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