marietta gave the commission an
interesting seminar as to some of what goes into a staff report and some of
the documents that are of issue and to consider. When you get to this
point, most of the problems have been taken care. People can disagree but
all applications receive the same scrutiny as Mr. Marietta outlined.
Ltz Wtnship, 736 S. Santa Fe, statud that she has no further oppositions
other than what has already been stated. She agrees with John Marietta and
Reverand Hollis.
Susie Marietta, 760 S. Santa Fe, statud that she has a couple of documents
that she would like to pass out to the commission to look at while she is
speaking. These refer to research regarding rezoning of certain properties
similar to this is town and in other cities. She stated that her main
concern is the commercialization of a single-family residential
neighborhood. This does not necessarily mean the expansion of this clinic
but the precedence that we are setting and the inability of the board in
the future to adopt commercialization of this area due to the effect of a
medical clinic and commercial business within this area. She apologizes
for her shaky voice as she has not had alot of public speaking and is an
amateur. She would like to present to this board her concerns about how
they apply to this application for a change in use permit and the process we
are undertaking to resolve this. Her understanding of this process is that
a change in zoning or change of use permit is applied for, a hearing is held
and a decision is rendered by this board. If the application is approved,
an appeal by 20% of the residents in the concerned area, the appeal will be
heard by the City Commission who make the final decision. Should this be
approved, the next step is to file an injunction and have this heard in a
court of law. She has done reading of cases which are similar to the one
at hand. The district courts' power's are limited to the lawfulness
of the action taken and the reasonableness of such action. Let her address
the lawfulness of the action first. In a ruling by the Supreme Court of
Kansas, the court stated that about special permits, the requirement of a
special permit enables the governing body of a city to maintain control and
regulation over uses permitted within a zoning classification of the zoning
ordinance. This procedure is designed to ensure that the special use would
Sa]ina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 9
be reasonably compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the
surrounding area and would not adversely affect surrounding property owners.
She believes the submitted application does say that putting this In will
cause ham to adjacent property. Another point she would like to make
regarding lawfulness of the action is the subject of spot-zoning. Spot-
zoning was considered in the case of Cauflin vs. the City of Topeka where
the court stated that spot-zoning is a descriptive term rather than a legal
term. Spot-zoning is not necessarily invalid, Valtdity depends on the
facts and circumstances surrounding each case. Spot-zoning generally refers
to singling out a small parcel of land for use classified differently from
the surrounding area primarily of benefit to the owner of property so zoned
and to the detriment of the area and the owners therein. In such cases,
zoning may be declared unreasonable and invalid. The Supreme Court of the
State of Kansas in Cauflin vs. the City of Topeka considered about 23
factors many of which directly parallel the application at hand. Among
these being the incompatibility of a medical clinic with a residential
neighborhood. The commission may wish to review this case themselves. She
has provided the commission with a copy.
Chairman Brungardt asked if Susie Marietta understands they are not a court
of law and not legislators but we are functioning within the ordinance of
the city of Salina.
Susie Marietta stated that she absolutely understands that.
Mr. Morris stated that the cases Susie Marietta has given the commission
are in regard to rezoning and are not of interest to this case.
Chairman Brungardt stated that he understands her background and he
appreciates the work she has done but it does not speak to the issue. We
want to know what your concerns are.
Susie Marietta stated that these are her concerns. She asked if the
commission would allow her to continue?
Chairman Brungardt stated sure.
Susie Marietta stated that the second power of a court in deciding an issue
such as this is reasonableness. She would like to address this by way of
using the Golden Factors which are in front of the commissioners. This
talks about the character of the zoning of the neighborhood. The character
of the neighborhood is a historic district on a major street in Salina that
is on the rebound. Alot of these homes were on the rebound and were diviUed
into duplexes and apartments. Recently, a number of these homes were
renovated and a number of them are in the process of being renovated.
