7.1 Annex Yost KDOT WW Interch
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
11/4/02 4:00 P,M,
AGENDA SECTION:
NO,
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
BY: ])A
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
1, la
BY:~
Item
Application #A02-4, filed by Sidney Reitz on behalf of Ruth Yost Trust #1 and the Kansas Department
of Transportation (KDOT) requesting annexation of a 133 acre tract of land located at the southwest
corner of Water Well Road and 1-135 and Application #A02-5 filed by the Salina City Commission
requesting the annexation of the right-of-way for 1-135 from just south of the Schilling Road interchange
to just south of the proposed Water Well Road interchange,
Information
The applicants are the owners of two (2) separate tracts located on the west side of 1-135 south of
Water Well Road. They have jointly requested annexation of 133 acres west of 1-135 which is not
currently contiguous to the existing city limits in order to obtain full municipal services for a proposed
KDOT maintenance facility and commercial and industrial lots along Water Well Road. Companion
applications have been filed for rezoning and preliminary plat approval for this proposed development
site.
The subject site is bounded by farm land on the south and west, 1-135 on the east and Water Well
Road on the north. The Miller Tract on the east side of 1-135 was annexed into the city in 1999,
However, the subject property and the adjacent property to the west and north are entirely within
unincorporated Saline County, There is no existing development along Water Well Road west of the
interstate.
The City's policy has been to not allow the extension of City utilities to serve residential and commercial
development outside the city limits and to deny permission to connect to existing utilities unless the
connecting property is annexed into the city. There is a 24" water line under Water Well Road that
serves the Burma Road tower near the city landfill. This line was installed by the military but is now
owned and maintained by the city as part of Salina's municipal water system, This line is being
relocated as part of the Water Well Road interchange project and the relocated line will improve the
water supply and availability for both tracts requesting annexation.
Preliminary plans developed by Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Engineers call for the relocation of this 24" water
line to the south end of the interchange and then back to the north to its present alignment. This is
being done as part of the interchange project. Property owners in this area would be responsible for
paying their proportionate share of the benefit received from this water line relocation through the
payment of a lump sum hook up fee at the time of development.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
11/4/02 4:00 P.M.
ITEM
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
AGENDA SECTION:
NO,
BY:
BY:
Water Well Road is a county owned and maintained road adjacent to this tract. With annexation and
urban-type development occurring on only one side of Water Well Road, City staff believes it would be
premature to annex the Water Well Road right-of-way at this time.
However, because the City of Salina will be the lead agency in coordinating the Water Well Road - 1-
135 project and portions of Water Well Road west of 9th Street will be upgraded to city standards, staff
does recommend that the limits of the interchange project be annexed into the city. In the interest of
eliminating any confusion between City and County agencies regarding public safety calls, it is
recommended that the segment of 1-135 between the Schilling and Water Well Road interchanges also
be brought into the city.
Because the Yost and KDOT properties are not contiguous to the existing city limits, annexation must
be approved by the Saline County Commission, KSA 12-520c provides the statutory authority for the
City to request and for the County to approve island annexations. On October 7,2002 the Salina City
Commission adopted a resolution requesting that the Saline County Commission approve the
annexation of these two (2) properties along 1-135 and the adjacent 1-135 right-of-way. On October 29,
2002, pursuant to this request from the City Commission, the Board of County Commissioners found
that the annexation of the subject land would not hinder or prevent the property growth and
development of the area or that of any other incorporated city located in Saline County and approved
the request by resolution.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
After first recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to show this area as a Primary
Growth/Primary Service Area for the city, The Planning Commission voted 8-0 to recommend that the
subject 133 acre tract and adjacent 1-135 right-of-way be annexed into the corporate limits of the city
as this tract is located adjacent to a proposed new interchange and the nature of the applicant's
development plans creates the need for an urban level of services which can best be provided by the
City of Salina.
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the attached
annexation ordinance should be placed on first reading.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Excerpt of PC Minutes 9/17/02
Saline County Commission Resolution
Ordinance No. 02 -10111
cc:
Don Drickey, KDOT
Sidney Reitz, Yost Trust
Hearing Date September 17, 2002 Appl ica.~ion No. IIA02-4
Vicinity ~1ap KG Fil i ng Fee -0-
Date Filed A:Ugust 9. 2002 Receipt No.
