7.3b Zone River Run Add
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
BY: :D A
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
3b
BY: If
;;pr r~
Item
Application #PDD03-1, filed by Rex Vanier, requesting rezoning and approval of a preliminary
development plan for a 94.07-acre tract of land located at the south end of Marymount Road west of
the Elks Club in the SE1/4 of Section 19, Township 14S, Range 2W and the NE1/4 of Section 30,
Township 14S, Range 2W in Saline County, Kansas. The applicant is proposing to rezone this 94.07-
acre tract from Saline County AG (Agricultural) to Planned Development District (PDD) R, R-1 and R-2
to allow single-family and multi-family residential development. The proposed plat of this tract contains
83 residential lots plus a 5.3-acre lot adjacent to the Elks Club that is being set aside for town home
development.
Nature of Current Request
The applicant has requested rezoning of vacant, AG (Agricultural) zoned land in the county to PDD with
R (Single-Family Residential) District, R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District and R-2 (Multi-Family
Residential) District as the underlying districts for the purpose of developing a subdivision with mixed
residential uses. The zoning request area has 895' of frontage along Marymount Road with the
remainder of the property essentially being landlocked by the Elks Country Club on the east and the
Smoky Hill River on the south and west. There are existing rural homesites to the north. Access to
the proposed development would be from a single public street connection on to Marymount Road.
No other street access is being proposed or is physically feasible at this time. A secondary emergency
access point is being proposed approximately 1,100 ft. south of the main entrance. This would allow
emergency vehicles to utilize the Elks Club's existing driveway and parking lot to get access to the site.
Of the 94 acres on this site, only 57 acres are developable due to floodway and flood plain restrictions
and some of this area is being set aside as common space.
A total of 83 single-family lots are being proposed in the applicant's preliminary development plan. A
separate block (Block 6) comprising 5.3 acres is proposed for R-2 (Multi-Family) zoning for townhomes.
Up to 30 townhome units (10 buildings with 3 units/building) are being proposed on this 5.3 acre site.
Approximately 42 building lots for single-family dwellings are proposed in the first phase development.
By way of comparison, the first phase of Highland Meadows Hamlet contains 61 lots on 58 acres and
the first phase of Mariposa contains 49 lots on approximately 49 acres.
The subject property is currently located in unincorporated Saline County and a companion annexation
request has also been submitted. The rezoning request should be considered first.
Variations ReQuested
The PDD process allows the City Commission to create a customized zoning district for a
proposed development including limitations on and the addition of uses as well as modified lot
size, setback and other bulk and density limitations. In staff's analysis the only two variations
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
ITEM
NO.
Page 2
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
BY:
BY:
from standard R-1 zoning that are being requested are for the Villa lots; a reduction in the required side
yard from 7.5 ft. to 6.5 ft. and a reduction in the required front yard from 25 ft. to 15 ft. for Villa units with
side loading garages. The Villa lots are designed to have smaller yards where yard maintenance is
provided to the owners and side loading garages lessen the concern about parked vehicles
overhanging the sidewalk or street.
The R-2 town home area (Block 6) would be subject to the R-2 district regulations, the development
notes on the preliminary development plan and the proposed design guidelines submitted by the
applicant. At this time it does not appear that the applicant is requesting any exceptions or deviations
from the R-2 development standards. A final development plan for the townhome area would have to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to beginning construction.
Suitability of Site for Development
This factor deals with the suitability of the property for development under the existing AG zoning and
the extent to which the current zoning inhibits development and use of the property.
The applicant believes that his property is uniquely suited for residential development, that his planned
community will offer lifestyle and economic attributes and housing styles that are not currently available
in Salina and that the current AG zoning serves to inhibit development of the site.
The subject site is a piece of ground with a great deal of slope and some dramatic elevation changes.
The elevation at the proposed River Run Parkway intersection with Marymount Road is approximately
1250 ft. above sea level. The elevation rises to 1310 ft. along Overlook Drive just southwest of the
proposed townhome area and then drops down to 1240 ft. at the lower end of Overlook Drive. The
lowest points along the river are about 1230 ft. above sea level. This type of terrain is relatively unique
to Salina and the lots proposed along the ridge in Block 4 offer some dramatic views to the west and
southwest.
There are several distinct drainage basins on the property but the general drainage pattern is east to
west and southeast to northwest toward the Smoky Hill River. The substantial change in elevation
creates positive drainage but the slope will also create some fairly high runoff velocities if all surface
runoff were concentrated in ditches. However, the applicant is also proposing to use the curb and
gutter in the streets and underground pipes as part of the stormwater collection system. The elevation
change also means that a small sewer pump station may be needed in Phase II to serve the lower
portion of Overlook Drive.
The slopes on this property are severe enough in some locations to make those areas unbuildable.
Some of the more wooded slopes and ravines have been designated as Common Area and will be left
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
ITEM
NO.
Page 3
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
BY:
BY:
as open space. It appears that the applicant has designed a street system and lot layout that generally
conforms with and utilizes the existing topography, meaning that no massive grading or regrading is
proposed. The lots on the south side of Overlook Drive in Block 5 have quite a bit of drop off to the
south and some grading will need to be done on these lots to create level building sites.
The primary limiting factor on development of this 94.07 acre tract is the mapped flood plain and
floodway along the Smoky Hill River. Only 57 of the 94 acres on this site are above the 100 year flood
plain elevation and developable. The applicant is proposing to leave this flood plain area as common
open space and recreation area for subdivision residents.
Based on its desirable physical characteristics (the sloping terrain and view of the valley to the west),
its proximity to Marymount Road (a collector street) and its proximity to the Mariposa sewer pump
station and Markley Road Water Tower, the applicant believes this site is suitable for some form of
residential zoning and development.
Character of the Neiqhborhood
This proposed residential community does not abut any existing residential subdivision. The
surrounding property to the south and west is located in unincorporated Saline County, is zoned
Agricultural and is largely undeveloped except for some scattered rural home-sites.
The Elks Country Club is located directly to the east of this tract and forms a large portion of the
eastern boundary. The Elks Club is also outside the city limits. A row of rural estate-type homesites
line the west side of Marymount Road. Block 6 of the Mariposa Addition on the east side of Marymount
north of Cloud has been platted and annexed but is undeveloped. The closest urban-type subdivision
is Mariposa north of Mariposa Drive on the east side of Marymount Road.
Because of the AG and RS zoning in proximity to this site it is somewhat difficult to say that the urban
density construction of single-family homes and town homes would be compatible with the zoning and
uses of nearby property. On the other hand, it is not clear that the proposed rezoning would adversely
affect neighboring property or be detrimental to the living conditions, value or potential development
of adjacent properties. The relatively large lot sizes and substantial amounts of open space make the
overall development density fairly low (1.1 units/acre) even with the townhome units included. Also,
the Elks Club is not a true agricultural use. And if the Commission looks at future zoning and land use,
the type of residential development proposed on this property would be consistent with the anticipated
development of the Mariposa area to the east.
The proposed townhome area (Block 6) is internal to the subdivision and not on the periphery adjacent
to Marymount Road. The town homes would however serve as a buffer between the Elks Club and the
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 4
BY:
BY:
single-family homes to the west. The location and layout of the townhome area is a judgement and
market decision for the developer to make since lot buyers will know ahead of time which area has
been set aside for town home development. Since this is a PDD request, the City Commission does
have the discretion to establish development restrictions as to the size, design and architectural
appearance of any attached single-family dwellings constructed in this area if that is a concern of the
Commission.
Public Utilities and Services
1. Water Supply and Fire Protection - This area is fed primarily by an 8" water line running west from
Markley Road along the proposed alignment of Mariposa Drive. There is an existing 8" line in
Marymount Road that serves the Elks Club. The applicant's engineer is proposing a network of
8" lines fed from this line to serve this subdivision, however, as proposed this network would dead
end within the subdivision. Given the size of the Mariposa and Marymount lines (8"), the Director
of Utilities believes that adequate volume and pressure exists to serve the northern portion of the
subdivision. However, the Fire Code would require that the water distribution system serving the
town home area be capable of providing 1,500 g.p.m. for fire protection with 1,000 g.p.m. to 1,500
g.p.m. flows required in the remainder of the subdivision. According to the Director of Utilities'
calculations, due to the length of the line (over 1/2 mile from Marymount) and the fact that there
is only a single source of flow, the southern portion of the proposed development would not have
the required 1,000 g.p.m. to 1,500 g.p.m. for fire protection. This reduction in pressure is a result
of friction loss based on line size (8" standard), length of run and the lack of a second source of
flow.
