Loading...
01-21-1999 Minutes MINUTES SALINA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COMMISSION ROOM - ROOM 107 THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 1999 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Leek, Hardy, May, Sterrett, Umphrey and Worth MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Andrew, Peterson and Fisher #1. The minutes of the Special Meeting January 7, 1999 were approved as presented. #2. Reconsideration of Application #V98-9, filed by Terry and Carol Reed, requesting a maximum garage size variance of 1,630 sq. ft. to allow a 2,400 sq. ft. detachc~d garage. The subject property is legally described as all of Lots 1 and 33 and the South 25 ft. of Lots 2 and 32, Block 5 of the Golden Eagle Estates Addition to the City of Salina (aka 2351 Huntington Road). Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is found in the case file. Mr. Hardy asked are there any questions for staff at this time? Mr. Peterson stated our recollection, mine very specifically, of the event that took place in terms of the City Commission meeting, did not turn out to be word for word what I had thought it had been when we reviewed the tape of that meeting carefully. There was a separation of the discussion with the City Commission about the driveway and then this issue. I had thought they were all in one part of the discussion and that the Ci1y Commission had in fact wanted to control the driveway access. Those discussions took place at two separate times, not at the same time and it appears on the tape that there is obvious reason for Mr. Reed to have the assumption, and bear in mind he bought this lot after that meeting, to believe he had approval for that driveway. It was not clear that the Ci~y Commission wanted to restrict that access and so my point that I wanted to bring up is to correct the impression that I left with you last time that the City Commission I believe had wanted to control that access. I may be right but in am right it is because I was reading minds, not because they stated it that clearly, so it isn't clear in the meeting tape when Dc~an and I went back and reviewed it really, really carefully that that was their intent and we had given you, I specifically had given you, that impression last time and I thought we ought to clear that up. Mr. Hardy asked on that west lot where the garage is built would there enough space to allow a house as well that is larger than that garage and still meet the coverage requirements? - Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Andrew stated I think we had that discussion a little bit at the last meeting and Mr. Sterrett brought that up. We kind oflooked at the numbers after we read the minutes and he is about right on the mark in tenns of that is a 2,400 sq. ft. garage. You could have a 2,400 sq. ft. house and build it in this location and it would not exceed the coverage limit for that particular lot and you would have to have a house at least 2,400 sq. ft. to go with that garage or there is the possibility that you could attach a house to that garage or you I:x>uld attach part of a house to that garage and convert part of the garage to a house. I think Mr. Peterson and I discussed that last week as well, that given the type of construction of this particular garage, there is a possibility that in the future a portion of it could be converted to a house because of the way it is being built. - Mr. Peterson stated that would seem the most logical thing, if you were to try to buy this lot separate from the other, you could attach a house and convert part of that garage to living space and part of it to garage. It is so big that it would be really hard, I think to find someone else, at least your pool of buyers would be extremely limited who would be interested in a 2.400 sq. ft. garage with residential use. But you could take part of it and turn it into family room or great room and still build a house added onto it. From a zoning standpoint it would be fme. Mrs. Leek stated this will I really believe be something of the future. Mr. Peterson stated I would anticipate that the Reed's won't do it but I would anticipate the next owner, once the Reed's have finished the use of their property either because they relocate because as we all know at some point owners change, it always happens and the next owner's potential I think is going to be to do something different. It would just be hard to find another individual whose needs would match this set up. Mr. Hardy asked are there any other questions? Mr. Sterrett asked now that is 115 ft. of frontage is that what I am seeing on Eaglecrest? Mr. Peterson stated yes. Mr. Sterrett asked 115 ft. of frontage so basically what we are looking at there is the fact that the City may have to incur the cost of the 115 ft. road and curb and gutter without the special assessment being attached to the Reed's? Mr. Andrew stated the theory behind assessing the cost of the street to the lot it fronts on is that that lot receives a benefit from having access or use of that street and if you restrict access for reasons other than traffic safety reasons then it is difficult to justify, it is justifiable to deny access to Magnolia with a driveway because of safety reasons, so as not wanting to Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 3 have driveways backing into a heavily traveled street, but it is more difficult from a traffic safety reason to say no driveway on Eaglecrest because of heavy traffic. MOTION: Mr. Sterrett stated in light of that I know we had great discussion last meeting as far as whether they should have the access or not have the access and from my perspective