Slowly the neighborhood is improving. Number 2 is the zoning uses of the
nearby property. Right now the zoning of the properties is R-3. That may
be but they are being used by single-families, owner-occupied homes. Number
3 is the suitability of the property for the uses for which it is
restricted. This church has been around since 1947 and has been suitable
for that purpose. She does not see any big changes in that. Number 4 is
the extent to which the change will detrimentally affect nearby
properties. That is well documented in putting a commercial business next
to a single-family owner-occupied home. The length of time the property
has been vacant in the zone. Her understanding is that the property has
been vacant for 6 weeks. Many church's average a year or several years
before they are resold and reused as church's. Number 6 is the gain to the
public health, safety and welfare as compared to the hardship imposed on the
plaintiff if his request were denied. She understands that Dr. Nodges and
Marshall need a place to practice. She is not begrudging them this right.
She also understands that they are under the gun and have a deadline to
meet. She also realizes that they have had well over 2 years to work on
this and there are other alternatives available in properties that are
presently zoned commercial that would welcome their entrance in there. As
far as the deadline, there are places that could accommodate them long
enough for them to develop their practice outside of a residential
neighborhood. This will have a detriment to people in the neighborhood.
Some of the people in the neighborhood are on fixed incomes and their home
is their major investment of their lifetime. To decrease the value of that
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 10
home means a major economic threat to those residents. Number 7 is the
recommendation of professional planning staff such as in the Land Use guide,
and it has been brought up that this is incongruent with that. Number 8 is
the conformance of a requested change to the city master comprehensive plan
which it does not conform to the master plan. In light of the above facts,
she urges the commission to deny this request for change in special use
permit. She thanks the commission very much for their consideration. She
is not trying to play lawyer but she feels these are important points that
the board should consider should this go on down the line and points that
will be considered when other people live in this neighborhood.
Melissa Hodges, 100 Mt. Barbara, stated that she would like to share with
the commission the agenda of the neighborhood meeting. She passed out the
agenda to the commission. The first is to remind the commission that this
is a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial property. She will not deny that it is a
blight in the neighborhood. They have the opportunity to upgrade it into
something that would be more compatible aesthetically with the neighborhood.
We did try to encourage the property owners to consider rezoning back to R-1
or to apply for heritage conservation zoning and passed out forms at their
neighborhood meeting for them to look at. In every historic district there
are non-contributing properties. They are not going to expand or stand in
the way of any historic district. They encourage the property owners on S.
Santa Fe and would encourage a historic district to go in there. In any
historic districts you will not have 100% compatible contributing
properties. This is where this falls. This is a zoning decision of 1947
that we are dealing with. She does not feel that a doctors office will be
that incompatible with the neighborhood.
John Heline, 2064 Leland Way, stated that he was the realtor involved in
the sale of this particular property. He heard a number of comments
regarding potential real estate speculators out attempting to purchase
property. Realtors contacted people in the neighborhood with the intent of
listing their property. He personally traced down the source of the calls
and found the real estate company that was doing that was going through the
normal process of canvassing the neighborhood for listings. There was no
intent or thought of the doctors buying it for a speculative purpose.
Those of you who are familiar with the real estate operation will find
that some companies make a practice of targeting particular areas at
particular times to obtain listings of properties. The real estate company
has assured him that it was not an attempt to purchase for speculative
purposes. This property is zoned R-3. Staff could very quickly tell you
that the amount of increased traffic that happens should this be devoted to
apartments which it is zoned right now and would be a much greater density
that these folks are asking for. The property is there. This is not a
situation in which they are demolishing a building and rebuilding it. They
are reshaping a building that does need some care. Some of you may have
noticed during the summer that there was grass there that was a foot tall.
This is not attractive to the neighborhood. That could be a blight over
the property for a long period of time. The zoning ordinance is well put
and does provide for flexibility. In the wisdom in providing conditional
uses, it was very thought out that these uses, for the most part, would be
compatible with a neighborhood. This is a very good process. We are not
rezoning. There seems to be alot of talk about rezoning. This is allowing
for a specific use with a specific plan as presented to you. He feels the
neighborhood will be better maintained with property owners who are very
concerned about th~ upgrading of the neighborhood than leaving it open to
whatever may happen to it.
Zella Wanamaker, 646 S. 5th, stated that her problem is drainage. As it is
now, all the wdter that comes off the building comes in her back yard.
Adding concrete to that will make it a greater problem. There are about 8
homes for sale up and down her block so she does not think they need anymore
for sale.
Mr. Dudark stated that Santa Fe is below the sidewalk and the yard..
this parking lot is built, it would drain to the west into the Santa ~Fe
area. R-3 zoning is intensive zoning for multiple-family development. This
property could be covered with additional buildings in the R-3 zone. There
is very little that can be done about an existing building with the
drainage. The drainage will go to the west to Santa Fe and not towards the
east.