This problem could be addressed by looping (installing a second feed into the development) or
adjusting line sizes (8" to 10") or a combination of the two, but simply increasing the internal water
line sizes to 1 0" would also require that the existing 8" line in Marymount be removed and replaced
with a 10" line.
The primary concern of the Director of Utilities and Fire Chief is that if there is a line break at
Marymount and Mariposa or anywhere south of that point, this subdivision would be without water.
The Development Review Team has asked the applicant and his engineer to explore the options
for creating a looped system with two sources of flow. It is approximately 1/2 mile to the 16" water
main in Markley Road and 1/2 mile to the 16" water main along Magnolia Road. Both of these
options would involve construction of a water line across undeveloped property which is outside
the city limits and outside the control of the developer. The Magnolia connection would be the
preferred option from a water system standpoint and also from the standpoint of serving future
development.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 5
BY:
BY:
Internal water lines could be financed over 15 years through creation of a benefit district with the
developer putting up 20% of the cost in cash or a letter of credit for 35% of the cost. This
development's share of the cost of the off-site water line connection could also be special
assessed back to lots in the subdivision.
2.
Sanitary sewer - The nearest point of connection is a manhole adjacent to a sewer pump station
located at the intersection of Marymount Road and Mariposa Drive. This pump station is
approximately gOO ft. north of River Run Parkway which means approximately gOO ft. of off-site
sewer line would be needed to bring sewer service to this property. From River Run Parkway the
applicant's engineer is proposing a network of 8" sewer lines located in the street right-of-way to
serve individual building lots. Preliminary plans show that this subdivision can be served by a
gravity system except for the lower tier of lots on Overlook from Bridal Point south. Sewage
discharge on these lots would drain to a proposed lift station at the south end of Overlook Drive
and be pumped across a ravine over to Bridal Point through a force main.
Internal lateral lines and the off-site sewer connection could be financed through creation of a
benefit district with the developer putting up 20% of the cost in cash or a letter of credit for 35%
of the cost.
3.
Hookup fees -
a. Water - This tract has been assessed a proportionate share of the 8" water line that connects
to the Markley Road Tower. That fee is $6,048.00 payable at the time of connection.
b. Sanitary Sewer - This tract has also been assessed a proportionate share of the cost of the
sewer pump station at Marymount and Mariposa. That fee is $9,684.81 payable at the time
of connection
4.
Natural Gas - Kansas Gas Service has an existing gas line that extends south from Crawford along
Marymount Road. They plan to extend another gas line west from Markley Road along Cloud
Street to provide a second gas feed into the area.
5.
Electricity - Westar Energy has an overhead transmission line that bisects the property from east
to west and crosses proposed Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 22 and 23, Block 2. Options include:
(1) Leaving the line in place which would restrict building on those lots.
(2) Rerouting and burying the line along River Run Parkway and the common area between Lot
23, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3; or
(3) Rerouting it around the north edge of the subdivision. This plan may require the cooperation
of the owner of the property west of the river.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 6
BY:
BY:
Westar also has an overhead power line that crosses proposed Lots 4-9, Block 5 and serves a well
used by the Elks Club. This line appears to be an impediment to developing those lots.
Under the recently approved amendment to Salina's Subdivision Regulations, all electrical lines
serving this subdivision must be placed underground. This would not include high voltage lines
or pre-existing overhead lines.
6. Telephone - SBC (Southwestern Bell) is concerned about what they perceive as a congested area
along River Run Parkway from Marymount Road to Overlook Drive. This goes back to staffs
request for street cross-sections to confirm that all underground utilities can be accommodated in
the right-of-way provided.
7.
Storm Drainage - The City's stormwater management regulations require the developer to design
a stormwater drainage system to either accommodate or detain the additional runoff caused by
development of the site (the difference between existing and developed conditions), Details of the
applicant's stormwater drainage system will be addressed by the City Engineer in the plat review
process. A stormwater drainage plan and construction plans for any proposed surface ditches,
storm sewers or detention ponds must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
building permits in the first phase of development.
8.
Fire Protection - Fire response from Station #4, located at Marymount and Crawford Blvd., is about
5 minutes to the entrance of the subdivision. The Fire Chief is concerned that the long dead end
streets proposed could pose a problem for emergency services reaching some of the lots. Any
type of road blockage could compromise access to the property in the southern and western
portions of the development. That is why the secondary access point is important even for Phase
I. This emergency access road will need to be designed to support the load of fire apparatus and
have an all weather driving surface.
g.
Police Protection - Provided by the Salina Police Department once the property is annexed.
10. Schools - Students in this proposed development would attend the following schools: Meadowlark
School - Grades K-5; Lakewood Middle School - Grades 7-8; Salina Central High School - Grades
9-12. U.S.D. #305 has not indicated to city staff that this development will create any crowding
problems at the above mentioned schools.
11. Parks - This property is shown as being located in Neighborhood Park Service Area #8 in the city's
Neighborhood Park Plan. There are no Neighborhood Parks within this area. Under the City's
Park Land Ordinance, developers of residential subdivisions have the option of dedicating land
within their subdivision for public park purposes or paying a fee in lieu of dedication. The fee is
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 7
BY:
BY:
set at $200 / dwelling for single-family dwellings and $150/ dwelling for townhome units. This fee
may be reduced by 50% when the developer provides private recreation and open space for
subdivision residents such as is being proposed in River Run.
12. Streets & Traffic - The applicant's engineer, Kaw Valley Engineering, has submitted an analysis
of projected traffic from this development. Based on a trip generation rate of 10 vehicle trips per
day per household, the applicant's engineers estimates that a total of 1.088 vehicle trips per day
would be generated if the entire preliminary plat area were fully developed with 650 vehicle trips
per day being generated if the area within the proposed Phase I boundary were fully developed,
all entering or leaving the area through one access point, the River Run - Marymount intersection
and Marymount Road. Staff believes the 42 building lots and town home area proposed in Phase
I can be safely and efficiently be served by one access point while options for a second public
street access are explored.
Phasinq of Public Improvements
The plans submitted by the applicant show development of this subdivision occurring in two phases.
The first phase would involve the construction of River Run Parkway, a portion of Overlook Drive,
Springer Court and Stoneridge Lane and water and sanitary sewer improvements to serve 42 building
lots (primarily Villa and Estates lots) and the proposed town home site. The second phase would involve
extending streets and services to serve the remaining 41 building lots.
Marymount Road would not be reconstructed as part of Phase I. That project will be a City initiated,
City designed project and would not be the responsibility of this developer.
Special Assessments
The cost of all internal streets and improvements in River Run will be borne by the developer or future
property owners in the subdivision. Property owners in River Run will be assessed for a portion of the
cost of upgrading Marymount Road to City street standards with the remaining costs being assessed
to other abutting property owners. Property owners in River Run will also be assessed for a portion of
the cost of extending an off-site water line to Magnolia Road. Future users in the property south of
River Run that is currently undeveloped would be required to pay a hook up fee to connect to this line.
Covenants
The developer has submitted a draft set of Restrictive Covenants for the subdivision. Covenants and
an architectural control committee will be used to establish private housing design requirements and
. " .
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
ITEM
NO.
Page 8
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
BY:
BY:
proposed "natural" areas within the subdivision. The applicant's planning consultant, HNTB has
prepared a set of Design Guidelines for the development which will be incorporated into the covenants.
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
1.
Land Use Map - The City's Land Use Plan shows this area as being appropriate for low-density
residential development and in a Primary Service Area for the extension of city utilities and
services. The combined residential density of the development (113 units on 94.07 acres)
computes to 1.1 units per acre which is substantially less than the low density residential
classification of 4.0 units per acre.