as a board member setting up here also as a taxpayer and representative of the people of Salina I feel that there is no sense in the entire city having to incur the cost of such frontage when the entire city isn't going to be able to use or have the usage that the Reed's will have and I would make a motion that '~e approve the variance willi the exception of number two that we delete number two. Mr. Andrew stated we would be modifying number two to essentially allow access fi'om Huntington Road and a future access from EaglecresHmt maintain the statement about no acœss to Magnolia- Road. . Mr. Hardy asked would you like to modify that motion? MOTION TO MODIFY: Mr. Sterrett stated yes I will modify that, that there definitely be no egress on Magnolia the additional egress will only be to Eaglecrest and the points being Huntington and Eaglecrest access and that is all. SECOND: Mrs. Leek seconded the motion. Mr. May asked is Magnolia controlled access by city ordinance or is that by a plat. Mr. Andrew stated it is restricted access by the plat but your action here would just reinforce that so that the Reed's had notice of that as far as their site plan that any future owner could not anticipate having that access. Mr. May asked but if the owner wanted to come and without Magnolia being mentioned in here would the owner still have to come to the Board in order to get access onto Magnolia being this is shown on the plat? Mr. Andrew stated they could probably go to the City Commission and request a break in access to have the plat modified to do that. I can't see that being approved even if the lots were split. Mr. Sterrett stated well it is possible if they were to build on Magnolia and Eaglecrest and face it on Magnolia it is possible they could have a curb cut on Magnolia. Mr. Peterson stated very doubtful. Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Sterrett stated very doubtful. Mr. Peterson stated yes when we did the plat for that one the agreement was it would be restricted access, Magnolia is an arterial street, it is going to continue to carry more and more traffic similar to some other streets in town, it is just not a good place to do access, but by putting this in, even if the City Commission were to want to, you all would also or whoever this body lis comprised of people wise would also have to agree to that change somewhere in the future so we felt it had value to go ahead and restate it. VOTE: Motion carried 5-1 (Umphrey). #3. Application #V98-10, filed by Doug Bradley Trucking, requesting a building setback variance of 25 ft. to allow a zero front yard setback for a warehouse loading dock located in an 1-2 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is located at the NE Gomer of North and 10 Streets and addressed as 518 N. 10th Street. Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is found in the case file. Warren Ediger, 116 S. Santa Fe, there are several issues that I think I would like to point out about using that north section of concrete slab. The first is that it is an elevated slab it is at the same level as the rest of the building and it is up approximately 3 1/2 or 4 feet above the street level. So to create a space for a truck to back in off of Lincoln Ave. in a position to unload would require cutting that slab back doing some demolition work, some site work, to prepare that in creating a new dock recessed in there. It would still involve backing or driving on Lincoln Street and then backing into it so you would have some cost associated with making that preparation. The other thing about it is that that place is the unloading point at the far north end of the site and at the nan'ow end of the building. That makes it a very inefficient way of unloading a truck and distributing product through the building and then bringing it back out. The trucker and the people unloading will prefer to use existing docks and continue to use those rather than incur the difficulty of using the dock at the north end, so we would have the expense of creating that dock, the likelihood that it would see relatively little use and the continuation of the existing docks along the west side. One of the 01her questions that Dean had was whether or not we could work with a ten foot dock width in the parallel approach at that south dock on the west side. That means positioning a truck in a ten foot position adjacent to the building when you are backing up and parking parallel to it. The people from the tenant who is going to be doing that, came out, looked at that arrangement and felt like that was too close, that you would have difficulty placing the truck in that position and being able to unload it. Also unloading and then with the fork lift or other device and then turning and going into the building requires some maneuvering and positioning so that we need the additional feet just to be able to maneuver a fork lift or a hand lift and bring it into the building. I might also add that this has gone in for a hearing on a request for vacating part of the right-of-way. That was continuc:::d contingent on this meeting so we may be at a stalemate there. Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 -PageS Mr. Peterson asked this appears to show an existing driveway cut, more or less, am I correct? Mr. Ediger stated that is correct. Mr. Peterson asked and this is a small driveway cut? Mr. Ediger stated yes. Mr. Peterson asked what are your thoughts, are you going to try to utilize this cut and create a change in the radius so are we going to be pulling, stopping and then backing in like that? Mr. Ediger stated that is correct we would extend the paving parallel with the building so that the truck is pulling onto a hard surface. Mr. Peterson asked so you really won't need to change the driveway arrangement that is there now? The curb cut if you will. Mr. Ediger stated I believe that is right. Mr. Peterson stated because what I was going to point out is you already exceed by quite a bit the standard and so it might be difficult to convince Engineering to remove more curbing unless you are willing to narrow it up on the other end. Mr. Ediger stated I think the preferred option would be to shorten it on the north side, position it farther to the south so that we have more maneuvering room for the truck. Mr. Peterson stated and I think that has some potential with them. The other question that I had, are you showing a semi backing in this kind of an arrangement? . Mr. Ediger stated yes that is looking at the possibility of using a double ended dock. I am not sure that is essential in the dock arrangement. Mr. Peterson stated there will be two issues with that again, you are going to have a curb cut request that will probably exceed the standard. The other potential that I see, you are actually going to be backing across a lane of traffic, I am not sure that the Police Department would agree that that is a legal maneuver. This pretty well defines the legal maneuver, this may be existing but as we also know it is not legal to block that street so this is obviously a chance to make this a better situation, but I am not sure that we would be able to approve a truck maneuvering this way when Engineering actually gets the opportunity to look at that and gets with the Traffic Engineer and I didn't want to leave you any false impressions about that. - Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 6 Doug Bradley stated there really isn't a curb there, there is no curb along the whole building. It is just a drop off or whatever but it is not a curb. Mr. Peterson stated well one of the things that I wanted you to be sure of is we do the building pennit for this, Engineering may very well restrict that movement because from a traffic engineering standpoint I don't believe that is a legal maneuver. Mr. Bradley stated right now they are coming in, pointed across the street and backing into the dock which would be an illegal maneuver too. Mr. Peterson stated and this is certainly an improvement to that particular situation. Mr. Bradley stated it is always quite a bit easier to back on your driver's side as you are aware of. Mr. Peterson stated visibility. Mr. Bradley stated and that is one of the reasons they wanted that. Mr. Peterson stated and my thought was if we could do a narrower opening here and maybe pull in and then back up that might be considered a legal maneuver. Ijust didn't want you to get led astray, even if the Board would agree with this, this may still take some adjustment. With Engineering doing the traffic part. Mr. Bradley stated see there is actually about 25 feet that you can pull into, so :you would be completely off the street. Mr. Peterson stated I think if we did it the other way around it might be possible, but I didn't want to create any incorrect assumptions. Mr. Hardy asked are there any questions for the applicant from the Board? Mr. May asked what is the difference between your two docks there? All of your drawings that I have seen have indicated that you are going to primarily use the south dock what is the purpose of the north dock then? Mr. Ediger stated the north dock is an existing dock. Mr. May stated correct I understand that. Mr. Ediger stated what their primarily interested in using that one center dock, the one that is center to the building rather than the other one, that means off-loading outside moving material across the Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 7 elevated slab and in through the end of the building also. So if you use the middle dock, that positions the delivery material to the center of the building which is much easier and more efficient. Mr. May stated correct but does that mean the north dock in essence is going to be abandoned? Mr. Bradley stated well it does make access to that cement area that dock high cement area that is fenced in where part of the building burnt down, so if they have anything they want to unload that can sit outside, it is still fenced in so nobody can get to it, it is kind of like outside storage they could use it as, but they wouldn't be using it very often. Mr. Ediger stated there is also another means of getting up on that elevated slab, on the drawing you look at the far left side, there is a triangle down at the lower end, that shows a very steep ramp-that goes up onto that slab and you go through the gate in the fence and it can bring other options. Mr. May asked am I not correct on the north end of that slab it is very near ground elevation, existing ground elevation? Mr. Ediger stated it is a couple of feet at least. Mr. Peterson stated and my recollection Mr. May and I think I understand what you are saying, the ground has been built up, there is an offset there fÌ'om slab to ground but it is much less than at the south end, it would be, I understand the visual impact of what you have seen, I don't know how to explain it very well but the driveway that Mr. Ediger shows on this drawing is actually an earth benn, I believe there is a foot to 18 inches of off-set but it is not near as much as it is on the south side or towards the southern end. Mr. Ediger stated and it somewhat represented by the length of the ramp on that portion that we were just talking about that is on the far right side, the triangle at the top is longer than the: triangle at the bottom and that represents the approach up onto that elevated area. Mr. May stated I am not following that. Mr. Ediger stated these are both ramps which slope up to the elevated slab level and this is showing a shorter ramp, an existing shorter ramp than what this one is and that is because the grade on North Street is lower than the grade on Lincoln, so we do have less difference in grade between the elevated slab at this end of the building than we do at that end. Mr. May asked isn't there also an access in the middle of that fence there where you show a driveway? Mr. Ediger stated no. Mr. May stated there is not? Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Ediger stated there is a curb cut there but there is no way to get from this drive onto the slab. There is a change in grade there. Mr. Peterson stated Mr. May to take your question just a tad bit further, so Mr. Bradley, Mr. Ediger you are suggesting that this dock is going to remain and you would want to use it? Mr. Bradley stated yes it is the only access to the open area where part of the building burnt off. Mr. Peterson asked and it was set up initially for a parallel to the building access as I recall? The bumper set up here. Mr. Bradley stated yes. Mr. Peterson stated so again we would have to pull in and back up to it to perfonn a legal maneuver? Mr. Ediger stated yes. Mr. Peterson stated the original vacation of the 10 ft. on 10th Street allowed the construction of an uncovered dock where you didn't have to back up to the building perpendicular and that was done some time ago. It is our understanding that this recessed dock, although not done by the current owner was done in a relatively recent unpermitted event by the previous owner, so there is some question about its validity with the fact that it has a perpendicular access to the building, I don't believe there was a permit for the recessed dock and I believe there was some difficulty with the building permit for the opening at that location as well by the previous owner, not meaning to hold the current owner to those mistakes but I did want to clarify with you, the City did not approve the perpendicular dock you see on this drawing. Mr. Ediger stated I think it is also reasonable to point out that when he purchased the property, obviously he has inherited some less than ideal situations there and the intent of tills is to try and improve the access to the building and the traffic situation around it. Mr. Umphrey asked how many trucks a day are you going to load and unload? Mr. Bradley stated I think probably an average of eight or ten. Mr. Andrew asked and these would all be at the south dock? Eight to ten, that doesn't count the north dock? Mr. Bradley stated there probably wouldn't be at the north dock very many because if we have a covered dock on the south end that is one that they will use almost all the time basically, it is just in case they would have machinery or something they want to set in that fenced in area, so the south Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January21,1999 Page 9 dock would probably have eight or ten loads a day going in and out, the north dock may have one or two a month. Mr. Sterrett asked to the rear of the building, the existing building where I assume: there used to be an old railroad track or what have you, what is the width of that where those triangles are? Is that ten foot, twelve foot, fourteen foot? Mr. Bradley stated I believe it is about maybe 12 ft. or 10 ft. somewhere in there. Mr. Ediger stated yes it is between 10 and 12 ft. Mr. Sterrett asked was it ever designed perhaps for semis to back around across it? Mr. Peterson stated I don't think so, I think when you look, Dean can you show that previous site plan, the older one? Mr. Sterrett stated what I was getting at is there are some overhead doors in the back for the semi to just pull up through that. Mr. Peterson stated I think when you look at this and you look at what that previous use was, there was a rail site there but I also think you had small tractors moving in and out of this building using that ramp. I don't believe they ever intended, it is a wooden ramp system as I recall or was at one time, part of it is still there. Mr. Ediger stated it had a concrete topping on it, the east side of that is not in the best of condition. Mr. Peterson stated I think it was for the tractors and that was pretty traditional at the time and genre of this building for International Harvestor and for some of the other equipment dealers, they were moving the small tractors and the tractors they had when this building were built were quite a bit smaller than a semi or even probably a pick up in terms of its turning radius, its ability, I think that is what it was for, but you find a lot of the old wooden docks with International Harvestor buildings from the 50's it is pretty traditional. Mr. Sterrett asked so structurally that is not viable? Mr. Peterson stated yes you would have to redo it for certain things, it is the old bridge pier type. Mr. Sterrett asked so in essence they have a hardship situation perhaps in a way? Mr. Andrew stated I think one thing that I didn't clarify very well is what they do nl~ed a building permit for. And what they need a building pennit for is to turn that south dock that is recessed and Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 10 build an elevated dock and a permit to put a cover over it and the fact that they are putting a new covered structure in a district that requires a 25 ft. setback and wanting to put it at zero is the reason for the variance. The reason that they have also petitioned to vacate an additional part of 10th Street is because the dock that they have