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 11
Nancy Klostermeyer, 656 S. Santa Fo, stated that her concern is the
neighborhood environmental impact of cement vs. grass. The prospect of a
large solar heat collector and the rain runoff vs. percolation and running
into Santa Fe, we all know that when there is a large rain, the intersection
does flood. In an unusual rain, it has flooded as far back to their house
and to the back yard because of insufficient drainage to the north. The
flooding situation could be a contributing factor there. The prospect of
regular traffic vs. sporadic traffic which has been the pattern for the 20
years they have lived there. She is concerned about the Future Land Use
Plan. From what she understands, when the property at the south end was
defeated, the commercialization was to end at Prescott. This is in contrast
with that. Whatever the outcome, she would like to reiterate the suggestion
that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the zoning code to
eliminate professional offices as a conditional use in the R-3 zone
throughout the city. She would do whatever is necessary to help with this
process.
Ken Klostermeyer, 656 S. Santa Fe, stated that they have lived in the area
for 20 years. He has been concerned for a number of years with conditional
use permits and the affect on surrounding areas. The slides the commission
saw previously are a number of those cases. Conditional uses were put to
use for a very nice two-story structure on 5th Street. A conditional use
for an office building to go in there which was surrounded by a number of
homes. Because the office building needed additional parking space,
property was purchased and a parking lot was put in. Because of the
blighting of the area that took place, it was deemed that it be rezoned to
R-3. Conditional use does have a detriment to the neighborhood.
Consequently, Consolidated Printing went into the area. The Harbin building
which was compatible at one time. It was not always zoned R-3 but was
rezoned to commercial. Across the street apartments were put in. The
hospital is spreading their property with parking lots across the area. It
has been mentioned that that particular property is zoned R-3. However, it
is worth mentioning that the majority of the neighbors are single-family
and the reason it has been alluded that we have rezoned to R-1. Being
concerned with the neighborhood we live in, there are widowers and people
with fixed incomes that in their retirement years, wanted the opportunity
to rent out the upstairs for extra income. If they rezone to R-l, that is
not a possibility. We have to take into consideration who we live adjacent
to and make an effort to work on that basis. It does not take long for a
conditional use to change and go to commercial with what appears to be
taking place in an area. He has lived in other communities before coming
here and similar things have happened. Zoning and Planning Commissions
have set up conditional use for the purpose of allowing an encroachment, not
by intent, of commercial properties in a given area. It does provide for
downgrading of the property because of commercial aspects and homes were
sold out to compete with the commercial market. The Planning Commission
needs to seriously consider what will happen to that area if you take a
jump where commercial terminates on Santa Fe and jump 4 - 5 properties to
this church which was conditionally zoned for a church. He feels it should
remain within that zoning and allow a church to come in and deal with it on
that basis. With past experiences on allowing conditional use change,
immediately there has been 3 - 5 years in blighting the neighborhood and
the downgrading of the surrounding area. Santa Fe Days took place not long
ago and one of the primary emphasis was the tour of the homes starting at
Prescott and going south. A medical clinic is a commercial venture but is
not a property to be next to a home owner.
Joyce Marts, 666 S. Santa Fe, stated that she came to this meeting opposed
to a conditional use permit being granted. It appears to her that the
establishment of a business at the Fountain of Life church grounds opens
the door for future growth of commercial-type establishments. Once this
door is open enough for someone to get their foot in the door, it will be
more difficult for those who live across the street to have future say and
future action. She takes a stand because it seems that if earlier day
residents had taken a stand to stop commercial growth, we would not be here
today. She finds it important to look to the future by conserving the
homes and the historical value in their block now and not having residents
in the next 10 years facing the problems we are facing today. Her 600
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 12
block has several new families, some with children. Approximately 10
families have chosen to buy these stately old homes to become their new
homes. She doesn't suppose the commission cares but Twila plans to die in
her home and you don't care but it is 35 steps from driveway to the top of
her third floor and every box that she carried up there was 35 steps up and
35 steps down. The block has undergone some good restorations. A
commercial business in her front yard does not inspire me to be a homeowner
with grand plans for her home. Last year-when she narrated on the trolley
for Santa Fe Days, the trolley was always full of people and there were
people standing on every street to try to get on to see the homes. This
year, the equally popular tour was a walking tour and there was a constant
flow of people showing interest in the restoration of the homes. Residents
and viewers were interested in buying homes with history along Santa Fe.
