Loading...
7.2 Zone Timberline Add CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 6/16/03 4:00 P.M. AGENDA SECTION: NO. 7 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DEAN ANDREW PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: :DA APPROVED FOR AGENDA: ITEM NO. 2 By~r Item Application #PDD03-2 (formerly #Z03-4), filed by Wallace Holmes, requesting a change in zoning district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to a Planned Development District (PDD) R-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential) and 1-2 (Light Industrial) to allow a multi-family 8-plex and mini storage on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Timberline Addition to the City of Salina (aka 1000 West Republic). Backqround Timberline Property, Inc. acquired this 1.92 acre tract of surplus railroad land from the Union Pacific Railroad in 1997. The property was unplatted and zoned RS at the time. Timberline then filed an application to rezone this property to R-2.5 to allow construction of four (4) 8 unit apartment buildings. The RS district permits only single-family dwellings on lots 1 acre in size or greater. Therefore rezoning of the property from RS to R-2.5 was necessary before multi-family housing could be built on the site. In addition, Sec. 42-8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that land be subdivided (platted) in accordance with the City's subdivision regulations prior to rezoning any area to any district other than A-1. Therefore, a combined preliminary / final plat was also filed for the Planning Commission's consideration. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this rezoning request on April 16, 1997. After much discussion, the Planning Commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval of a lesser zoning change to R-2 (Multi-Family Residential). The primary differences between R-2 and R-2.5 are that R-2 allows less residential density than R-2.5 and R-2 allows duplexes and townhomes as permitted uses but not multi-unit apartment buildings. Under R-2.5 the applicant could have built up to 42 apartment units on this site but under R-2 only 28 dwelling units could be constructed on this site. Under R-2 zoning multi-family apartments or attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) with up to six (6) units in a building are allowed as a conditional use which means such a proposal would have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. This requires submission of a separate Conditional Use Permit application and a site plan which becomes binding if approved. The City Commission concurred with the Planning Commission and approved R-2 zoning for this site on June 22, 1998. A plat of this property (the Timberline Addition) has been approved and recorded but this site has remained vacant and undeveloped since 1998. On March 24, 2003 the applicant filed an application for straight R-2.5 zoning for the South 170 ft. of this lot and straight 1-2 zoning for the North 390 ft. of the lot. The reason for the request was to allow construction of an 8 unit apartment building on the southern portion of the site along Republic and the CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 6/16/03 4:00 P.M. ITEM NO. Page 2 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DEAN ANDREW PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA: AGENDA SECTION: NO. BY: BY: construction of mini-warehouses on the northern portion of the site. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2003. Staff explained that straight R-2.5 zoning would allow any use allowed in that district as would straight 1-2 zoning. There is no mechanism under the city's standard zoning districts to insure development of those sites would be limited to an apartment building and mini- warehouses. The 1-2 district allows a number of uses that may not be compatible with the surrounding residential development. Based on the Planning Commission's concern, the applicant expressed a willingness to amend his application from straight R-2.5 and 1-2 zoning to a mixed use Planned Development District. The Planning Commission then approved a motion 8-0 to direct the applicant to convert his application to a PDD. The effect of this action was essentially to withdraw Application #Z03-4 and to have the applicant complete and file a new application (#PDD03-2) requesting PDD zoning. Surrounding property owners were renotified by mail of the change in status of the application. Nature of Current Request It is staffs understanding that the applicant has a contract to purchase this property from Timberline Property, Inc. He is proposing to rezone the South 170 ft. of this 150 ft. x 560 ft. tract from R-2 to R-2.5 to allow construction of an 8 unit apartment building and to rezone the remainder of the tract to 1-2 to allow the construction of mini-warehouses at the rear of the site. The rationale for the proposed mini- warehouse complex is that this is a deep, narrow lot and mini-storage units do not have the same need for utilities that housing units do. The applicant believes that only the southern one third of this property is feasible to develop residentially. The applicant's amended request is for PDD zoning. The two main differences between standard zoning and a Planned Development District are (1) 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, as well as to attach conditions of approval to any zoning change and (2) the PDD process allows for a specific site plan to be made a part of the zoning change. A PDD application allows the City Commission to address concerns about the number and type of buildings permitted, the surfacing of driveways and parking areas, adequacy of public utilities, site drainage and landscaping. In this case the applicant is requesting approval of two specific uses and that the Commission also approve his proposed development plan for the site. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 6/16/03 4:00 P.M. ITEM NO. Page 3 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DEAN ANDREW PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA: AGENDA SECTION: NO. BY: BY: Suitabili!Y..Qf the Site for Development Under Existinq Zoninq The subject property is a relatively flat piece of ground. The natural surface water drainage pattern in this area is south to north, however, this property does not drain well and runoff tends to accumulate on-site. The property is not located within the mapped 100 year flood plain. This site is contiguous to existing residential development on the west and needed utilities are either in place or can be extended fairly efficiently to serve development on the south half of this site. The current R-2 zoning seems to have inhibited development of this 1.92 acre site by limiting the potential use of the entire site to duplexes or townhomes. The site has been vacant for six years since being platted and rezoned. The width and shape of this tract make it unsuitable for division into individual home sites. The layout of the site is suitable for some form of multi-family housing and/or some low impact use that does not require building a public street or subdividing ownership of the property. Character of the Neiqhborhood This factor deals with whether the requested zoning would be compatible with the zoning and uses of nearby property. This proposed development is located between a residential subdivision and a seldom used rail line. This 150' wide tract serves as a buffer between the rail line and the single-family homes that face Vassar Drive and Plaza Drive to the west. Farther to the north along Franklin Street the strip between the rail line and Plaza Drive is zoned 1-2 and used for repair businesses and outdoor storage. While there is almost no multi-family residential zoning in the vicinity, staff believes that the combination of multi-family housing and mini-warehouses could provide a suitable buffer between the rail line and single-family homes and if developed with appropriate lighting and screening could have less impact on neighboring properties than full development of the site with multi-family housing. Provided that adequate setbacks and screening are provided, the applicant's proposal should not adversely affect the neighborhood or damage the value of surrounding property. A similar situation exists at 415 E. Republic where the Chalet Apartments were constructed next to the Second Street slough. The proposed apartment building will provide a buffer along Republic that will screen the 1-2 areas from Republic and the residential area south of Republic. The question for the City Commission is whether it views the requested 1-2 zoning for mini-warehouses as a logical extension of the existing 1-2 zoning or an encroachment into a residential area. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 6/16/03 4:00 P.M. AGENDA SECTION: NO. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DEAN ANDREW PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA: ITEM NO. Page 4 BY: BY: Public Facilities and Services Adequate water, sanitary sewer, and gas and electrical lines are in place or can be extended to serve the proposed multi-family apartments on this site. The proposed change in zoning classification and use proposed by the applicant should not overburden public facilities and services particularly the mini- warehouse units which require little or no utility service. Republic Ave. is designated as collector street in this location. Street access points, potential utility extensions and drainage were addressed in detail during the plat review of the Timberline Addition. An 80 ft. x 140 ft. drainage easement has been set aside at the north end of the property for a stormwater detention pond. Staff would note that the Director of Utilities had requested that this development be required to have a looped water system in order to provide the required fire flow of 1,500 g.p.m. and to provide two sources of flow in the case of a main break. While this is feasible it would necessitate some off-site improvements by the developer across adjoining property. This off-site connection to create a water line loop may not be necessary with the proposed substitution of mini-storage units for residential dwellings. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan 1. Land Use Map - The Comprehensive Plan shows this site as being appropriate for medium density residential development for (4.0 - 8.0 units/acre). The development density proposed by the applicant (8 units on .59 acres) computes to 13 units / acre which is in the medium density category and well below the maximum density permitted under R-2.5 zoning which is 21.8 units/acre. Staff believes that the applicant's plan for an 8 unit apartment building is consistent with the medium density designation and would not require an amendment to the land use plan prior to a zoning change to R-2.5. The applicant's request for 1-2 zoning would require an amendment to the land use plan. 2. Land Use Plan - In addition to the plan map, the following Residential Development Policies should be used to guide development decisions: R3 Small-scale "infill" residential development within or near existing areas should be compatible and in character with surrounding existing residential development. R4 Where possible, multi-family housing should be located on the edge of residential neighborhoods and near other major traffic generators. CITY OF SALIN A REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 6/16/03 4:00 P.M. ITEM NO. Page 5 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DEAN ANDREW PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA: AGENDA SECTION: NO. BY: BY: R5 New medium and high density housing should be located in selected areas along major streets, adjacent to major activity areas such as commercial/office areas and large institutions, or adjoining similar existing multi-family development. New high-density development would also be appropriate adjacent to public parks or other significant open space features. 116 Particular attention should be given to screening and visual separation between business and industrial uses and other nearby land uses. The periphery of industrial areas should be heavily landscaped and attractively designed. Where new industrial parks border commercial areas, residential neighborhoods, or major roadways, earth berms should be considered as a buffer. Planninq Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the applicant's amended request on May 20, 2003. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan designation on the north two-thirds of this property from Medium-Density Residential to Industrial. The Planning Commission then voted 7-0 to recommend approval of PDD/R-2.5 and PDDII-2 zoning for this property as requested by the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1. Development on the South 170 ft. of Lot 1 shall be limited to a multi-family apartment building with up to 8 dwelling units and shall be subject to the bulk regulations in the R-2.5 Multi-Family Residential District except that the maximum building height shall be 35 ft. 2. Development on the North 390 ft. of Lot 1 shall be limited to no more than six (6) mini-warehouse buildings and shall be subject to the bulk regulations in the 1-2 Light Industrial District. A 24 ft. separation or driving aisle shall be provided between buildings. 3. A 10ft. landscape buffer shall be provided along the west side of Lot 1 and shall include a densely planted row of evergreen trees to screen the apartment site and mini-warehouse site from adjacent residential property. 4. A single directional or identification sign for the mini-warehouse business not exceeding 15 sq. ft. in size shall be permitted at the Republic Avenue entrance to the property. 5. Lot 1 shall not be subdivided without formal approval of a lot split by the Planning Department to insure that adequate frontage and access is maintained for the rear portion of Lot 1. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 6/16/03 4:00 P.M. ITEM NO. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DEAN ANDREW PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA: AGENDA SECTION: NO. BY: BY: 6. The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan and construction plans for a storm water detention pond for approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits for the apartment building or mini-warehouse units. 7. The applicant must satisfactorily complete construction of the ponding area prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the apartment building or mini-warehouse units. 8. The applicant will prepare a maintenance agreement providing for maintenance of the ponding area and any inlets, ditches or pumps associated with moving stormwater off the site. 9. Design plans for water line extensions and fire hydrant needed to provide fire protection to this site shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Utilities and Fire Chief prior to issuance of any building permits for this site. 10. Development of the site shall substantially conform to the approved preliminary development plan which is filed in the Planning Department and is herein incorporated by reference. The Planning Commission offered the following reasons in support of their recommendation: 1. Due to its size, shape and location, the site is not suitable for development of single-family homes or individual duplexes under the existing R-2 zoning. The site has remained vacant since being platted and rezoned in 1998. 2. The proposed multi-family housing and mini-warehouses would serve as a buffer or transitional use between single-family housing and a rail line. 3. Needed public utilities and drainage improvements will be provided by the developer. 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 June 9,2003 and no protest petition has been received. Second reading would be scheduled for June 23, 2003. If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, it may; 1) overturn the Planning Commission and deny this request provided there 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. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 6/16/03 4:00 P.M. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR NO. AGENDA: DEAN ANDREW PLANNING & COMMUNITY ITEM DEVELOPMENT NO. BY: BY: Ene!: Application Vicinity Map Proposed Development Plan Timberline plat Plan proposed in 1997 Excerpt of PC Minutes 5/16/03 & 5/20/03 Ord. #03 -10148 cc: Wallace Holmes Jeff Gillam Timberline Properties Application No. Date Filed Filing Fee' Receipt No. IIPDD03-2 Mav.6. 2003 Paid See IIZ03-4 Publication Date N / A Hearing Date May 20. 2003 Development Plans Attached Yes Ownership Certificate Received KG APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P.D.D.) 1, Applicant's Name Wallace Holmes III & .T;:¡ni!:: Hnlmp!:: 2604'Argonne Drive, Salina. KS 67401 2. Applicant's Address 3. Telephone (Business) (Home) 827-0570 4. Project Name Timberline PDD 5. Owner's Name TimberlineProp~rti~siInr 6. Owner's Address 2550 Dundee Lane., Salina. KS 67401 7. Legal Description of Property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary) Lot(s) 1 in Block No. 1 in Timberline Addition Subdivision 8. Approximate Street Address 1000 block of West Republic Avenue 9. Area of Property (sq. ft. and/or acres) 1. 