proposed is wider than what will fit between the front of the building and their property line so it is kind of a chicken and egg situation, do you vacate part of the street or consider that first or do you take it to the Board of Zoning Appeals and see if they are inclined to allow a zero setback on that street and look at the potential for an improved traffic situation over what we have today. Mr. Hardy asked what is the incidence of zero foot setbacks in 1-2 areas? Mr. Andrew stated in the older part of the community it is fairly common. Look at the two buildings here and here are 1-2, today the buildings would hay-€- to be set back to this point or this point, but at the time that they were built a zero setback was allowed. The Pepsi Cola bottling plant also has a zero setback if that were built today it would have to have a 25 ft. setback. The industrial zones before 1977 permitted a zero setback like you see in the downtown area in an industrial zone, so I think if the Board agrees that the north area, where the building burned down is ruled out as a loading area, then the focus needs to be on the justification on the size of this dock. Mr. Hardy asked if we permitted the variance, then it would be contingent upon the action of the City Commission to vacate a portion of 10th Street? Mr. Andrew stated correct, otherwise they would have to reduce the width of the dock because the only thing that you are authorized to grant then is the ability to extend it out to their current property line which is ten feet west of the building and by our measurements, the dock that they are proposing, I guess we will assume it is 15 ft. wide, that is bigger than what you are authorized to allow. But if you authorize the zero setback and the City Commission approves moving the property line then you have essentially approved that. But I think like I said we need to take this step by step and the Board needs to agree that the slab area to the north is not feasible for a loading dock and then the Board needs to agree that a 10 ft. dock on the south there is too narrow to be usea.ble and if you can reach those two conclusions, and are comfortable with the variance, it would have to be done contingent on additional right-of-way being vacated. Mr. Umphrey asked at what point are neighboring property owners to be brought into this discussion? The building across the street where Cruce Produce used to be, the auto repair etc. that are there, have they been notified of these intentions? Mr. Andrew stated yes. Mr. Umphrey asked will they be notified? Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Andrew stated they will be notified on the street, although when you are only vacating half of a street and not an entire street or right-of-way on both sides, they are not directly affected. Mr. Umphrey stated I beg your pardon, you are saying these people's street is to be narrowed and you don't think they are affected? Mr. Andrew stated the right-of-way is to be narrowed. They will be notified, but because the other side of the street is not changed, their side doesn't change. They certainly have an argument that it is unfair to give the landowner on the east additional property to use and not be a1forded the same opportunity themselves. The only thing that was passed onto me by the owner of the property to the west was that they were opposed to the variance from the standpoint that the previous owner created the situation by putting in the recessed dock and extending it out into the right-of-way and the owner allowed as he didn't think that was justification to vacate additional right-of-way because of an action of a previous owner. Mr. Hardy asked the existing dock then does exceed the setback? Encroaches into the right-of-way? Mr. Andrew stated the existing dock at the north end, this is perfectly legal becaus(~ this edge right here is where the actual property line is today. Mr. Umphrey asked then how far does the south dock go past the property line to the west? Mr. Andrew stated about 5 ft as proposed. Mr. Umphrey stated no as it exists now. Mr. Peterson stated probably 8 ft. Mr. Umphrey asked 8 ft. past? Mr. Peterson stated the recessed area is probably 8 ft. past that. Mr. Umphrey asked the corrected property line? Mr. Andrew stated yes. Mr. Umphrey asked not the one that was thought to be original? Mr. Peterson stated right, you have a recessed dock from the face of this building which comes out to here which we believe to be at least 18 and maybe as much as 20 ft. The first 10 feet was vacated years ago, so to try and make the existing recessed dock, which the Engineering Dept. wouldn't even entertain, but to try to make it legitimate we would have had to vacate 20 ft. Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Umphrey stated 18 to 20 ft. or an additional 10 feet. Mr. Peterson stated right and this was what Mr. Cruce across the street was making a point of. He didn't want you as a board to look at this recessed dock as essentially getting rid of it as a justification for this dock because this was never permitted, this was never legally installed and he wanted to clarify that for us and for you, he wanted you to make this decision base.d strictly on the merits of this dock and whether or not it was approved, this recessed dock was never granted authority, was never given permission, it was installed without any permits, without any knowledge of any City Officials, it was never legally done, he wanted to clarify, even though Mr. Bradley isn't - the one that did it and we are not trying to hold Mr. Bradley accountable for thàt, he didn't want you to get the impression that because you made a bad situation better that