Santa Fe has always been shown as a show case of good homes. Action taken
here today will affect the business row in their 600 block of S. Santa Fe.
Not tomorrow, nor next week, nor next year will the bulldozers be leveling
their homes. Maybe not even when she is a little old lady living in the
three story house she owns. Allowing a conditional use permit for a growing
business will undoubtedly need to expand in their lifetime to be established
on the church property does open the door and allow future prospects to look
at their lots with a gleam in their eye and hope the foot in the door will
allow them to have a prime area of future development.
Connie Sink, 660 S. Santa Fe, stated that yesterday one of her younger
neighbors said to her "At your age, what do you care what happens to the 600
block of S. Santa Fe?" She thought about it and thought why she cares. For
many years she lived 125 miles north of here but she always dreamed of
coming back to Santa Fe and living here. Her husband went to college 43
years ago and they walked up and down the street and Santa Fe was something.
Seven years ago they bought the property on Santa Fe and they worked hard on
it and she now has her papers ready for the Heritage Commission. They do
not want a business to come in across the street and devour the rest of
their 600 block. Another abuse has already been done to the 600 block and
they want to salvadge what is left.
Merle "Boo" Hodges stated that he has been characterized by this
neighborhood group as a slum lord, a wretched abortiunist, an ever-
expanding octopus that will destroy the neighborhood. He resents this
highly. He is merely trying to fit in in a place where he feels he will
improve the neighborhood and where it is totally compatible with the zoning.
He would ask the commission to get through the rhetoric and get to the basic
part of this which is they are trying to fit in and they have gene overboard
in trying to beautify their lot and they have absolutely no interest in ever
expanding anywhere else in the neighborhood.
Mr. Morris asked how many neighbors were invited to the neighborhood
meeting?
Merle "Boo" Hodges stated everyone on the 200' radius list Bob Wasko
supplied them with.
Mr. Morris asked how many attended?
Melissa Hodges stated approximately 25.
Connie Sink stated as of 2:15 p.m. today there had not been a building
permit issued for them to raz the building and they have been razing it
for 3 days.
Mr. Dudark statea that we did get a call and Mr. Peterson, the building
official, went down to the property. The contractor was removing some
materials inside the building. Mr. Peterson informed him that he did need
a building permit for that and the contractor proceeded to come to city
hall and get that permit. The permit was issued with a penalty because
they started without a permit. He now can legally do that even if this
application was not even filed.
Chairman Brungardt asked if the commission would care to take action?
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 13
Mrs. Denton stated that as the Planning Commission's representative to the
Heritage Commission, she is really excited to see the interest in heritage
conservation. She sincerely hopes that they will see these people meeting
for the heritage conservation meeting and applying to have their homes
included on the list. Sometimes we meet rather lonely in this room with
just the commissioners and it would be a real pleasure to see people coming
forward with an application to see their homes on the register and be worth
creating a historic district. One of th~ things that would strengthen the
neighborhood is getting a designation on tho properties. Zoning is not a
lifetime venture. There are ways of changing zoning and there must be ways
of changing zoning if we are to allow people full use of their properties.
None uf you would like to feel that your options are closed when you have
purchased a piece of property and that you must keep it in that way even in
the face of changing conditions. She would like to see protection for these
historic structures through the mechanism they have set up with the heritage
conservation program and she strongly supports that and is hopeful that
maybe this interest will continue to burn so they can get designation for
these historic homes. The things that have happened in the past were a
travesty. We have lost many valuable historic properties in the city of
Saltna. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do. They are gone. In
this instance, she would hasten to say that we are not talking about raising
a historic structure. We are talking about something that is going to be
historic before too long. It is a church building and not a residence. It
was built in 1947 and we are talking about adaptive reuse. She finds it
hard to believe that with the landscape plan presented with the screening
provided to the neighbors, it isn't a church but it is also not a Kwik Trip
or a McDonalds. She feels the characterization of this as something that
will downgrade the neighborhood is somewhat unfair because anything that
would expand into the neighborhood would require another hearing of this
body. Today, they have heard the arguments for the hearing that comes after
this hearing. It seems to her that it is well to look to the future but in
point of fact, what is being presented today, the controls are being placed
on this conditional use will protect most of the things the residents are
wanting to be protected. The residents are wanting to have protection and
non-expansion and that is being made part of the conditional use. The
residents are wanting landscaping and she sees alot of landscaping,
apparently things that were suggested by the neighborhood at their meeting.