2. Land Use Plan - The following development policies in the plan document should be used to guide
development within residential areas:
R 4 Future residential growth should embrace the traditional "neighborhood unit" concept, updated
to reflect current needs and desires. Neighborhoods should be self-contained areas designed
primarily for residential use. Through-traffic should be rerouted around the neighborhood, with
a limited number of collector streets penetrating it. Neighborhoods should have access to a small
convenience shopping area, accessible by foot or bicycle. Each neighborhood should be
adequately served by an elementary school. Safe pedestrian walkway systems should connect
homes with schools and other neighborhood facilities. Where possible, multi-family housing
should be located on edge of residential neighborhoods and near other major traffic generators.
R5 New housing areas should be served by a safe and convenient circulation system with streets and
roadways relating to and connecting with existing streets in adjacent areas. However, residential
traffic should be separated from non-residential traffic wherever possible. New residential streets
should generally follow the contour of the land and seek to highlight the natural features of the
area. Access to residential properties should be limited to local streets wherever possible.
R8 Major new residential developments should be developed as planned unit developments (PUD)
or as planned development districts (PDD). PUDs or PDDs give the City maximum control over
residential area design and development, and also gives the potential developers flexibility and
incentives for creative and high quality projects.
R10 New medium and high-density areas should be developed as overall, planned residential
environments. Within larger development areas, a range of housing types should be encouraged,
with each area sharing a common character and unified environment.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 9
BY:
BY:
R12 Landscaping or other buffering techniques should be used to screen residential areas from
adjacent non-residential uses.
R14 No new residential development should be permitted until adequate water and sanitary sewer
service are provided. Every effort should be made to discourage growth in locations where
provision of these services are not available or planned as part of the City's future urban service
growth areas.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this application on March 4, 2003. Following
a presentation by the applicant and comments and questions from a nearby landowner, the
Commission tabled this application to March 18, 2003 to allow details relating to water supply and
secondary access for this proposed subdivision to be worked out prior to Planning Commission action.
The Planning Commission reopened the hearing at their March 18 meeting and at the conclusion of
the hearing voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the applicant's rezoning request and preliminary
development plan for this 94.07 acre site as proposed, including the specific waivers and exceptions
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development limitations shall be as follows:
a) Development on Lot 5, Block 3 and Lots 1-16, Block 4 (the Estates lots) shall be subject to
the uses permitted, lot size and bulk regulations specified in the R Single-Family Residential
District.
b) Development on Lots 1-3 and Lot 23, Block 2, Lots 1-4, Block 3, Lots 17-25, Block 4 and
Lots 1-9, Block 5 (the Manor lots) shall be subject to the uses permitted, lot size and bulk
regulations specified in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
c) Development on Lots 1-7, Block 1, Lots 4-22, Block 2 and Lots 1 0-19, Block 5 (the Villa lots)
shall be subject to the uses permitted, lot size and bulk regulations specified in the R-1
Single-Family Residential District except that the front yard setback requirement for Villa
units with side loading garages shall be reduced to 15 ft. and the side yard setback
requirement for all Villa units shall be reduced to 6.5 ft.
d) Development of Lot 1, Block 6 (the Townhome area) shall be limited to the uses permitted,
lot size and bulk regulations of the R-2 Multi-Family Residential District. Development shall
be limited to 30 single-family attached dwellings containing no more than six (6) units per
building.
2. A final plat for Phase I or the entire subdivision shall be submitted and approved prior to final
aooroval of the oreliminarv olanned develooment district.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/3/4:00 P.M.
ITEM
NO.
Page 10
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
BY:
BY:
3. The City Engineer shall approve preliminary plans and specifications for the internal public streets,
water and sanitary sewer line extensions and stormwater collection and detention facilities needed
to serve this subdivision prior to Planning Commission consideration of the final plat of the property.
4. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City Engineer with confirmation that the turning radii on
the proposed cul-de-sac are adequate to accommodate fire trucks and trash trucks prior to
Planning Commission consideration of the final plat.
5. Horizontal cross-sections of the proposed public streets and abutting right-of-way in the subdivision
shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission consideration
of the final plat to confirm that all public and franchise utilities (water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric
and cable TV) can be accommodated within the proposed right-of-way.
6. The applicant shall submit legal assurances to the City consenting to the establishment of a special
assessment district and obligating the abutting land within the proposed residential development
for its proportionate share of the total cost to reconstruct two lanes on Marymount Road to city
residential street standards. Said assurance shall be valid for a 15 year period and legally binding
on existing and future owners of land within the development. This covenant shall be recorded with
the final plat.
7. The applicant shall submit legal assurances to the City consenting to the establishment of a special
assessment district and obligating the land within the proposed residential development for its
proportionate share of the total cost to construct an 1,100 ft. southerly extension of Marymount
Road to city residential street standards. Said assurance shall be valid for a 15 year period and
legally binding on existing and future owners of land within the development. This covenant shall
be recorded with the final plat.
8. The applicant shall submit legal assurances to the city consenting to the establishment of a special
assessment district and obligating the land within the proposed residential development for one-
third of the total cost of an off-site water line connection to the 16 inch water line located on the
south side of Magnolia Road. Said assurance shall be valid for a 15 year period and legally binding
on existing and future owners of land within the development. This covenant shall be recorded with
the final plat.
g. An emergency entrance and all weather access road from the Elks Country Club parking lot to
Overlook Drive shall be constructed as part of Phase I of the development. The Fire Chief shall
approve plans and specifications for the proposed fire access road prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any lot within the subdivision. Construction shall be completed prior to issuance
of any certificates of occupancy.
CITY OF SALIN A
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 11
BY:
BY:
10. The Director of Utilities shall certify that adequate water supply exists to meet minimum fire-flow
requirements for all proposed building lots in Phase I, or the owner shall comply with applicable
exemption criteria, prior to issuance of any building permits in Phase I.
11. A final development plan for Lot 1, Block 6 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for that site.
12. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary development plan containing all noted corrections
prior to consideration by the City Commission.
The Planning Commission offered the following reasons in support of its recommendation:
1) Although this site is landlocked on three sides it has frontage on and access to a collector street
(Marymount Road) and is suitable for some form of residential development. Only 57 acres of the
site's 94 acres are being developed which reduces traffic volumes and traffic impacts below that
of a 94 acre subdivision of the same density.
2) The developer's proposed street layout follows the existing contours of the property and the
proposed lot layout preserves and highlights the natural features present on the property. No
development in the 100 year flood plain or flood way is proposed.
3) The uses proposed are residential in nature and the densities and building styles in the proposed
development would be compatible with the Elk's Club and the character of nearby residential
development.
4) The proposed R, R-1 and R-2 zoning is compatible with the existing and future zoning and uses of
nearby property.
5) This site is not directly contiguous but is adjacent to the city limits and adequate public facilities and
services are available or can be extended to serve the site. Internal drainage, utility and road
improvements will be paid for by the developer and the developer has agreed to pay his
proportionate share of off-site improvements needed to support this development.
6) The city's Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as a low-density residential area and the land
uses and densities proposed by the developer substantially conform to that designation.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
4/7/03 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ITEM
NO.
Page 12
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
BY:
BY:
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission the attached
ordinance should be approved on first reading. The protest period for this application expired on April
1,2003 and no protest petition has been received. Second reading would be held in abeyance until
a final plat of the property has been submitted and approved.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, it may 1)
overturn the Planning Commission and deny this request provided three are four (4) votes in support
of such action; or 2) return the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration citing the
basis of its disagreement with the recommendation.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Preliminary development plan
Excerpt of PC Minutes 3/4/03 and 3/18/03
Ord.03- 10138
cc:
Rex Vanier
Sam Malinowsky, Kaw Valley Engineering
Ken Wasserman
Brick Owens, HNTB
Development Plans Attached
OWnership Certificate Received
Yes
Filing Fee
Receipt No.
IfpDD03-1
January 9. 2001
$375.00
Publication Date
February 6, 2003
March 4. 2003
Apprteation No.