APPLICATION FOR AN~EXATION
1.
Applicant's Name
Ruth Yost Trust IIl/KDOT
Address
(Phone)
2.
General Location of Property
Southwest corner of Waterwell Rd. and 1-135
interchange
3.
Legal Description of Property (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
See Attached Description
4.
5.
Size of property to be annexed (sq. ft. or acreage)
133.69 acres
List reason(s) for applying for annexation
To receive City water and sewer
service and other municipal services.
6.
7.
Present zoning (Saline County)
AG
Use
Agricultural'
Proposed zoning if annexed
PC-7.1-2.1-3
8.
Number of persons residing on property to be annexed
-0-
In submitting this application I do hereby request the Salina City Planning
Commission to consider the above described property for inclusion within the
corporate limits of Salina, Kansas.
/v';4 ~$'I r.-u51 .tUo/
~y..'t?~~Jt.~
~V : ..4£~5¥ £If ¿~~, ;ç-~
If the applicant is.to ~e represented by legal counselor an authorized agent, please
complete the follow1ng 1n order that correspondence and communications pertaining to
this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
~Mey ft.~~.~
/ /
Address ?-.ð,:6~ X /;J... '/ 7 ~~;A',:, fCi./
Telephone (Busitiess) (7 ð" S ) ìf .? ';1- 7 Jts/
App H coot' 5 Si go> t"e ~/ C Q.:..A~
Name of Representative
~ /'70 J-. -/.;1..}'" 7
Annexation Area
.---
.
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
.
I
I
.
I
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
N
W+E
S
Salina Planning Commission
September 17, 2002
Page 5
MOTION:
/
SECOND:
VOTE:
Mr, Byquist stated and I have no problem if you want to tie into this a
stipulation that it will be R-1. Because that is the way that
designated.
Mr. Hedges asked which lot is not sold yet?
Mr. Byquist stated it would be the fourth one on the
the forth one from the north.
Mrs, Yamevichasked you could just put in
zoned for that right? At this point?
Mr. Byquist stated I could but I don't ant to because there is a single-family
ouse to the north and a single-fa' house to the south and that would really
et some people.
te that they have a fee to pay correct?
Mr.. Andrew stated that is correct.
Mr, Byquist stated I don't know if this would so the problem, but would it
solve the problem if I took that one lot and downzo d it since the others are
already built on. They are new houses, unless somet/ì burns them down or
a tornado struck them I can't ever imagine how a duplex w Id get there.
Mr. Hedges stated I am of the opinion that it would just be cle r if we would
just initiate the downzoning of those six lots from this Commissio nd I would
so move.
Mr. McDowell seconded the motion.
Motion carried
#3,
Mr. Andrew stated we will initiate that action and notify the current owners
accordingly.
#4,
Application #202-5, filed by Sidney Reitz on behalf of Ruth Yost Trust #1 and
the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), requesting a change in
zoning district classification from Saline County AG (Agricultural) to PC-?
(Planned Highway Commercial District), 1-2 (Light Industrial District) and 1-3
(Heavy Industrial District for property legally described as the West Half of the
Northeast Quarter and the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section Eleven
(11). Township Fifteen (15) South, Range Three (3) West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, in Saline County, Kansas, except that part taken for the right-of-way
Qf\'Water Well Road and that part taken for the right-of-way of Interstate 1-135.
Application #P02-2, filed by Sidney Reitz on behalf of Ruth Yost Trust #1 and
the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) requesting preliminary plat
approval of the Yost Addition, a proposed 6 lot subdivision of a 133 acre tract of
Salina Planning Commission
September 17, 2002
Page 6
#5.
land located at the southeast corner of Water Well Road and 1-135 in Saline
County,
Application #A02-4, filed by Sidney Reitz on behalf of Ruth Yost Trust #1 and
the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) requesting annexation of a
133 acre tract of land located at the southwest corner of Water Well Road and 1-
135.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff reports as contained in the case filed.
Mr, O'Leary gave an overview of the interchange on Ohio.
Mr. Andrew finished the staff reports.
Mrs, Yamevich asked did you say that KDOT does not have to give us a plan or
we don't have the right to ok or not ok a building plan of theirs so that they can
do whatever they want out there?