She is having difficulty in seeing the threat that so many of the neighbors
have presented.
Mr. Hardman stated that he concurs wholeheartedly with Mrs. Denton's
statement. He stated that she said many of the things he was going to say.
Mr. Morris stated that the community is measured by the quality of many
services. The medical service is just one of them. This will enhance
the profession in our community.
Mr. Haworth asked even if this was a church, would the parking lot have to
be the same as it is now?
Mr. Dudark stated that is correct.
Mr. Haworth stated that the appearance of the building will not change. It
is the idea that it is a clinic vs. a church.
Mrs. Denton stated that one of the questions from the residents about
landscaping was the possibility of vines on the solid wood fence. She
asked if there is any designation for growing anything on the fence.
Mr. Dudark stated that he does not think so. He stated that the applicants
have submitted a very detailed landscaping plan. He stated that the solid
wood fence exceeds the ordinance requirements with it being zoned multi-
family.
Mr. Kline asked what type of landscaping is to be on the ground? He asked
if it would be grass?
Salina City Planning Commission
October 2, 1990
Page 14
Merle "Boo" Hodges stated that they have not had a chance to finalize the
landscaping. This has all come about prematurely due to the pressure put
upon this. This was Urawn up as quickly as possible due to the neighborhood
uproar. He presumes it would be grass or non-rock, things that would make
it look nice such as bedding plants. He stated that one of the
neighbors told him they liked to see tulips in the spring. He has no
problem with that.
MOTION: Mr. Hardman moved that the coneission approve Application #CU90-7 subject
to the three staff recommendations.
SECOND: Mrs. Denton seconded the motion.
Chairman Brungardt stated that he thinks we need further clarification of
the reasons for approval.
Mr. Hardman stated that he would move for approval based on the required
findings-of-fact as required under Attachment #3.
Chairman Brungardt asked if that is acceptable to Mrs. Denton?
Mrs. Denton stated that she would like to expand orm that. She stated that
we believe that since the building is not to be expanded and it does meet
all the bulk use limitations and standards under point #1, that it will
contribute and promote the welfare and convenience of the public. It is an
arterial street with a significant amount of traffic. This clinic will not
be a detriment to the neighborhood given the'amount of traffic on Santa Fe
and how much traffic arterials carry. We believe that this proposal with
the conditions we are placing on it will not cause substantial injury to the
value of other property in the neighborhood. We believe that the driveway
and other entrances and exits will be adequate for the use and will not
cause traffic problems.
Greg Bengtson, City Attorney, stated that he might suggest that the
commission inquire of the applicant to see if he understands and is willing
to accept the conditions?
Chairmaf) Brungardt read the conditions. He stated that no expansion of the
building would be permitted beyond the dimensions shown on the approved
site plan. The second condition is that no parking stalls be extended into
the required front yard setback. The third condition is that signage be
limited to one non-illuminated ground sign plus one wall sign as permitted
by Section 42-507.
Merle "Boo" Hodges asked if that means it could be 20' tall?
Chairman Brungardt stated that it speaks to square feet.
Merle "Boo" Hodges stated that is fine.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (9-0) in favor of the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Dudark stated that the action of this board is final unless there is a
protest petition filed within 14 days.
Mr. Anderson excused himself and left the room.
#3. Discussion of Lazy River Townhome Development Project.
Mr. Andrew stated that the current owner of the Lazy River Townhome project
requested an opportunity to address the Planning Commission about his
situation. He stated that he will review the chronology of this situation.
There is a building there that was originally built as a four-plax apartment
building with four rental units. It was built in 1977. There was a
Certificate of Occupancy issued in 1979. In 1981 the owners at that time
wrote and recorded five deeds which reported to divide this building up and
create four separate lots and a fifth lot which was the parking or green
area in front which was designated as common area. They formed a