92 acres 10. Present Zoning R-2 PDD &-2.5 / 1-2 Use Vacant 11. Proposed Zoning Use Apts. and mini-warehouses 12. Is the P .0.0. to be utilized in conjunction with another zone or independently? In conjunction with R-2.');:¡nd T-7 13. Are there any covenants of record which affect the proposed development (attach copy)? No 14. List reasons for this request (attach additional sheets if necessary) It is not £easible to extend utilities ;:¡nd paved access to the rear of this prop~rTY Tn rnn!::Tr11rT dPT;:¡rhpd rPQ;~ønt;~l unit£. This is a more efficient plan. 15. Anticipated time period for substantial completion Phase I - Apt. Bldg. 20.960 Sq. ft. Ph;:¡se 11- Mini-!::Tnr;:¡gp 16. Total ground area occupied by buildings (sq. ft.) 17. Describe any non-residential uses proposed Proposing to construct mini -w;:¡r~hotlse stor;:¡EP 11n; j-Q at tlul rear of the property up to six un PI¡;j)liÒi'ngs with 'R 1111; T:!:: / hll; 1 ding 18. Number of housing units proposed: Single family Multi-family Up to 8 19. Relationship between this iilpplication and the Land Use Plan / wn as Mediu R Owner(s) Signature If the applicant is to be represented by legal counselor an authorized agent, please complete the following in order that correspondence and communi- cations pertaining to this application may be forwarded to thli authorized individual. N.ameofRepresentative Jeff Gillam Jbnes-Gill;:¡m Ar,...h;j-p,...j-!:: Address 730 N. 9th Street Telephone(Business). 827-0186 Zip Code 67401 Area Code 785 White. Planning , Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant Application #ZO3-4 Filed by Wallace Holmes Ct:: 0 Ct:: « (/) (/) ;g; Ct:: 0 « N « -I (L 1-2 WILSON ST Ct:: 0 Ct:: 0 (/) 0 z ~ R-1 0 CJ >- « 3: 0 « 0 Ct:: CJ ~ :.::: C,) 0 C,) z « J: R-1 ~ ~ z 0 (/) 0 ::u 0 ::u < :Þ (/) (/) :Þ :;0 0 :;0 R .. 0 .-. . . . . :."... ...: . . ... . . r- . 25 .0 .~ 0../ 0 : .~ ..".. . . ;;;: 0..0 ..,. . :.;" Ct:: 0 Ct:: w > 0 0 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 800 ,<,,'f "-><:::> ~ ... <!. ~ §i ~ fÆ ... ~ 1:> ~ ,. ] t it . ','." '..'.;-. S B9'2J's{)' E s IIr1J'5D" £ If If' ' #' , $AfI1' àt REPUBLIC AVENUE. 2455.71' '15D.oo' N 1D'00'(J()' E SøuIh 8M of N/2 10' /IfJIJ/y E/IMIMIÚ S~£' ~ 1JIr1inoø- E_f BLOCK 1 LOT 1 84,075 Sq. Ff. or 1.93 Acres :I: 1S" ,,-., - ... È .. - '! J I t:: ;;¡ ~ ..... ... <!. i ~ 0 ~ ~ - <d ~ ~ r, ~ ...... :!: r;: 8 - ... u <d ~ - ~ ~ 0 ~ en . CIJ. ~ - :!: ~ 8 ... I I I ... !:! J.1IIØ' J II! J APPLICATION #97-2/2A TIMBERLINE ADDITION REVISED FINAL PLAT t;. .K GRAPHIC SCALE k..""~ T ( IR I'D! ) J -- 8D ... i LEGEND 0 ~ PIn FiNIIHI ThII SlImy . 1/2' Ii., SM Th& SlImy (0) DNdod DÏ6Iønt» (Irf) IHaIIIrrd fJllfønt:f s.don c-.r 1M: 1. 56.#' SW SpIk# In Nørfh fac. I'trHr Polo 2. 41.60' W SplØ In EtIIt fac. pp- I'M J. 47.2" Nt: ~ In Søufh frø pp..". I'M 4. 59.46' SW Top Ad¡. Nul on rvr Hydrant ~ [;"'- ...-r... ... nu. 0100"7,,oóoóooo "':"'-:000000 ---1 . .. 0..1 11 II '1-" ' " ~I ~, ~I ~I ;1 1 . I ~I 1I I .. ~I I , t - ~-C1-- =:ra 1:= PHASE 1 - APARTMENTS - ZONE RZ,5 2 STORY 4 APAR1MENTS EAa< flOOR 8 TOTAl APARTIoIENTS LOT SIZE LOT CO_AGE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE UAX!UUU COVERAGE 25.'25 sf 4,'80 sf '6,6" """ REOUlRFD SFlBACKS FRONT YARO - 75'-0' fROU CENTERUNE AT ARTERIAl STREET OR 25'-0. FROU PROPERTY UNE WHICHE- IS GREATER SIDE YARO - 7-6' REAR YARD - 2S'-D' .. PROVIDED SETBACKS FRONT YARD - 75'-0" fROU CENITRUNE Of REPUBUC AVENUE SlOE YARD - 2D'-0" ~ PROPERTY UNE It 3S'-D" EAST PR<PERTY UNE REAR YARD - 8D'-0' TO APAR1MENT OUTSlIJ£ STORAGE 90'-0' TO PRŒ'OSED NORTH PROPERTY UNE ;; I I i._...,' I ' ~ , ,: I I , I , , :.-!""I--:-"""" PHASE 2 !!!..!!!......t RAILROA. PHASE 2 & :3 . STORAGE UNITS. ZONE 12 PHASE 2 - 64 10"'0' UNITS PHASE 3 - 84 ID'"O' UNITS TOTAl '86 UNITS LOT SIZE LOT COVERAGE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE UAXIUUU CO_AGE 60,375 of '6,600 " 27."" 50!< s.GBAŒS fRooT YARO - 7S'-D' fROI CENITRUNE AT ARTERIAl STREET OR 25'-0' ON ALl SlOES ABUTING A STREET SlIJ£ YARO - NO """UU. 10'-0' ABUTING RESJOENTlAl DIStRICT REAR YARD - NO UlNIUUU. '0'-0" ABUTING RESIDENTIAl DIStRICT PROVIDED SETBACKS fRONT YARO - ,,'-0" PROPOSED SOUTH PROPERTY UNE SIIJ£ YARO - 24'-9" WEST PR<PERTY UNE " 17-3' EAST PR<PERTY UNE REAR YARD - "'-6" NORTH PROPERõY UNE ~I 0 o~ 0 0 0 ~o 0 000 0 ![~~ --- --- -- - - -- -. ..---- -- - -- . - ...... ...... .... - ..... . > .. -. --- -- - - -.. -- - -- -- -i -.. ... .. ...... ~ ---1 - - ".-r . - ...... ...... .... - ..... . ,..,--------..._-,----------- - - -i-"""""'----1 - - - --7 -' ------- -------, ..-............--...... ---1 --- ..---...-r "" ..... ---1 ----,---..:....,.-~~-- - ~ 3 ~u - ---""._~ - - - -, ""- ~ - - fJ)A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ~ .JONEŒ GILLAIII ..- - ===;! _11-= ....... .......- -""'" ....- ...-.. - --~ I v ~ V 2 ~ ~ T-r .""""" (f) ill II ~ I- J I!¡ ; I Ii 0 ~ I -I I ~ : I ~ II ill] ~ O~ (I J J ( ~ « z J « 1/1 ~ "'lE> ......."'" :;¡;¡-- ....,'" ;¡¡m;-- ~ I A1 1>. ,.,j,:j,(",:,.,:,;r~,~,,;,t:,.,.;-,:,'< '~~,'~.'"..,L.¿:n,it,:,',~~_,~3l~i'tE:I:;'.. ,.' '.",',"'pD '"::",,,: ," ,:"",:' rt".'" " Co" ", .. ,.".,,<c,';, """~","','" ,',""" ,,:,." D~ ',.,' , "~, D~18\ ,,' " lPôp~ D~(S - ::7":'<::/;""::~\::: '0":; ,', 0,00 ' ,,0:':; 0 ,O~ " , 0 ,",~ ~ ~g) "., "c",' MINUTES SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COMMISSION ROOM MAY 6, 2003 4:00 PM. MEMBERS PRESENT: Britton, Hass, Hedges, McDowell, Ramage, Salmon, Simpson and Yarnevich MEMBERS ABSENT: Hopkins DEPARTMENT STAFF: Andrew, Burger, Cooper, Koepsel and Fisher #1. Approval of the regular minutes of April 15, 2003. The minutes of the regular meeting of April 15, 2003 were approved as presented. #2. Application #Z03-4, filed by Wallace Holmes, requesting a change in zoning district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to R-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential) and 1-2 (Light Industrial) on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Timberline Addition to the City of Salina (aka 1000 West Republic). Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file. Mr. Hass asked are there any questions of staff? Mr. Britton asked Dean you indicated that in 1997 there must have been a lot of discussion, at least the minutes that you provided indicated there was a lot of discussion about this tract of land? Mr. Andrew stated there was. It seemed to focus particularly on the density. Particularly on the concept that although R-2.5 is not really any different than our single-family districts that allowed a building height of 35 ft. and I think at the time there was some concern. The plan that you have in front of you had the buildings along the west side of an access drive and there was concern particularly from the people to the west about the height or the mass of buildings in that location. So what the Planning Commission did at the time was reduce the overall density and in some way make the buildings go from being apartments to more a series of townhomes or duplexes and that is what ended up being approved. But there was quite a bit of concern about the density. The total number of units and maybe the potential height of the buildings were two concerns that were expressed. Mr. Salmon asked Dean if they wanted to ensure the building of mini-storage rather than light industrial, the applicant would have to file a planned development district? Mr. Andrew stated yes. The application would have to be amended to that. We don't have a planned industrial district like we do some of our p1anhed commercial. So that would be the means in which you would be mak[ng a recommendation to the City Commission, not only on the change in zoning, but also endorsing that particular plan. Which would mean as a planned development district, if this owner or a future owner wanted to develop the property they would have to conform with this plan. If not, then if you recommend R-2.5 and 1-2, there is no assurance that it wouldn't necessarily sit another five years and a truck terminal or some light manufacturing be able to go in without any review or restriction. That is kind of the two scenarios. Mrs. Yarnevich asked and if you changed it to the C-5 or C-6 to allow the mini- storage, what else would that allow? Mr. Andrew stated it would allow home improvement lumber type stores. Not that that is not a good location for those. Essentially you are opening it up for commercial uses, even convenience stores. Things of that nature. Things that Salina Planning Commission May 6, 2003 Page 2 those two districts allow. And again I recommended that they look at the 1-2 zoning just because there is already 1-2 zoning in place and this is contiguous with that and it makes more sense to continue 1-2 zoning then it does to stick some commercial zone in there