Date Filed
Hearing Date
KG
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P .0.0.)
;1. Applicants Name Rex Vanier
.2. Applicant's Address 6 Villa Rd. . South Hamilton. MA 01982
.3. Telephone (business) 978-468-6573
(home)
4.. Project Name
RiverRun Addition
~5. Owner's Name
Jerrv D. Vanier c/o Rex Vanier
6. Owner's Address
6 Villa Rd.. South Hamilton. MA 01982
7. Legal Description of Property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary)
See attached sheet
. 8. Approximate Street Address _Marymount & Cloud
. 9. Area of Property (sq. ft. and/or acres)
94.07 Acres
1,0. Present Zoning County Aa
Use Pasture
11. Proposed Zoning PDD
Use Sinale & multifamilY residential
12. Is the P.D.D. to be utilized in conjunction with another zone or independently? Independently
13. Are there any covenants of record which affect the proposed development? (attach copy)
No
14. Ust reasons for this request (attach additional sheets if necessary).
and multifamilY residences
To allow this tract of land to be develoPed with sinale
15. Anticipated time period for substantial completion.
16. Total ground area occupied by buildings (sq. ft.).
5vears
307.700 .
18. Number of housing units proposed:
Ooen recreational soaœs
Single Family 83
Multi-Family 9
1.7. Describe any non-residential uses proposed.
19. Relationship between this application and the Land Use Plan:
Applicant(s)
Signature
..,
,If the applicant is to be represented by legal counselor an authorized agent, p complete the following in order that c:onespondence and
communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the aulhorized individual.
Name of representative:
Sam Ma6nowskv
l
Address: 2319 N. Jackson. P.O. Box 3104 Junctiòn City. KS
Zip Code: 66441
Telephone (Business):
785-762-5040
pIp.lamúnglweb site documeotslpdd application - prelimiuary
February 27, 2003
Mr. Dean Andrew
City of Salina, Kansas
City Planning Department
300 West Ash.
Salina, Kansas 67402-0736
Re: RiverRun Development Waivers
HNTB Project No. 37489
Dear Mr. Andrew:
RiverRun requests the following waivers:
A. 600' cul-de-sac length
1. River Run development has a unique location and physical character that requires alternative
development considerations. The site is surrounded on two sides by Smoky Hill floodplain
and the river. Bridging is not an option.
The site is at the end of the public Marymount Road and is bordered on the remaining two
sides by developed private property.
The site averages 40-80 feet of fall across the site.
For these reasons, a public median roadway entry and roundabout are provided into the site
650' for double access.
A Secondary emergency access has been provided 1200' south from the main entry from Elks
Country Club as a solution.
B. Setbacks.
The villas will have 6.5' side yards and 15' front yards for side load/courtyard garages.
1. The viJ1as wiJ1 have to promote clustered development to minimize site disturbance and
removal of trees. This maintenance provided residential type will benefit from the flexibility
of smaller side yards for siting the homes and minimizing common area between units and
locating the homes on top of the hill with decreased setbacks. Adequate parking for two cars
will be provided in front of the garage doors. Where front load garages occur, the standard
25' front yard setback will be pròvided.
\ ,
c.
Sidewalks
Letter to
date
Page 2
1. Sidewalks for RiverRun are proposed on one side of the street. The community is designed
with an interconnected trail system that loops throughout the site. The sidewalk is considered
part of this trail system and thus only requires one trail along streets.
Sincerely,
HNTB CORPORA nON
Brick Owens
\,
Application #PDDO3-1
Filed by Rex Vanier
--
Feet
1 ,000 1 ,500 2,000
0 250500
A-1
R
.. .-.- ---
....
..
.
':'
."" .
. .
.
.
.
:"" ". ... ¡.
.
...
.
: I-
:. ~l .'
.., ¡ -. : :
< . h. .., .
. .~
....
LillI&-
~I~
t.~
,~~-
-,,~
---.
CD ~~;;'ACC£SS
0,
z
~I~
~~
~IN
~~
EGAL DESCRPT1ON,
=: = '== =.. '"'::.:" '::""',..:..'::: ~..=":. ~ ......
~~~~;;~;~'~_~~Ænm'-
""""""='-""~'..n'."""'_~."",--",-".....,
~~'.~"-""""""""""'~"""~"'."",
"""'.,..,.,..,""""""""".......-, """""".........,
~-, --.- """...~_. ~-~ -.""=, -"'-~"""'..._.
'"""" '
"""'._-,"""""""......_,..._"'.........,
"~"'-'-""""""""""""~-"'-""'"
"""""""'-""""'-""'-"'-""
::::::=:==::::=:=:=;;ro_-~"',-",....
""""'. --....--.- ~"'---"'~.- """",,,-,
~~"""""""'~""""""""__'œ'_~~,"",
=.=::==::::=~:= ::;'::::::,,~,-'" ---~""""
:':"""""""M.""__.."",..._", ..-. ro,-",...~"" "'...~
='::':"'~====:::::"':" -'" -, --~.---"'-
~"'-
.. ""'" --- ._-" --- .-- ,"" "".NO --'"',""
'._~"'--"'",_œ._~,-
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
'-'_,'_""m""_._~n~.......oo
-~""~-,--~,--_.-
-""""'-_...............""""~,~
=: ':=:::"';":::::::::"'~ '" ~- "'......- "",""n
:='~~~=~:.-.:~""-~~
REQUESTED EXEMPTIONSIWAI\IERS,
SETBACKDATIC
m'n~_.~._....".
"'§'~'~-'
-,~<~--""..~
"'_~M'___~
i~~::.':::';::;""':':;:";:';;::'-
FLOOO ST,'lEMENT,
'~-.-m..~=.
~'::.:."'::::":=:::"~-
~._-....,-.
=~':"~';;'.':":;:'
=,=::::"A':,::,~:';:".'="
a~~i~
--.---.........'"
=.F='=-~-=-
:£~==.-;::,=~::.~
:IT":""."::=""--"""" ...
"""""'-"".-"-""',
._...n..._......
=E;~""""-'
-,. .,.
-- ð
~'.-'~""-'~"'"
_......~......._,
~lfl::::.::..'"::.
ZONING,
~,.,.."..,~""""'-
_......,~-......" """"."'-~~
~.......,"""'."'"......, """"..-"'~~"""""
=.:..~ ~ :::::::::;;.'" ~':...~~'
NOTES,
,,~~-~-~_.......,
===:~"F~~':"'=-
='-=~;--'J,~
"§iã~~
',""~"""'-""""""""""A"""""""""
:::'"" ...::" ~ '=:, "::: ~ =:. ~ 0::=
=.----*,"","..._n'~_'"
:.=..::::::::..~~-=~=....-
. '
~~~==..~~
'-'8I8OF!!!W!....,
~..... """"""""""" .~--- "'........~- -~"'~,,-.
--,_.
.,----~w_"._~-~--
~
- I ~ .. Ii =-1
^,chitectJ I EnlÎneen I Planner.
"'"......
....C""M_"'"
,,:'~~I~
CONSULTANTS:
KAW VAlt£V
ENGINEERING. INC,
2319 No""-
P.O. ....,304
Junction Oly, ...... 66441
785-702-6040
fox, 785-762-7744
NEARING STAATS
PRELOGAR & JONES
ARCHITICf5
3515 W, "'" 5-
5....201
P..I", VlIIa...........208
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
R"'VAN'ER
172.&17325-
....,..,..... R",.
Sal;..........
RIVERRuN
Salina,
Kansas
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
F1f1S
. ,.. 7" ...