that was a good reason to make the decision because it should never have been there. We could actually legally ask for it to be removed. - Mr. Umphrey asked are you saying then that if we were to consider allowing a 15 ft. dock we would actually lessen the encroachment into the street by some 3 ft. from what now exists? Mr. Peterson stated yes maybe even as much as five feet. The dock that is proposed in many ways is positive, if you accept as Dean said, that you cannot do one on the north end. Mr. Bradley stated actually it is 25 ft. that it is out to the street. And we will be moving it back 10 ft. and as far as Mr. Cruce was saying, right now everybody out there blocks the street and ifwe take more people away from blocking the streets, I would hate to be a prope~ owner out there with that street blocked all the time, I guess you can go up and around. Mr. Umphrey asked well you are a property owner out there aren't you? Mr. Bradley stated I mean somebody that lives there, has to go there everyday to their house and things. Mr. Peterson stated it is true that Mr. Cruce's activity, his doors are perpendicular to the street so he had the same challenge although his has been that way for quite some time. Mr. Sterrett asked what is the Commission being asked? What are they going to vacate? Are they asking to vacate 5 ft. or 10ft.? Mr. Andrew stated they petitioned to have 15 ft. vacated, because on the survey, the site plan, no one was aware that 1 0 ft. had already been vacated to allow that existing loading dock that you see today. Mr. Sterrett stated and he is saying that 10 ft. is not enough for that back loading dock. He says 12 ft. to 15 ft. Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Peterson stated well and I think obviously today when you are trying to back a semi to a dock, Doug help me out here, the vehicle itself is 8 1/2 ft. wide and then the mirrors and things like that 10 ft. would be good. Mr. Peterson stated I can't fault them for wanting the 15 fl., I just it is going to be tough to back a semi and match to the dock correctly and not scrape the building. The 15 ft. is a necessity. Mr. Umphrey asked so we are being asked to authorize a 5 ft. variance? Mr. Hardy stated or a zero foot setback. Mr. Peterson stated zero setback. Mr. Andrew stated I think the way to put it is that you are comfortable with this dock configuration, with this extension on the front of the building and this configuration and then ultimately two things are going to happen if you approve this variance. Either they are going to be allowed to only have a 10 ft. dock or if they go to the City Commission and the Commission vacates additional right-of- way then they can have 15 ft. dock. MOTION: Mr. Umphrey moved to allow the variance of 10ft. with zero setback to allow the south dock to extend to the existing property line. SECOND: Mr. Sterrett seconded the motion. Mr. May asked when you are talking about a zero setback your implication in the motion is that you are talking about a 10ft. dock. Mr. Hardy stated if the City Commission does not act. Mr. May stated no but if it is a zero setback and the City Commission gives five feet then they can build 15 ft. Mr. Peterson stated correct. Mr. Umphrey stated as far as we can go is zero setback, whatever that setback is. Mr. Sterrett asked will he have to pull up the curb and gutter? Mr. Peterson stated Mr. Bradley is indicating that there may not be any there, we will work something out with Engineering. Mr. Andrew stated I think what will occur is if the Engineering Department agrees to vacate Salina Board of Zoning Appeals January 21, 1999 Page 14 additional right-of-way they are going to condition it on making some improvements to define the driveways and the loading areas there on that side. But the way that Mr. Umphrey has phrased his motion, there is no reason to condition it on any action the City Commission takes" you are saying that you are comfortable with the dock extending to the property line and that is whereever that ends up. I think that the issue is that do you see this configuration as an improvement over what we have today. Mr. Umphrey stated that is what I intended to say because there are already several precedents right on the same block where there are zero setbacks so we are not setting any new precedents by my wording the motion that way. Mr. Hardy asked is there any further discussion? Hearing none I call for the question. VOTE: Motion carried 5-1 (May). Mr. Andrew stated now what we will do is we will do is transmit your decision to the Engineering Department and to the City Commission to reactivate that vacation request. #4. Other matters. Mr. Peterson stated I just have one other thing, in the future when we go about changing rules we have already talked about, Dean and I have, we intend to do something in that rule change with the Planning Commission that will make it much easier and much more clear that we are not going to be issuing permits in the interim that would be in violation of the proposed regulation so that you won't have to go through the kind of agony that you have gone through two meetings in a row and I appreciate the fact that you have done that and I apologize for all that you have been through, you have handled it gracefully and I appreciate it very much. Mr. Andrew stated as far as other matters, at this point and time we do not have anything scheduled for a February meeting, I think we have until the end of this week and at this time we have no business pending but we will notify you either way. There being no other business the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. ~~a~ Dean Andrew, Assistant Secretary