when there is not commercial around it. There is some industrial use to the north of this site. Mr. Hass asked Dean are there any height limitations in R-2.5? Mr. Andrew stated there are height limitations. It depends a little bit on what you are doing. There is a provision that allows an elderly housing high rise to go up quite a few feet, otherwise you are limited to the 40 ft. range which would accommodate a two story apartment building. But that is not much. There are single-family districts that allow a 35 1/2 ft. height as well. But obviously an apartment building is much larger then a single family home and I think that was one of the concerns back in 1997 was the size of the individual apartment buildings. Mr. Hass asked I assume the detention pond is already in place? Mr. Andrew stated the easement for it is in place but the pond has not been built and the actual size of the pond would be determined by what actually gets built on the property. I think the only other thing that I would point out, and I am not sure exactly what the applicant's plan is. That could be dealt with through a planned development district and not what we have in front of us today. But the other difference between 1-2 and C-2 in terms of mini-storage or mini-warehouse is if you develop' mini-warehouses in a commercial C-5 district then your access aisles and parking has to be paved. If you have 1-2 zoning you have the option f having those as gravel. Again, I am not certain what the applicant's plan is, we haven't discussed both of those options. Mr. Hass asked are there any further questions from the Commission of staff? Hearing none would the applicant care to address the Commission? Jeff Gillam, representing the applicant and the landowner. A couple of things, I think that Dean did a good job of explaining where we are at. As you can probably tell it is a very difficult piece of property. We are bordered by the railway on one side, the back of some residential on the other and then of course some industrial directly north of us. The utilities into that site are basically very limited. The R-2 that was approved would allow us to put town homes or residences all along that but then you get into some traffic issues. Getting them in and out of there because it is such a skinny neck, if you will, to get the traffic in and out. What we are asking you to do I guess in an effort to expedite this a little bit, we understand staff's concern and we probably understand your concern a little bit that 1-2 does open up a lot of different criteria and possible developments in that and that is not the intent of the applicant. We would accept the amendment to a PDD understanding that we would like to get some kind of direction from the Commission today as to whether that plan would be approved. We understand that there might be some conditions to that approval. We also reserve the right on that plan to possibly change, we are showing an 8-plex apartment unit Dn that site plan and the applicant has not decided as to whether that would be an 8-plex or a 4-plex. So we would reserve the right to' change that. We understand~he issues with lighting and screening and I think that we are trying to take care of that in a good manner. One thing I might reiterate, as Dean said, and I will just read this right out of Dean's report, "the staff believes that the combination of the multi-family housing and mini-warehouses could provide a suitable buffer between the rail line and the single-family homes" and again that is what I mentioned. It is a very difficult piece of property to develop and that is why it has sat idle for a lot of years. We do understand the appropriate lighting and screening issues and that can be taken care of during the permit application. With that we would ask that you approve the zoning as we have applied for under Item #1 which is as an R-2.5 and an 1-2 and if that is not acceptable to you we would accept your approval as a PDD, with any conditions that you might add. Dean had mentioned if we went to a PDD we want to make it clear that our site plan does clearly indicate that the back portion of the lot, where the mini- Salina Planning Commission May 6, 2003 Page 3 warehouses are would be gravel. The front portion would be developed per the R-2.5. Again as a POD that would be paved. Are there any questions? Mr. Britton asked Jeff if you build only one four plex, what are the plans? Are you going to move that? Is that going to be maybe a future development for another four plex? What are those plans if there is only one built? Mr. Gillam stated if the Commission decides to go to the POD, this site plan is the way that you see it. Vicki if you could maybe show the entire site plan, we are showing currently an 8-plex right in the front, with parking directly behind it. You have a smaller version of that, it might help to look at that in your plan. As a POD, we are presenting to you an 8-plex that is currently shown on the site plan. We have parking directly behind that and then that is where we originally had the zoning split, where the property line was behind the parking. That is where it went to 1-2 with mini-storage going all the way back. There were three lines of mini-storage. We show the ones that are a little more delineated as Phase II. The apartment complex is Phase I. The first section of mini-storage is Phase II and then the dotted portion would be Phase III. So again, what we are asking, if you approve this site plan as a POD, this is what you would get. We would be forced to come back to you if there were any alterations done to this site plan and it is the intent of the applicant and the landowner to develop it this way. So we are accepting a PDD at this point. If you are more comfortable knowing, ok this what we are going to get, we are not going to get some factory back there with an 1-2 which is what an 1-2 would allow us to do. You also have the assurance that even under an R-2 we could further develop this site with I believe 10 or 12 townhomes back there. Again when you study the utilities and the traffic studies, it just doesn't make sense to do that. So we really feel that this is one of the best uses where the developer can actually get a return on his investment. Mr. McDowell asked Jeff in regard to the apartment building, it is a two story? Mr. Gillam stated as an 8-plex it would be a two story. If the applicant decided to do a 4-plex, it would be a single story. Mr. McDowell asked and you are asking for flexibility to go either way? Mr. Gillam stated yes. Mr. McDowell stated well obviously you have that flexibility if it is an R-2.5 and if it is a POD you want that flexibility as part of that. Mr. Gillam stated we are showing an 8-plex. Mr. Andrew stated I think our perspective would be if he got it approved as a 8- plex he could always build a 4-plex. But if he got it approved as a 4-plex he could not build an 8-plex without coming back to the Commission. Mr. McDowell stated ok. < Mr. Andrew stated so if they thought they might want to build an 8-plex they should request that and then they could still do'something less then that. But you couldn't increase the number of units above what you had approved. Mr. McDowell asked so I assume you are asking for the 8-plex? Mr. Gillam stated yes we want the 8-plex. We just didn't want to have to redo or resubmit the POD to drop back to a 4-plex. So yes we would want you to approve it as an 8-plex. Mr. McDowell asked and this is I guess curiosity more than anything else. What size of apartments are we talking about? Mr. Gillam stated they were in the neighborhood, Wallace maybe you know. 800 to about 1,000 sq. ft.? Salina Planning Commission May 6, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Holmes stated about 900 sq. ft., 2 bedroom, 2 bath. Mr. McDowell stated 2 bedroom, 2 bath. Mr. Gillam stated we haven't developed that fully yet until we get some indication that the Planning Commission would accept this. Mr. McDowell stated ok, thanks. Mr. Gillam asked are there any other questions? Mr. Hass asked are there any other interested parties that wish to address this application? Hearing none we will bring it back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. Dean if we would go with a planned development district, then is that the final action or will they need to come back with their final site plan for approval? Mr. Andrew stated well, if they had enough detail on the preliminary site plan as part of the zoning action I don't see a need for them to come back with a second step. What we would be looking at from this perspective is that to read into it. What we didn't want to occur was to perhaps have them do some more work with