Date: 2-21-03
~
~-
""""'"-
L1
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 14
Mr. Andrew stated again that is a choice. If the Planning Commission re to
recommend a change, they can make a recommendation that any R zo ct, or if it
is something that is more restrictive, that existing platted lots are gra fathered in
and it only applies in new subdivisions. That is essentially what e did with the
underground utilities provision. Any lot that is already platted d underway they
would not have to comply with the underground utilities r irement. That only
applies to new subdivisions. If the Planning Commisso wished to make their
recommendation so that these changes, particularly ~ the R district, only applied
where more restrictive to new subdivisions that ren't approved yet. That is
something they can do. But I am going to assu e that you like the part about the
25 ft. rear yard, wo you just want ones that more restrictive.
r. Bixby stated I am just saying a far as the grandfathering is concerned
be use I have two lots right in th iddle of the block and if you come in now
and s 'Well you have to sit t . house back 30 ft." what is it going to look like
with the er houses in the r ? So that is the only major concern I have.
dy would know up front what the setbacks were.
Mr. Hass asked are there any other me ers of the public that would like to
address this application? Hearing none I wil ing it back to the Commission for
discussion and possible action.
Mr. Andrew stated my only comment would be if you e wanting to recommend
the approved changes, take into consideration what Mr. . by took into account,
that you would just say that essentially that the 30 ft. front y is more restrictive
then the 25 ft. that you have today, but everything else is ring, so if your
motion said that the stricter provisions, the existing plats were g dfathered in
from those, that would cover that concern.
VOTE:
SECOND: Mr. Simpson seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Mr. Britton moved that the text amendment changes, city staff recommen
be approved with the grandfather consideration of existing platted lots.
#2.
#3.
Application #PDD03-1, filed by Rex Vanier, requesting rezoning and approval of a
preliminary development plan for a 94.07-acre tract of land located at the south
end of Marymount Road west of the Elks Club in the SE1/4 of Section 19,
Township 14S, Range 2W and the NE1/4 of Section 30, Township 14S, Range
2W in Saline County, Kansas. The applicant is proposing to rezone this 94.07-
acre tract from Saline County AG (Agricultural) to Planned Development District
(PDD) R, R-1 and R-2 to allow single-family and multi-family residential
development. The proposed plat of this tract contains 83 residential lots plus a
5.3-acre lot adjacent to the Elks Club that is being set aside for townhome
development.
Application #A03-1, filed by Rex Vanier, requesting annexation of a 94.07 acre
tract-of land located in the SE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 14S, Range 2W and
the' NE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 14S, Range 2W in Saline County, Kansas.
The annexation request area is located at the south end of Marymount Road and
is bounded by Marymount Road and the Elks Club on the east, the old Smoky Hill
River channel on the south and the Smoky Hill River on the west.
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 15
Mrs. Yamevich excused herself from this item due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file.
Brick Owens, Landscape Architect with HNTB in Kansas City, Missouri. Our firm
has been commissioned to work with the design team, the development team for
Rex Vanier on what has been known for many years as the Meadow Muffin Farm
out on Marymount Road. Also here with our team today is Ken Wasserman, our
attorney and Sam Malinowsky, our Engineer from Kaw Valley in Junction City.
So we are here collectively to answer any questions you all might have and I
appreciate and I want to give accolades to the staff. We have worked intensely to
bring this plan that is before you this afternoon to fruition. And in a nut shell we
are proposing to bring a residential neighborhood into Salina. Our proposal is to
look for special niches in the market place through our analysis to create an
upscale development, maybe something new, maybe something that satisfies the
untapped market to quite frankly provide choices of living. I think a comment was
made earlier in this afternoon's meeting about allowing choices. That Salina has
grown in size and it has also grown in sophistication and it has also grown in its
demand for living choices, either living style or houses themselves. The dilemma
in many cities is that people are moving away from the city because they can't
find the next step of what they want to live in. We are hoping that we are
providing multiple housing options here on this property. The plan is based on
physical and economic analysis. Physically it was described to you where we
occur. We are essentially surrounded on three sides. Either by River, Oxbow
over River or existing development directly to our north. Our access is
Marymount Road. We have the Elks Club to our east, we think they are a good
partner and a soft edge, if you will. The river and the bluffs that this project sits
upon really give us a very unique viewing opportunity, advantage if you will, for
this kind of living. So we have arranged our houses and road systems to
essentially incorporate ridges, slopes and valleys. We have about 90 ft. of fall
from the top of our hill down to the flood plain. And we do have flood plain that
marks areas of our site that we are going to preserve as open space. About 45%
of our site is flood plain and open space and parts of that 45% are not in the flood
plain but satisfy some internal connections of trails and things that we will talk
about very briefly. Our circulation access is off of Marymount Road. We are
proposing to create a boulevard entry with houses facing our own entry. This in
itself helps provide sort of two ways in and out and options on parking and
ambiance. Everybody is going to be driving down that road and into our project
so we have about 90 homes on this site. So we have 90 different houses moving
by that road so our idea is to create a very soft green way in and minimize some
of the amount of traffic and things that will be incurred by these homes that are on
/ the boulevard. These are public streets and we are proposing aroundabout
bigger then the one that is in Kimball Avenue in Manhattan by the way. But we
are proposing aroundabout at the top of the hill. The ridge runs about like this
across the site. So our internal road approaches the top of the hill and we have
placed the roundabout at the top as a delivery, if you will, into the heart of our
community. From that roundabout you then move into different pods, or little,
they aren't villages, there aren't enough to make a village, but little pods that are
all based on topography to save slow slope, to save trees, which are very
precious here in the midwest of Kansas. Our road then essentially runs along the
ridge for a while, drops down adjacent to the Elks Club where we are proposing
screening and buffering. We have listened to Mr. Kissinger your City Manager
about single loaded streets. We have houses generally on every side of our
street. Again it is land in a market place. It is very efficient and can spread those
public street costs across as many lots as possible. What has happened is we
have created this road system. We do have cul-de-sacs and we are proposing
islands in those cul-de-sacs and we have increased the size of those cul-de-sacs
and we have also changed the shape and we have created a square cul-de-sac.
A square cul-de-sac in an attempt to essentially increase the turning radius for
fire trucks and we are going to agree to prove some of these points in the final
stages of our plans. Truly we are providing good turning radius, good fire access
and we can also park on these cul-de-sacs at the same time and we are going to
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 16
agree to that. But what happens is we have created essentially little pods of land
use that we are now going to assign to certain kinds of, esseotially groups of,
home types. We have types of residential living in the community of River Run
that are the estate lots, which are about 150 ft. wide and a minimum of 150 ft.
deep which makes them about three quarters of an acre in size. They have the
best views and the high ground. Our next level are the Manor lots. These lots
are about 100 ft. wide and about 150 ft. deep. They are about a third of an acre
and they will line the boulevard as it approaches the roundabout. They will be
this part of the main road that also provides them views out to the west of the city
and western views to some sunsets. And then we have Manor homes in this
corner in a future phase and I will talk about phases in just a second. Our niche
market that we think could prove to be quite exciting for Salina, at least the
buyers in Salina, is our Villa Market. These are 70 ft. lots. They occur in the cul-
de-sac here, they occur at the very end of the cul-de-sac here and they front
Marymount Road. Three of the house front here and we are proposing an eye
brow to front four more houses again on Marymount Road. We are facing 7
homes to 7 homes essentially was one of those ideas, plus it captures the open
space that is hidden in behind. Then our final residential living type that we are
proposing here is townhomes. These townhomes are something new that we are
seeing in Kansas City, and in Chicago and in Saint Louis. They are clusters of
three units each. They are clustered around an auto court, so the driveways tend
to occur internally. There are not six different driveways coming out to the main
street. That layout is a single entry in and 6 inside drives clustered inside what is
called an auto court. These are three individual units, and if you are familiar at all
with townhomes some of those middle units are hard to sell. You have to down
price them so much you eventually have to rent them. The idea with this layout,
three units each we only have one middle unit. That middle unit with the auto
court in the middle and the buildings surrounding that middle unit now no longer
is quite as surrounded as it has more outward wall space. So it has a perception
that it has its own outdoor patio spaces in these three units that really don't face
each other so as you go out the kitchen and you have your barbecue outside you
are not right on top of your neighbor 10ft. away. There are niches and things
and so again we are trying to pay attention to the market place. If you want to
buy one of these units you want your own personal address, you want to get
there easily, you want it affordable and you want to live outside and not feel like
everyone is right on top of you. That is the mid-west living. We are very land rich
here and we are trying to create that kind of residential living but at different price
points and we think this might land a little bit above the tip of a duplex, but a little
bit below a single-family detached home. We think it might satisfy a market here.