Mr. Andrew stated as a state agency, they do not have to applý for and receive
building permits for any facilities that they build, We think that we have a
cooperative relationship with thèm as to the interchange and the surrounding
area and our utilities I think they will not be secretive. I think they will work with
City staff and share their plans, I was just wanting as a point of information to
point out that KDOT is different than a private developer in terms of what they
have to do in the way of sharing plans and information.
Mr. McDowell asked but they are subject to the zoning?
Mr. Andrew stated yes,
Mrs. Yarnevich asked so in other words if we didn't rezone it they couldn't build
there? .
Mr, Andrew stated correct.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated correct.
/
Mr, Kissinger stated Dean if I might just do a little follow up on the financial
aspect of this. The City Attorney and I discussed that and I think it is important
to note that the Yost portion òf the property, the owners are not yet ready to
develop. Absent of KDOT project they would not be in here on their own. We
have recognized that and because there is a very large public interest in both
the State level and the City level of getting the utilities in the right place, getting
the annexation and the platting, I have advised the City Attorney and our
recommendation to the City Commission will be that the costs, we will work
whatever we have to do to get the cost of utilities deferred from that property
until the time of actual development. As Dean said there are. a variety of
methods for us to do that, but we have agreed in concept that in exchange for
their willingness to cooperate at an earlier stage for annexation and platting, we
would cooperate with them in finding the methods of having development pay
for the utilities and not having them responsible at the predevelopment stage.
Mr. O'Leary stated I might also mention in terms of the system, It is not that
State buildings don't undergo a fair amount of scrutiny, the State Architects
Office is actually the jurisdiction in regard to State Buildings.. They have been
very good to work with, the local jurisdiction and we have lots of good examples
I:\.~öund Salina. K-State Salina would be a perfect example of where we did
coordinate very closely, but on a positive note, we did not have regulatory
requirements either, Out Building Inspectors were not thére. Their inspectors
were there making sure that the systems were built according to a State
Standard criteria. .
Salina Planning Commission
September 17, 2002
Page 7
MOTION:
Mr, Kissinger stated from a standpoint of screening and the interstate, I think
the City Commission just did a tour of properties yesterday and they went out to
this one and they mentioned that that was important to them thatwe work with
KDOT on those improvements and while we are all playing very nicely right now
we actually do own the water line and so f suspect that there are methods for us
to get agreements from them for simple things such as trees and screening and
I wouldn't anticipate any problem in that area.
Mr. Britton asked Shawn as follow up, would this be similar Dean or does the
new maintenance facility that KDOT has in Junction City is that the same?
Mr, O'Leary stated yes commissioner that is an excellent question, that is
exactly the model that they indicated to us, They are very happy with that. He
is referring to the one at 177 and 1-70 is where it is located and they are very
pleased with that. They will use that same design criteria for this one.
Mr. Britton asked about the same size too?
Mr, O'Leary stated I think that is right. I am not sure that they have zeroed in on
that. This has also been sited for a location for their Gee-technical engineering
staff that will move outof Abilene and into the Salina area. It will serve both the
distribution of vehicles as well as a fair amount of staff.
Mr. Britton stated thanks.
Mr. Hass asked are there any other questions of staff regarding this
application? I have one Dean, in regard to access to the KDOT tract. How will
trey get access to that?
/
Mr. Andrew stated that is part of the waiver that is being requested is that our
subdivision regulations prohibit dead end streets or cul-de-sac streets from
being longer than 600 ft. This is approximately 1,200 ft. There are a number of
reasons why a waiver would be appropriate in this case, The primary reason
for the 600 ft, limitation is for residential areas so that you don't overload a dead
end street and that you insure that the residences are accessible for emergency
vehicles. In a situation like this where you have got, this is a single 19 acre lot
and we believe that most of the traffic will be concentrated up in this area.
What the proposal is is to build a public street, terminated with a cul-de-sac
here and KDOT will have a driveway off of the end of that street that will go into
their facility. What they did not want was having a street leading into their
facility that would encourage the public to go in there for no reason or to have to
turn around in there. So the design was to have a public street ending in a cul-
de-sac and then there would be a driveway off of that which KDOT would use to
access their facility. But that is the two waivers that are being requested. One
is for the landlocked parcel and the other is for this street which would be 1,200
ft. dead end essentially instead of 600 ft. The other thing is that because Dry
Creek is here you have the interstate here and you can't really put any streets in
here you know to loop or to connect back, so really the only choice is a single
street. They didn't want the street going through their property,
Mr. Hass asked are there any further questions of staff? Hearing none would
the applicant or the applica,nt's engineer care to address this issue? Are there
any members of the public that would like to address any of these items?