plans or anything, come back at your next meeting and then not have it viewed favorably. If you are favorable with the concept but feel more comfortable by having a binding site plan, then under option four they would essentially come back at your next meeting as a planned development district rather then as a straight R-2.5 and 1-2. We would analyze it for you from that standpoint and recommend some possible conditions and options. What we have done today is really just look at the land use question and we have not really gone into any detail in describing what is on the plan. But there may be some maximums or some boundaries, minimum buffers or a specific type of landscape screen. Things of that nature that you may want to put in as conditions. By directing them to amend the application that means that they would come back at your next meeting and be analyzed as a planned development district. The only reason to do that is if the majority of the Commission is comfortable with this proposal then it is worth them and staff investing a little bit more time in it. Mr. Salmon asked a two story 8-plex, as far as blending into the rest of the community. There is no problem with that is there? Mr. Andrew stated one thing you can do in a planned development district that you can't do with straight zoning, is request that their architect give you an elevation. That way you get some idea of the height and the style of the roof and how it is going to look from Republic. Then that becomes part of the planned development district as well unless they lower it to one story. But that is what you can do again with the planned development district. If you want to see two stories, the roof pitch can really vary in terms of the height and the appearance. Now that is something that you could direct them to provide for you as you consider it as a planned development district. Mrs. Yarnevich asked and all the neighbors who back up to this storage unit'have been notified what might be happening behind them? Mr. Andrew stated yes. We did send out letters of notification. There has not been a great deal of turnover that we can tell in the neighborhood. We got out the list of owners from 1997 and the current list and it was pretty comparable and the notification area was the same. So part of it could be the fact that nothing really has happened at all since 1997 and they could view it as it would be better to have some development on the property than the vacant field that it is today. Mr. McDowell stated Dean I need some clarification. I thought you were saying that we could actually craft a motion that would take into consideration the idea of allowing them to go with an 8-plex and that the back would be only mini-storage without having to go all the way to a PDD. Am I right or wrong? Salina Planning Commission May 6, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Andrew stated if you were to recommend approval of what is being requested today, then as we understand the application, the south 170 ft. of this tract would be R-2.5 and the north remainder portion would be 1-2. But under straight zoning there is nothing that would prevent them or a future owner from building anything that those two districts allow. Mr. McDowell asked so the only way to guarantee that the back part will be mini- storage is to go to a POD? Mr. Andrew stated I believe that to be the case. Mr. McDowell asked so then they would have to come back to us? Mr. Andrew stated what we would do is we would physically go back to the application that they filed. We would change the application and insert planned development district into the application. The applicant would initial that to say that he is amending his application and now requesting a planned development district. We would go back and we would bring a report back to you at your next June meeting to look at possible conditions of approval. Or we may be able to turn it around and do it at your May 20 meeting. But it would require them physically amending their application and making the site plan part of that. Mr. McDowell asked if we approve a POD, do we also then need to amend the future land use plan? o. Mr. Andrew stated I think you would do that at the time that you would make a recommendation on the planned development district. You could do that today, although you may not want to if you don't know that it is going to be mini-storage. In other words I don't know if there is a reason to recommend that the north two thirds of this property be designated as future industrial unless you mean all industrial or if you only mean that because mini-storage is ok. So I would think that you would wait until you are actually comfortable approving something and make that part of that motion. MOTION Mr. McDowell moved to direct the applicant to amend his application to a planned development district which requires submittal and approval of a binding site plan based upon the discussion we had today. SECOND: Mr. Ramage seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion carried 8-0. Mr. Andrew stated the only clarification on that would be if the majority of the Commissioners would like to see any sort of elevation drawing of the apartment building, then that should be indicated to the applicant and his architect today so they can submit with the application. Mr. Britton asked can staff look at that issue as far as a recommendation without putting the applicant through that expense, or is that normally done? , Mr. Andrew asked in terms of? Mr. Britton stated in terms of what staff's view is as far as compatibility with the rest of the surrounding area of a two-story? Mr. Andrew stated yes we can make that as part of the report and then just report to you and you can, even in a planned development district, you can put a cap or a height limit on the building without regard to elevation. We can work with them on that. It is simply up to you whether you feel more comfortable having an elevation of the building itself when you are considering the action or whether whatever you have in the way of site plan is sufficient. Otherwise we don't see any reason why this can't come back to you in two weeks. Salina Planning Commission May 6, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Simpson stated I wouldn't see why we would want to put any further restrictions on this as far as height is concerned. We have talked about either 8 units or 4 units. It seems we are either going to be a one story or two story structure and that should be fine. Mr. Britton asked is there a re-notification to adjacent property owners? Mr. Andrew stated that is not required. It would not be a great effort to do that. We can notify the neighbors that is has been modified from this to a planned development district. That might give them some more comfort. Mr. McDowell stated it ought to be a positive experience. Mr. Andrew stated right, because it means what is being discussed as a proposal is the only thing that could actually happen. Mr. Hass stated it has been moved and approved to amend Application #203-4 to become a planned development district with the recommendation from the Commission to re-notify the adjacent property owners of this. Mr. Andrew stated we will take care of that. Mr. Gillam asked can I get clarification Dean? Mr. Andrew stated yes. .. Mr. Gillam stated the one thing that we wanted to make very clear. The reason we allowed the Commission to amend this to a PDD is that we wanted a clear direction from you that you saw no real issues with this concept, because again the applicant does not want to spend any more time and effort if you see some issues with it. So when he brings it back he wants to feel pretty comfortable that there may be some conditions but that the basic concept is correct. So in that approval I am assuming that the Planning Commission does agree that the concept is well supported. Mr. McDowell stated my motion did say "as we discussed today". So that is kind of what I meant. Mr. Gillam stated thank you. Mr. McDowell stated I would also like to say that I think it is great that somebody is looking at multi-family in this part of the City. We don't, I think personally, we don't have enough housing choice in this part of Salina or actually multi-family in any part of Salina. A gentleman from the public came forward and asked if he could comment as he was a homeowner. Mr. Hass stated we have had an opportunity and discussed it. You wijl hflve another opportunity when this comes back. .. , The gentleman stated well now what you told him is that "well we are pretty much ok with what is going on here". Mr. Hass stated this application will come back again for our final approval and