As I mentioned, we have 94 acres total, 37 of those acres are open space. We
, are proposing a trail system that links the entire area, moves through the
, town homes so there is a looping system and an internal system and we can use
all of our ground for the amenity. We are creating a living environment here, no
"left-over pieces" as it were. Yes, much of that is in the flood plain but it could be
a gorgeous flowering meadow also and we think that it would be an amenity so
we are proposing a trail system that loops the site and would actually incorporate
this open space in between the two Villa projects. There is an existing farm pond
there now, it doesn't work very well it leaks. We are proposing to reestablish that,
not increase it but just essentially to let it hold water. Then our engineer Sam has
also investigated enough that we have to improve to today's standard the spill
way or the out fall. The out fall is meant to essentially follow the existing course
of the stream that is all below the 100 year flood plain. But it would follow the
same stream of course. We also have the opportunity to maybe hold back
stormwater. It would be an opportunity and we can certainly investigate that
versus just putting back and pond that we can maybe improve. Improve the
stormwater process as it moves towards the Smoky Hill River. Out intent is it is
greeh, it has a trail cull it. All the open spaces will be covered by a homeowner's
association and each one of the homeowners would pay into the homeowner's
association and it pays for the amenity and the upkeep of mowing, trails and
keeping it nice. We are selling a living style if you will. It is not much unlike other
homes associations, it is just a little bit bigger and we have four different home
types all paying into this same system and that is the key here. That allows a
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 17
little bit of everything. We are much stronger when we work together versus off
by ourselves. So we have four kinds of homes, four kinds of living environments
here that are working together to make this thing special. Our first phase, we
would like to get started right away. So based on the approval of the bodies here
in Salina we will begin moving towards final drawings to put these roads in place,
amenities and stormwater drainage. I would like to say that our first phase is
homes along Marymount. The first phase would be these manors, these manors,
this cul-de-sac and then the town homes also. So essentially our first phase stops
right here and we plan to do all of this. As part of that process our townhomes
are proposing a private drive and I heard the conversation you all just had about
private drives. We were listening. The ceiling of these town homes would be
number one not to encourage exploration into and onto our private drives. The
only private drive we have is from here to here. We would prefer not to put cul-
de-sacs, however, we have to put a turn around down here in this auto court to
facilitate firetruck turn arounds and those kinds of things. Most of these are all
driveways coming off of our public street and a few driveways coming off our
short run of private drives. So our proposal would be to allow this to be private
drives, no curbs so that it all matches the private drive look so it doesn't
incorporate or insinuate movement of public traffic down our public drive. We
want them up here, not down here into a cul-de-sac or a dead end as that
happe!1s at the front doors of our unit. So with that I would be happy to ansWer
questions.
Mr. Vanier stated could you give a further explanation of The Villas.
Mr. Owens stated ok. The Villas is a living environment. Quite frankly we are
after empty nesters and young professionals and because of the amount of
topography we have we are able to facilitate that magic master bedroom on one
floor, and when the kids come home they are on another floor. The idea is to
create walkouts first up on the top of the hill. The main floor would have the main
living and then a couple of bedrooms down below. Our purpose in situating the
Villas in this location and a request for relief of deviation of variance if you will for
front yard setbacks is to allow side car entry garages. Straight-in two car garages
set it back 25 ft. and you have two cars in front of the door. We would prefer to
minimize the amount of garages on the street. We have 75 ft. wide lots and our
intent is to turn those garages sideways, ask for a deviation because we don't
have garage doors facing the street any longer. I can still put two cars in front of
the garage, but they are not in front of my front door. So as you drive into the cul-
de-sac, the garages are moved back and you are seeing really a face with a
window on it, the side of the garage. For that consideration we would like to
move forward, because you don't sacrifice anything with side car garages except
, the house gets a little deeper by 10ft. So we are asking for consideration of 10
ft. to move our houses, not move our houses down the hill in other words.
Because they get wider when you start turning them, those garages sideways to
the street. The other part to the Villa's is that maintenance is provided for
mowing and snow removal. Some home associations, depending on the market
analysis that we do, also include shrubs and irrigation's and up keep of the site of
the home. I am not sure we are going to go that far. We are still doing our
homework of what the market would bear here in Salina. So with that I would be
glad to handle any questions.
Mr. Salmon stated I am trying to orient myself to your location. Your main drive,
is that where the current entrance to Meadow Muffins is or is that located at a
different place?
Mr. Owens stated it is located at a different space.
Mr. 'Salmon asked farther north?
Mr. Owens stated yes the current entry is right here on our end and it does go by
single-family homes to access a couple of existing homes at the top of the hill.
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 18
We will use that only to fix the pond, put in underground utilities, and then we will
back our way out and then use our own entry for construction of the project.
Mr. Salmon asked your main entrance then is located just north of the entrance to
the Elks?
Mr. Owens stated yes sir.
Mr. Andrew stated it would be opposite to where Cloud Street comes in from the
east.
Mr. Salmon stated and then I think I read in the material that there was an
emergency exit to be located coming out on Elks somewhere. I don't see that in
your drawing, am I missing it?
Mr. Owens stated thank you, I forgot that in my presentation. In working with the
staff and the Fire Chief we have come to a solution, we think, for a secondary
access because this is essentially a cul-de-sac from this point. So our intent is to
create an emergency access and this planned emergency access comes from
the Elks' parking lot back to our public street right here. Our proposal was a
section of it would be paved about 12 ft. wide, asphalt adequate for a fire truck,
and then the adjacent two sides would take it to 20 ft. which is the magic fire
fighting department number for the arms to go out and get stability. We would
use that impervious material called grass road pavers, which is nationally
recognized by fire safety organizations. This was our intent. It still is our intent to
provide whatever it takes to make our project safe and adequately serviced by
fire. In a review of other details, there has been a subsequent negotiation that
made me move this drive a little closer to here. We are going to work that out as
we do our final plans. But our intent is to yes provide a secondary access
easement over the Elks' Club driveway so that it would be a permanent
easement. But there are also plans to move forward with a permanent road
easement as well and we are in agreement with that.
Mr. Ramage asked you say Cloud goes away? I didn't catch that, what does that
mean?
Mr. Andrew stated that is where you are at a disadvantage. you will receive all
this information, we will provide it for you, before you take final action. An overall
staff report dealing with overall access, not just to this site, but to the whole area.
There are a number of issues here that relate to Marymount Road to what is
known as Mariposa Drive, and what is known as Cloud Street. That will be our
-' job, that before you take action on this request we will explain to you how their
development would work. Our job before you make a recommendation on this is
explain how this fits in with the surrounding area. We will do that, but what Brick
is referring to is that there was, as part of the master plan for that Mariposa Area,
which I think is attached to your annexation report, the plan there is to run
Mariposa Drive through that vacant area today and tie it into that asphalt section
where Cloud ends. At that time, when that connection was made, there was an
agreement with the County Commission that they would vacate Cloud Street and
it would cease to exist in its present location. Again those are the types of things
that you need to have to put this into perspective of how it fits into the
surrounding area. That will be our job to get you additional material and
explanations before you're asked to make a formal recommendation.
Mr. Britton asked can you share any preliminary pricing of how this will be priced?
More so just from curiosity and that is ok if you can't.
Mr~ Vanier stated at this point and time I am still waiting to go through the
assessment process and work with these guys to help me develop some costs. I
have a preliminary idea obviously but it is nothing that I would be comfortable
sharing at this time.
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 19
Mr. Britton asked Dean since this was in the paper, at least two people have
asked me, the specials, or Shawn either one, that were done on the Marymount
Road project that we finished last year, that have not been specialed yet, will this
be included since Marymount is the only feeder into it? Will that be part of that
special?