Hearing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion and action,
Mr. Salmon moved to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to
~rpend the City's Future Land Use Map to designate the northern tract east of
Dry Creek as a primary service area as a commercial retail development and
the portion west of Dry Creek as a primary service area for industrial
development and to designate the entire southern tract as a primary service
area for industrial development.
Salina Planning Commission
September 17, 2002
Page 8
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
#6,
MOTION:
SECOND:
Mr. McDowell seconded the motion,
Motion carried 8-0.
Mr. Simpson moved to approve the application with the four conditions
indicated on the staff report.
Mr. Hedges seconded the motion,
Motion carried 8-0.
Mr. Salmon moved to recommend approval of Application #P02-2 as filed on
behalf of the Ruth Yost Trust and KDOT in approving the preliminary plat
approval for the Yost Addition as proposed a six lot subdivision of the 133 acre
tract of land located at the southeast corner of Water Well Road and the 1-135
in Saline County,
Mr. Hertzenberg seconded the motion,
Mr. Hass asked would you like to include the four items?
Mr. Salmon stated yes sir,
Motion carried 8-0,
Mr, McDowell moved to recommend to City Commission that the subject be
annexed into the Corporate Limits of the City as it will be contiguous to the
¡;Ixisting City Limits once the Water Well Road interchange is annexed and is
located adjacent to a new interchange and the nature of the applicant's
development plan creates the need for an urban level of services which can be
best provided by the City of Salina,
Mr, Hedges seconded the motion.
Motion carried 8-0,
Election of Officers.
/
Mr, Andrew stated the election of officers and representatives for the co . g
year. Mr. Hass as Vice Chairman has stepped into the Chairman's r in an
interim basis because Mr. Webb is not on the Commission any 10 , choosing
not to take a second term. So essentially what we have is t anyone on the
Board is currently eligible to be nominated and serve as irman including Mr,
Hass. Mr. Hass is also eligible for another term a Ice Chairman so at this
point I would accept nominations for the posit' of Chairman for the coming
year.
r. Salmon moved that nominations ce
\ ,
Mr. McDowell seconded the motion.
Mr, Andrew stated we now need a Vice Chairman to fill I
ever absent.
,-~:>
RESOLUTION #02-1765
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 211
ACRES, IN THE N/2 OF 11-15-3 AND E/2 OF 2-15-3, AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY
OF SALINA CITY COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 12-520c(c).
WHEREAS, on October 7,2002, the Salina City Commission adopted Resolution
02-5877, requesting the Board of County Commissioners to determine the advisability of
annexation for the property shown in Attachment A;
WHEREAS, KS,A. 12-520c stipulates that the Board of County Commissioners
must make specific findings that the annexation of land, which is not adjacent to the
existing city limits, will not hinder or prevent the proper growth and development of the
area or that of any other incorporated city located within Saline County; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2002, the Saline County Board of County
Commissioners held a public hearing to review the request and find that 1) the
annexation would not hinder the growth of any other incorporated city, 2) the proposed
annexation will allow City services, which will allow more intense land uses as shown in
the Comprehensive Plan,;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on this the 29th day of October 2002, by
the Board of County Commissioner's that the proposed annexation by the City of Salina,
as depicted in Attachment A, will not hinder or prevent the proper growth and
development of the area or that of any other incorporated city located within Saline
County.
haron A. Barragree, Vice hairman
~;~
Vote:
Yea .-ff
Nay 0
"'~<"'~W"~'¡;'.
,.._0. \ ~ E. CO U A~~P..
~.." ,,),; '."'" 'V),' "..
.¡' cl-o" ..0 )- ~~
<:' o' '. ~
! o' .. -;;.
:: : COUNTY". 't,
Oo . .. ~
i:: .oU,J :::
:: Uð : ~
~ ':. CLERK : it
~ . 0 ,
" ú':,:-. .o"~ .;,.
""'.:.-,00 o'¿,"".."
"'..-7)':""".'.~-.J "~
"~~~.'::- 0 F K ~."",
Page 1 of 7 pages
Res. 02-1765