you will have an opportunity at that point to make a statement. Our discussion rEtgarding this issue is essentially closed. We had an open forum and I realize you were not here during that portion and I don't want to restrict your ability to make a comment today. I opened it up for any interested parties to direct the commission and I would recommend coming back when it comes back in a couple of weeks. I think Dean will notify you. Mr. Andrew asked you did receive a letter on this? Salina Planning Commission May 6, 2003 Page 7 The gentleman stated yes I did. Mr. Andrew stated you will receive a follow up letter that on May 20, in two weeks this will be back for the actual vote on the proposal. Mrs. Yarnevich stated I would like to comment that if I were living there I would have an issue with gravel roads and people in and out at all hours of the night. I guess what I am saying is if you want an indication that I am 100% for this, I am not necessarily. I felt I needed to say that because of your comment just now. Mr. Andrew stated I think that is something that will be important at the next hearing is to perhaps get some more detail about how the mini-storage would be operated. That is something that you can certainly get into at that next meeting. Mr. Hass stated I am certainly not trying to discourage the public to speak their mind but we had an open discussion already on this specific issue so we encourage you to come back to the next meeting, sir. Do you want to move on to the next item? Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file. #3. Discussion of Temporary Use Permits. - .Consider moving flea markets and other open air markets from the temporary use category to a special use category. Mr. Hass asked Dean how does this present flea market work? Is t person that comes in or one organization that comes in and gets 6 permit? Mr. Andrew stated in this case I was actually the one that si d the permit. It is the owner of Maggie Mae's that comes in and obtains the rmit. But oftentimes he as owner is only granting permission for venders to up on his property. He does not necessarily have much to do with how it is erated. There are, I think, some people who sell at the flea market that act y coordinate those things. It is my understanding that people actually co rom quite a distance to set up. We found out about that last Fall when the ermit expired and people wished to eep coming. It was very difficult to ha any kind of network to contact people b ause there are so many and they e from so many different places. Part of this w process would be to ide' an individual or party or whomever to say who th esponsible party is. If e police department is called or the City Clerk's office is c d and there is e issue that needs to be addressed. In this case the owner is t an activ articipant in the flea market. He is just providing the space and colle' g r for allowing them to set up there. That would be part of the process to figu out who is operating this and who is the responsible party. The way it wor n is it can be the owner, but they are just granting permission. How do you set up a site plan from a motor at in there just because it is also applies to Mr. Andrew stated even when you have ehicle like that you still want to; be able to hand the merchant a drawing. Or this case we now have these capabilities with an aerial photo so when someD comes in to do this we will get out a photo like this of the site. This serves a ur site plan. And we say show us where you are going to set up. Because don't want somebody, which we have had before, setting up rugs or blankets an lacing them right out on the corner of the street where you can't see around the i rsection. So part of this process is for people to come in so we can say "you can t up here, but don't do here and don't set up your tent or park your vehicle across e sidewalk. Those types of things. It is more to prevent problems so they do become situations where some police officer or somebody has to be called later. hat is the way the process works. When you have a flea market you don't neces ily have to tell me whether you have six tables or sixty. That is part of what we ne to improve. MINUTES SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COMMISSION ROOM MAY 20,20034:00 PM. MEMBERS PRESENT: Britton, Hass, Hedges, Hopkins, McDowell, Ramage, Salmon, and Yarnevich MEMBERS ABSENT: Simpson DEPARTMENT STAFF: Andrew, Burger, Cooper, Koepsel and Fisher #1. Approval of the regular minutes of May 6, 2003. The minutes of the regular meeting of May 6, 2003 were approved as presented. #2. Application #PDD03-2 (formerly #Z03-4) filed by Wallace Holmes, requesting a change in zoning district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to a Planned Development District (PDD) R-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential) and 1-2 (Light Industrial) to allow a multi-family 8-plex and mini storage on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Timberline Addition to the City of Salina (aka 1000 West Republic). (Continued from May 6, 2003.) Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file. Mr. Hass asked are there any questions of staff? Hearing none would the applicant care to address the Commission? Jeff Gillam, I am representing Wallace Holmes the developer. He is present today. A couple of items in your packet, page five item number eight, we just wanted to clarify with the development. As Dean mentioned last time we met, this property has not been developed and there is a reason why. It is a very difficult property to develop. You have a piece of property right next to some railroad tracks. The paving issue with the developer in terms of the mini-storage, it is not feasible to pave that area back where the mini-storage is. Under the R- 2.5 where the apartment is that is planned to be a paved surface area. Dean if I could get you to put that overlay up. One thing I definitely want to clarify as we concluded our meeting last time, there was some discussion about light, noise, traffic etc., with regards to our proposed plan. The plan that Dean is putting up is just a sample of what we would be allowed to do today without any ruling. This particular plan shows 16 units and the zoning code allows us to put 28. So we want to impress upon you that in terms of traffic, noise, families and lights we feel this density is much worse that exists today that is approved by the zoning, to put this kind of density in there affecting the neighborhood. Any questions regarding that? Again these are 16 duplexes and we would be allowed, if possible, if you could squeeze them on there, it would be pretty tough. But again, current zoning allows us to put 28 units. Vicki if you could go ahead and put the plan back up that we are proposing today. Again, this is the plan we are proposing, today. Because of drainage issues, utility issues whatever, again the development ot'the storage units in the back is much more feasible. We don't feel the traffic of those mini-storage units, many of you probably have used them or seen them being used. A lot of people store things month to month. They may put something in there and may not go in there for a year. So the traffic in and out of a mini- storage facility would be significantly reduced from a residence that goes back there daily, multiple times a day. Again if you can imagine 28 living units as opposed to mini-storage which would generate maybe one or two cars in there a day. So again we feel that the traffic back there is greatly minimized from what we are allowed to build today. The apartment complex on the front faces Republic. We feel that will minimize the surrounding neighborhood. And I could get you to look at page 9 in your packet I would like to go through staffs recommendations if I could. Item number one is acceptable to us. That is how we intended to meet the R-2.5 district as we originally submitted. Item number two is also acceptable. Item number three, in our planning we feel 15 ft. is excessive so if you were to approve this plan we would ask that you would Salina Planning Commission May 20, 2003 Page 2 consider putting a 10ft. landscape buffer in lieu of 15 ft. What that does to us, when we take 15 ft. off of that side it is almost impossible to get our 24 ft. lanes that staff is recommending on item two. So with a 10ft. aisle we feel we have got enough clearances to make that work. The rest of the items, four with the identification, we support that. We think that is a great idea. We don't know at this point whether the developer will even have signage back there for the mini- storage, but we support staff's recommendation to go ahead and set that. Item number five