Mr. O'Leary stated you will recall in that Marymount Road improvement we
specifically left out this section. We did not improve this section from where
Marymount Road intersects with Mariposa Drive. We did that anticipating this
kind of development. Anticipating additional traffic into the Elks Club and in
anticipating the Mariposa Addition to the east. Our position then and now is that
this development and its two neighbors will pay to improve that remaining section
of Marymount that has not been improved today.
Mr. Hass asked do you have any thoughts on drainage at this stage? Will it be
curb and gutter, storm sewer drains?
Mr. Owens stated yes. As part of our initial foray into the final plans we will be
moving forward with preliminary final plans and reviewing with the staff as we
move forward and some of these things will start to come out on how much we
can hold onto the stormwater. Our intent is to make it better.
Mr. Hass asked are there any public parks that are going to be dedicated in this
development?
Mr. Andrew stated there are not any being proposed at this time. However if you
look at the overall plan, I am not sure the plans are definite for the area around
the flood plain, but what makes this a little unusual is you have 94 acres only 57
of which are really developable. This means they have in essence a park for the
residents that purchase property. That is not planned, envisioned, it is not really
accessible to be a public park, but they are meeting the recreation needs of their
residents through that open space.
Mr. Ramage stated I was just going to say it looks like a very high quality, well
thought out development and it is going to be a great addition to the City of
Salina.
Mr. Simpson stated very nice looking development.
Mr. Hass asked are there any further questions of Mr. Owens? Hearing none are
there any members of the public that wish to address this application?
George Yarnevich, 1514 S. Marymount. First off I am very pleased that Mr.
Vanier has decided to invest in Salina because it does look like it is an upscale
development and we are pleased to have him as a neighbor. He has always
been our neighbor, but to have this kind of development in is good. There are
two concerns that I have and I have talked with his representatives and I have
gotten certain assurances and they have tried to work with me on it, but I do want
to bring these to your attention. The first concern that we would have of course
would be the pond area right here. If you are familiar with this area our house sits
right over here directly north of the project. Here is the pond right here. Of
course there is potential flooding and about 7 or 8 years ago there was a small
amount of flooding down at the bottom of our land. Of course we are sort of at
the bottom, if you are also familiar with it, we are down here and the hill goes up
here so of course we are very concerned about potential flooding. I think I heard
a comment made that they weren't talking about increasing the size of the pond.
I am no engineer so I don't know what is necessary. All I need to have is some
assurance that by doing this development it won't cause more flooding on our
property. There is a creek that runs on down to the river here. So that is one
concern I would naturally have. The second concern that I would have would be
use of the road. This is the road right here that goes up by the property and this
was also mentioned. It is a gravel road that when a pickup truck goes up there it
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 20
kicks up dust and with the south wind it just comes into our yard and into our
house and everything else. Of course naturally the comment was made that they
would use it just as a temporary basis and of course one of my concerns would
be when you say temporary, how many days or months are we talking about?
And ideally I believe our concern would be to have this road, of course, used as
the primary road and have this constructed as soon as possible and close down
this road that is right adjacent to our property. Those are a couple of concerns I
would have.
Mr. Britton stated since you are here there was one other issue that was on the
part of the agenda and that was that you will be an island now. You didn't bring
that up, you will be an island on annexation. We have already had one fire
problem as you well know on identification. Are you talking to City staff in trying
to come to some kind of agreement on that?
Mr. Yarnevich stated I haven't talked to them yet but will probably be doing that.
Mr. Andrew stated I think that is down the road from here, but it is something that
once this gets through the process of being annexed and all, we will want to sit
down with Mr. Yarnevich and discuss what his options might be relating to fire
protection and those other issues.
Mr. O'Leary stated I will take a shot at it Mr. Chairman and then yield to their
engineer Mr. Malinowsky if he has further comments. First to acclimate you to
where we are talking about, Mr. Yamevich lives right here. Just south of that red
line vvould be the city limit line today. This is an existing pond, somewhat of a, I
presume it was man made, but it is probably more natural than man made. It
does receive a fair amount of runoff from the Elks Country Club as well as
Mariposa Addition. It then discharges through here into the Smoky Hill River so a
fairly small distance from here it kind of meanders this way and cuts across there.
The developer has again been very mindful of this as we have and we have
looked at this preliminarily. There are two things that we think are important and
Mr. Yarnevich has raised the appropriate question. First, they are proposing to
. over design their drainage system. This development does not need storm water
detention as a requirement of our standards because a majority of their
development discharges directly to the River. They are not creating a flooding
condition. However, they are willing to exceed that and actually design a
detention type of structure here, modify the existing pond, have a little bit more of
a defined dam and an overflow spillway here so that it will function as a detention
basin. That will actually improve the down stream flooding condition that is there
today and then they would like to work with Mr. Yarnevich to dedicate permanent
drainage easements both on their property and hopefully on his that will again,
once and for all, define what is really mother nature's stream for run off. That is
we think good for both parties. It will not change a thing that is there today. By
doing what they are proposing to do here it will actually improve what is already
somewhat of an erosion problem there today. Again I would yield to Mr.
Malinowsky for any further comments. .
Sam Malinowsky, Kaw Valley Engineering. Shawn is right. Right now the pond
is silted in, it is dry. We are going to be dredging it out and making it water proof
and we want to catch as much water as possible because we want the pond to be
a pond. As such, we are going to be improving the situation, decreasing the
runoff somewhat. The downstream system right now is a natural drainage
channel. I have talked with Mr. Yarnevich. Right now his house is about 15 to 20
ft. above that dam elevation, so I am not too concerned, as an engineer that is
going to be sealing the plans, that we are going to be increasing the potential for
any flooding. We will put the plans together so that as far as using that road, it is
to a bare minimum. We have to get that main entrance done first thing because
Westar is going to be relocating their line through there and it has got to go above
whatever drainage structure we come in with. So we have to get that done first
because we have to get in and get out before we get too far down the road. So
using that road for construction it is not handy. I know that Rex is very conscious
Salina Planning Commission
March 5, 2003
Page 21
about the dust because he is very sensitive to that. I would be very happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Hass asked are there any questions of Sam? Hearing none are there any
other members of the public that would care to address this issue?
Mr. Andrew stated Mr. Chairman the applicant's have done a very good job of
planning this site and fitting a plan that meets the topography. As city staffs tend
to do we, get bogged down in details and wanting those details addressed before
we ask the Planning Commission to make a recommendation and take action, so
our plan is to prepare a detailed report that not only addresses site access to this
site but the overall access in this area so that you understand what happens to
this area in the future. Our report will provide more specifics about how
Emergency access will be addressed, how this area will be served with utilities,
particular water supply. And then we will give you information about what the
timing is going to be for the various public improvements that are going to be
discussed. So our recommendation is to table these two items with input from
the applicant as to when they would like the Planning Commission to meet again
to take formal action on their plan. We feel like with the meetings that we have
had and the amount of preparation that the applicants have made and the skilled
people that they have working on their team, that we can turn it around and get
that information out for review in fairly short order. So we are really looking for
some guidance and input from the applicant as to when they think these various
items would be ready and also from the Commission as to how soon you would
like to meet to take action after we have given you a little more detailed
information.
Ken Wasserman, 213 S. Santa Fe. After we met with staff today we discussed
the things that we need to do and I believe your next regularly scheduled meeting
is the 18th. Even though Dean was gracious enough to suggest a special
meeting if that was necessary, we have already had you come back today
because we had people here and we didn't want to continue it to the 18th, but we
could certainly make that work. We could have all of our work completed. I
believe Dean felt they could have their end of it completed and then just be back
on the agenda at your next regularly scheduled meeting.
Mr. Andrew stated we feel comfortable. We feel like most of the work that staff
needs to do has already been done. It is a matter of plugging in a few gaps, and
we had a very productive meeting this aftemoon before this meeting. We just
need to put it into a package so that you can review it so they get a chance to
review what our recommendations are so that they can respond to that. We feel
/ comfortable with the 18th of March.
Mr. Hass stated thank you. I will bring this back to the Commission for discussion
and possible action.
MOTION: Mr. Simpson moved to table #PDD03-1 and #A03-1 until the next scheduled
Planning Commission on the 18th of March.
SECOND: Mr. Ramage seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0 with 1 abstention (Yarnevich).