we are in agreement with. If there is a lot split that will come back before you. Item number six as with any plan we do understand that there is going to have to be some drainage studies and all that engineered and worked out to be submitted prior to building permit. Same thing with item number seven in terms of maintaining the ponding area and etc. Items eight and nine as well. With that we would ask that you approve this submittal to go PDD with the R-2.5 in the front with an eight unit complex maximum and the six buildings on the mini- storage and Dean I might ask for clarification, when you say six units we are anticipating that that is what you are counting in this drawing that we see today. We are showing three. Mr. Andrew stated right three in the first phase and three in the second. I am referring to the total buildings not units. Mr. Gillam stated that is the way we interpret that as well. One last statement before I open it up for questions, if I were to get you to go back to your alternatives that were presented on page eight. For the applicant and the landowner, item number one is the only real acceptable alternative that we have. Two, three, four and five are really not acceptable, so at that point you might as well deny. They have tried to develop this property many times as Dean had stated last time we met. It is a very difficult property to develop so we do ask for your favorable approval. Are there any questions of me? I might also add, in terms of lighting I know that was also an issue. It is the developer's intent to not light these units at night so that people can come and go. He will have some security lighting around the site. He doesn't expect people coming in at 1 :00 at night and loading and unloading those units. We had even talked about a gate where he will have a control button the mini-storage could be locked off at night so that people can only access those units during the day. So again in terms of light we are not looking at any big flood lights or anything so that people can load and unload at night. We are truly looking at these units as being loaded and unloaded during the day without any night activity. With that are there any questions? Or Wallace did you have anything to add? Wallace Holmes stated I would just like to emphasize that I am trying to take in all of these conditions for the neighbors around there. We are trying to make it acceptable for everyone. I am trying to landscape the west side, trying to keep it not visible to Republic to the apartment building to take care of that. I think it is a good zoning change. Mr. Gillam asked are there any questions? Mr. Salmon asked did I understand you to say that the mini-storage -will. be fenced? Mr. Gillam stated yes. Mr. Salmon asked and what kind of surface do you anticipate on the lanes leading into mini-storage area? Mr. Gillam stated it will be gravel or crushed rock. Mr. Salmon stated my first concem was about the dust that those streets might produce in the neighborhood. Mr. Gillam stated again they are always between the mini-storage buildings and as you know you are not going to be driving these at a great speed. 20 mph is about the max. It is a fairly small area. So I agree. As we have all seen a car Salina Planning Commission May 20, 2003 Page 3 traveling 30 to 40 mph on a dirt road creates a lot of dust. As you enter into this small lot if you will, the traffic speed and the amount of traffic is going to be minimal. So we really don't foresee any dust. Mr. Salmon stated thank you. Mr. Gillam stated I am glad you asked that. I want to remind everybody that directly north of us is a true 1-2 lot and we have monitored that and it does create some dust. They have buses and heavy traffic going in there all hours of the day. This facility that we are proposing will not. Mr. Hass asked are there any further questions of the applicant? Hearing none are there any members of the general public that wish to address this application? Gary Percival, 1001 W. Republic, which is right directly south. One of the things that concerns me is the entrance in and out ot there is 24 ft. wide. I believe my driveway is 22 ft. which sits directly opposite ot their entrance. I will have to back out onto Republic with traffic coming from three directions now. I kind of view that as a safety issue. They will be coming out from the north nose first, plus I will have the east west traffic at that point. Sometimes it is a pain trying to get onto Republic anyway. And my thing about that safety is if I am backing out and he comes out head first, who has the right-ot-way me or him? I know it I get hit who has the right-of-way. It is the people coming from the north. They would be coming out front and I will be backing out. Mr. Hass asked are there any other members of the public that wish to address this application? Karl Warhurst, I own a property at 924 Hancock. It is a rental property for one of our employees at this time. That is the reason why I am down here. Mr. Hass asked where abouts is your home in relationship to this? Mr. Warhurst asked where I live? Mr. Hass stated your rental property. Mr. Warhurst stated it would be fourth or fifth off of Republic on Hancock coming back to the north. I don't have any complaints about duplexes or the apartment buildings. I am not real thrilled about the mini-warehouse system. That is one of the deals where you can have people going in there all the time. How do you restrict somebody from going in there at night? You shut the gate, they still have to have access to their property. I am just not real thrilled about the mini- warehouse part. Mr. Gillam stated we would be happy to address that. When somebody rents or utilizes mini-storage or a unit, they will sign basically a lease agreement and it will be stated on that lease agreement the hours of operation. So we can stipuJate when people can and cannot get into those units. Mr. Andrew asked Jeff you are planning some sort of gated entry so that there would be an arm or something at the gate that would have to raise up tor somebody to go in? Mr. Gillam stated yes and it does show on the site plan. There is a gate and we are anticipating a key punch tor people that have storage in there. This will have a code to get in and out but that shuts off at, say 10:00 p.m. on. Mr. Ramage asked Jeff what will be your security lighting plan? Mr. Gillam stated we are anticipating just some small incandescent lights on the building. The tirst phase is about 140 ft. so we may have three small lights on that side so that there is just small general lighting. Again it would be much less Salina Planning Commission May 20, 2003 Page 4 lighting than if you were to have residents in there. Just enough so if somebody went to police the area, there would just be some minimal lighting so they could see around the units. Mr. Hass stated anyone else wish to address this application? Hearing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mrs. Yarnevich asked is the difference between the 10ft. that they ask for and the 15 ft. that we stipulate a major problem? Mr. Andrew stated I guess if you refer to the plan, the city's landscaping regulations require a 15 ft. buffer between non-residential and residential uses. It is more of a setback requirement, what is being requested here, I think that down where the apartment is and the parking area in there, we easily have or exceed our 15 ft. buffer. I think what Mr. Gillam is referring to is if you look up to that northern area, that strip with the evergreen plantings, if that were 15 ft. wide that would encroach into what is really needed for aisle space for access up and down. Not just for customers but for emergency vehicles as well. So the real judgement call for you is not so much maybe the width of the buffer but how effective you think the plan is for planting evergreen trees. What you will have is somebody's rear yard property line then you will have this evergreen tree buffer and then you will have a chain link fence that will provide security for the mini- storage area. So really rather than focusing so much on the width, focus on what they are proposing as the buffer between mini-storage and the rear yards and whether you think that is effective. Because it is really more a visual screen than anything else. Mrs. Yarnevich asked and we feel those trees can be planted within the 10ft.? Mr. Andrew stated yes there are trees in there today that are within, almost all of them are within a utility easement so I think you can accommodate those trees within those 10 ft. areas. The 15 ft. came from an ordinance requirement, and again, as a planned development district, we are able to customize to meet the needs of a particular property or particular development. MOTION: Mr. McDowell moved that the Planning Commission modify the future land use plan designation on the north two thirds of this property from medium-density residential to industrial. SECOND: Mr. Ramage seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Hass stated now we will consider the application itself. MOTION: Mr. McDowell moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of #PDD/R-2.5 and PDD/I-2 zoning for this property as requested by the application to include the 10 conditions listed by the staff modifying condition number three to a 10ft. landscape buffer understanding that the evergreen screen will be FJut Jnto that area adding a condition that the development will be made in conformance with the site plan that has been presented to us today. SECOND: Mr. Hedges seconded the motion. Mr. Hedges asked Dean is it wise for us to say 10ft. or is it better to remain silent? Mr. Andrew stated I think it is wise to say 10ft. because if this came in strictly as a building permit application and there wasn't any zoning involved, that we would literally apply the ordinance and the 15 ft. would be required. So I think calling out the 10ft. is important. Mr. Hass stated so the motion stands as presented. Salina Planning Commission May 20, 2003 Page 5 VOTE: #3. Motion carried 7-0. Application #P03-3/3A filed by Michael Bostater and Pat Bolen requesting approval of a replat of the Replat of Block One, less the west 75 feet of the Riverdale Addition to the City of Salina, Kansas to be known as the Bolen Addition. Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file. Mr. Hass asked are there any questions of staff? applicant's representative care to comment? Nick Schmidt, I represent Garber Surveying. As Dean was ying this was basically to correct a surveying error in the past. Our bigges roblem was that when we conducted this survey a couple of months ago the was approximately 7 1/2 ft. of air left over in the right-of-way off of Ohio Stre . Basically our clients wanted to get that fixed and that is why we have a re at going through today. Also the sale of Lot 5 would be encroaching on Lot so we have redrawn lot lines. Our only concern with staff's recommendati is the inclusion of the west 75 ft. They didn't want any part of the replat in 1 and they show no interest at this time as well. We feel that it would be j a little bit too much hassle to include them at this point this far along. 0 clients have been waiting quite a while to get this through and we don't fe that it would be feasible to include them at this point. If you have any quest's I would be happy to answer them. ft. or what would they do with it? Mrs arnevich asked did that pr ent any complications for their property? r. Schmidt stated no it shouldn't. T only complication it would present is if we included it we would have to contact th owner, have their signature on this plat as well as redraw up their deed and ge at corrected as well. Right now as Dean was saying basically from a lot numb' g standpoint it is just a difficulty of understanding. Mr. Schmidt stated no. Mrs. Yarnevich asked does it change any of their b Mr. Hass asked are there any other questions of staff? H ring none are there any members of the public that wish to address this applica ? Hearing none we will bring it back to the Commission for discussion and poss e action. Dean do we have any problems with the west 75 ft. not being included? Mr. Andrew stated no we are just speaking in the ideal world situation. What we have is the owner of that optometrist office has the west 75 ft. of a I:) ck that doesn't exist anymore. So when this becomes recorded as the Bolen A ¡tion, and that is the way that all of these lots are going to be indexed and referred, it is going to create some confusion in some real estate transactions about w that piece is a part of since the rest of the block won't exist anymore. It is the west 75' of Block 1 of the Riverdale Addition and with the renaming of this as the (Published in the Salina Journal on June, 2003) ORDINANCE NUMBER 03-10148 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SALINA AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 8526, THE SAME BEING CHAPTER 42 OF THE SALINA CODE, AND THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP THEREIN AND THEREBY ADOPTED AND PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY AND PRESCRIBING THE PROPER USES THEREOF. WHEREAS, all conditions precedent for the amendment of the Zoning District Map, the rezoning of certain property therein, hereinafter described has been timely complied with, SO NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Governing Body of the City of Salina, Kansas: Section 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. That the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to change the designation of the following described property fÌ"om Medium-Density Residential to Industrial: The North Three hundred and ninety (390) feet of Lot One (1), Block One (1) of the Timberline Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DISTRICT "PDD", PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. That the Zoning District Map of the City of Salina, Kansas, duly adopted and published as a part of Ordinance Number 8526, the same being Chapter 42 of the Salina Code, be and it is hereby amended so that the following described property be rezoned as follows, to-wit: Lot One (1), Block One (1) of the Timberline Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas. shall become a part of DISTRICT "PDD", PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Section 3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. That the use of said described property shall be subject to all conditions, restrictions and limitations as made and provided for in Ordinance Number 8526, the same being Chapter 42 of the Salina Code with reference to the PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Development of the property shall be subject to the plans on file with the City Planning Commission and/or City Clerk and the following conditions, to-wit. 1. Development of the South 170 feet of Lot 1 shall be limited to a multi-family apartment building with up to eight (8) dwelling units and shall be subject to the bulk regulations in the R-2.5 Multi-Family Residential District except that the maximum building height shall be 35ft. 2. Development on the North 390 ft. of Lot shall be limited to no more than six (6) mini- warehouse buildings and shall be subject to the bulk regulations in the 1-2 Light Industrial District. A 24 ft. separation or driving aisle shall be provided between buildings. 3. A 10 ft. landscape buffer shall be provided along the west side of Lot 1 and shall include a densely planted row of evergreen trees to screen the apartment site and mini- warehouse site from adjacent residential property. 4. A single directional or identification sign for the mini-warehouse business not exceeding 15 sq. ft. in size shall be pennitted at the Republic Avenue entrance to the property. 5. Lot 1 shall not be subdivided without fonnal approval of a lot split by the Planning Department to insure that adequate frontage and access is maintained for the rear portion of Lot 1. 6. The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan and construction plans for a stonn water detention pond for approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building pennits for the apartment building or mini-warehouse units. 7. The applicant must satisfactorily complete construction of the ponding area prior to issuance of any occupancy pennits for the apartment building or mini-warehouse units. 8. The applicant will prepare a maintenance agreement providing for maintenance ofthe ponding area and any inlets, ditches or pumps associated with moving stonnwater off the site. 9. Design plans for water line extensions and fire hydrant needed to provide fire protection to this site shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Utilities and Fire Chief prior to issuance of any building pennits for this site. 10. Development of the site shall substantially confonn to the approved preliminary development plan which is filed in the Planning Department and is herein incorporated by reference. Section 4. That all prior ordinances in conflict herewith as they relate to the above described real estate are hereby repealed. Section 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption and publication once in the official city newspaper. Introduced: June 16,2003 Passed: June 23,2003 Alan E. Jilka, Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST: Lieu Ann Nicola, City Clerk