#6.
Other Matters.
Mr. Andrew stated as far as other matters, the other at we will have
for you on March 18 is a plat, rezoning and a on for a small lot that is at
è corner of Schilling and the Union ailroad tracks. This is a piece of
a larg ere tract tha' st of Ohio and south of Schilling. What we
are doing is we ing on plans for the larger 140 acre tract but they
have s . ans for this c . ce so that is going to be coming to you to
. The platting of that single lot, will be served. It is a request
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
. MARCH 18,20034:00 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Britton, Hass, Hedges, McDowell, Ramage and Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Simpson and Yarnevich
DEPARTMENT STAFF:
Andrew, Burger, Cooper, Fisher and O'Leary
#1.
Approval of the regular minutes of March 5, 2003.
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 5, 2003 were approved as
presented.
#2.
Application #PDD03-1, filed by Rex Vanier, requesting rezoning and approval of a
preliminary development plan for a 94.07-acre tract of land located at the south
end of Marymount Road west of the Elks Club in the SE1/4 of Section 19,
Township 14S, Range 2W and the NE1/4 of Section 30, Township 14S, Range
2W in Saline County, Kansas. The applicant is proposing to rezone this 94.07-
acre tract from Saline County AG (Agricultural) to Planned Development District
(PDD) R, R-1 and R-2 to allow single-family and multi-family residential
development. The proposed plat of this tract contains 83 residential lots plus a
5.3-acre lot adjacent to the Elks Club that is being set aside for townhome
development. Continued from March 4, 2003 meeting.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file.
Mr. O'Leary gave a recap on the Marymount reconstruction and financing of
improvements.
Mr. Salmon asked Dean we say that emergency exit, not to be used by the public
or the residents, how is access to that emergency exit going to be controlled?
Mr. Andrew stated they will work with the Fire Department on that, but pretty often
it is through a post and cable system. Where either the Fire Department can go
out with bolt cutters or simply run it over with a truck. What we want is a road
way where a Fire Truck or other emergency vehicle can get in there and the
entrance to that will be barricaded is some way but could still be accessed by the
Fire Department.
Mr. Hass asked Dean on the cul-de-sac length variance, which particular street,
could you point that out?
Mr. Andrew stated the whole thing is a cul-de-sac, a dead end street. If you start
at this point and go all the way down to here that is one long cul-de-sac, there is
no other way in or out. So essentially from the entrance of the subdivision to here
is one long dead end street. These individual segments don't exceed our 600 ft.
limitation. But we are looking at that as one long cul-de-sac because essentially
it is a dead end street.
Mr. Ramage asked even though you have an emergency exit in the middle?
Mr. Andrew stated well it is an emergency exit for fire and other emergency
response. When you are looking at vehicles and how many vehicles have to go
in and out and to get out you still have to travel that 3,000 ft. distance if you are at
the far end and there are not any choices. In an ideal situation where the land
allows it you want to have or at least plan for two ways in and out of a
subdivision, but this particular topography and situation of this property doesn't
really allow for that.
Salina Planning Commission
March 18, 2003
Page 2
Mr. Hass asked in regard to the sidewalk exception, there is not going to be any
sidewalks?
Mr. Andrew stated no they are requesting to only have to put sidewalk on one
side of the street. My guess is that it would be over on this side. You cannot tell
exactly from this drawing, but there is a system of paths that they will have that
will interconnect different areas of this subdivision outside a sidewalk system so
that is why they are requesting not having to build sidewalks on both sides.
Mr. Britton asked Dean you indicated that all the streets were going to be public?
I thought there was going to be one private street?
Mr. Andrew stated this section here will be private and we will have to see a little
more detail at their final development plan stage. It is either going to be a
driveway or it could possibly be a named private street. We will have to see
exactly how they design that to determine what that would be, but that would not
be a public street. It would either be a driveway or something like Flor De Sol
Drive which goes into Flor De Sol which is a named, private street. In which case
we would look at that little differently then a driveway.
Mr. Hass asked are there anyfurther questions of staff?
Mr. Britton asked Shawn the lift station down there? Will the Marymount Road
extension, in other words is this going to jog around the lift station the way that it
does right now?
Mr. O'Leary stated at this point yes. I think that is an item for further discussion
both with the design of this section of Marymount as well as the extension of
Mariposa to the east that has been a source of some concern. It simply was
delayed, the lay of the land was and that was the opportune location for that
system. It remains an item for discussion and I think that would be something
that would come up as we get into the design of both those sections.
Mr. Hass asked are there any further questions of staff from the Commissioners?
Hearing none would the applicant care to address the Commission?
Ken Wasserman, 213 S. Santa Fe. I represent the applicant. We have had an
opportunity to go through the staff recommendations. We would ask that you
favorably consider it. We believe that we presented all of the evidence at the last
hearing. We would like favorable consideration on the two exceptions. We have
no problem with the conditions that staff has listed in their recommendations.
Certainly representatives are here from the design team who can answer any
specific questions you might have with respect to any of those issues that you
may not have had adequately answered last time or other questions that may
have come to mind since last time that we were here. We would just request
favorable approval.
Mr. Britton asked do you have a time frame for final platting that you are working
on right now?
Mr. Wasserman stated yes we will be moving into right away. In fact if we are
approved here this evening we are set to go with the final plat at the next
available filing date so that we can proceed in due course and we would like to
obviously take advantage of summer weather to do some things out there and we
need this approved before we can do this.
Mr.'Hass asked the water line access to the south, do you foresee any problems
with that?
Mr. Wasserman stated we don't see any problems with it in so far as it relates to
our property.
Salina Planning Commission
March 18, 2003
Page 3
Mr. Andrew stated it will be a City responsibility to get from the south end of this
subdivision to Magnolia Road. It will be a City initiated project. We will agree to
initiate that with the cooperation of the applicant.
Mr. Hass asked are there any further questions of Mr. Wasserman from the
Commission? Hearing none are there any other interested parties from the public
that wish to address the Commission regarding this application? Hearing none
we will bring it back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
MOTION:
Mr. Salmon stated I like the concept of having something different I think that
shows growth of Salina that we can have a development that is completely
unique and I would move that we recommend approval of Application #PDD03-1
for the rezoning request and preliminary development plan and include the
specific waivers and exceptions that are being requested subject to the conditions
that are recommended by the staff and agreed by the applicant.
SECOND: Mr. Ramage seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0.
#3.
Application #A03-1, filed by Rex Vanier, requesting annexation of a 94.07 acre
tract of land located in the SE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 14S, Range 2W and
the NE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 14S, Range 2W in Saline County, Kans.
The annexation request area is located at the south end of Marymount Roa nd
is bounded by Marymount Road and the Elks Club on the east, the old S y Hill
River channel on the south and the Smoky Hill River on the west. Con' ed from
March 4, 2003 meeting.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the cas lie.
Mr. Hass asked are there any questions of staff in r ard to this application?
Dean in regards to the Yarnevich property and the s has the City approached
them or what is the time table on that?
Mr. Andrew stated we have only ha preliminary discussions with the
Yarnevich's, we have had no discussion Ith the Elk's Club, as of yet. This is a
commendation where probably int ater spring before the final action that
bn s this property into the City Ii s by ordinance. Then we will have created
an is d more or less with the rnevich's and we think by then we can sit down
and wor ut a voluntary a ement for them to come into the city limits. Our
plan is to h e separate etings with the Elk's Club and discuss the pros and
cons of benefi f bei within the City limits, or how these dèvelopments around
them are going to act their future.
Ken asserman, 213 S. Santa e. Just briefly to again ask your favorable
c ideration.
Mr. Hass asked are there any members the public that wish to address this
application? Hearing none I will bring it bac 0 the Commission for discussion
and possible action.
Mr. Britton moved to approve Application #A03-1 file Rex Vanier requesting
annexation of a 94.07 acre tract of land located in the E 1/4 of Section 19,
T1A'S, R2W and the NE 1/4 of Section 30, T14S, R2W in Sa County Kansas.
SECOND: Mr. Hedges seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0.