05-18-2000 Minutes
MINUTES
SALINA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION ROOM - ROOM 107
THURSDAY MAY 18, 2000
4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Hardy, May, Morris, Sterrett, Worth and Umphrey
Leek
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew, Fisher and Peterson
Mr. Randall acted as Chair and called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
#1.
Approval of Minutes of meeting on February 17, 2000.
The minutes of the February 17,2000 meeting were approved as presented.
#2.
Application #VOO-5, filed by Darwin Henry, requesting a maximum garage size
variance of 142 sq. ft. from 770 sq. ft. to 912 sq. ft. to allow construction of a 16 ft.
x 24 ft. addition onto an exiting detached garage in an R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) District. The subject property is legally described as the South 1/2 of
Lot 11 on 9th Streetin the Prescott Addition to the City of Salina and addressed as
651 S. 9th Street.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report as contained in the case file.
Mr. Hardy asked are there any questions orSt~:lff?
Mr. Sterrett asked I remember in the past we have dealt with this issue several times and
I thought that we pretty much had a formula established that with a 5,000 ft. lot we were
going to basically give them 770 sq. ft. of storage or garage structure?
Mr. Andrew stated what happened was we got away from the formula where the sliding
scale, we now have a maximum size regardless of how big your lot is and also a cap that
says a garage cannot be larger or taller than the house on the same lot and that it must be
residential and not commercial in appearance. So there is no formula at this point, it is the
Board's job to focus on those points that I just made is what is his justification for the
additional size in this case on this property. Will what he is building be residential in
appearance? Will it have a negative impact on neighbors? And is there a hardship to him
if he is limited to 24 ft. x 32 ft.?
Mr. Umphrey asked are there additional out buildings that would be allowed on this lot?
Mr. Andrew stated the ordinance allows you to have a detached garage and you can also
have a separate storage building for lawn equipment or things like that as long as it doesn't
exceed 360 sq. ft. So you are limited to two buildings, one can be a garage and one can
be a storage building but you can't have two garages.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 2
Mr. Hardy asked would the applicant care to comment?
Darwin Henry 651 S. 9th, Salina, Ks.
Mr. Hardy asked do you have comments that would help the Board in making this
decision?
Mr. Henry stated my intention is, I have three vehicles, we have a classic pickup and our
two vehicles that we drive, my wife one to work and I am wanting to park the all three of
them in so I would like to park the pickup in first and my car behind them and with that, my
pickup measure 18 ft. in length and the car measures 15 ft. The other car-measures 16
1/2 ft. I am not always going to have the smaller one, some day we will probably trade the
smaller one òff and keep the big one, but if you look at the measurement with the 6 ft.
variance, I would have 38 ft. but that is outside so you are going to loose approximately 8
inches on the inside which is going to leave a little over 4 ft. 4 inches to be able to keep the
vehicles away from each other and still have room to walk into the garage and around it.
I also have a snow blower with a long driveway and lawn mowers, and I want to be able
to have a work bench in the front on the other side so that I don't have to b~lck the car out
every time I want to do something in there and just normal stuff that you haVE! to store. The
house has steel siding, the garage matches it as you can see in the picture. That steel
siding is still available and that is what we will put up around the rest of it. The garage is
14 1/2 ft. tall from the peak. Y 00 can't see jt b~cause of the tree but the house actually is
a bungalow, there is another bedroom up above that you can't see in the picture which
looks a little different from when you are seeing it from the street. As far as the neighbors,
the house to the north is empty, the house to the south, I have lived there! for 24 years,
they have lived there all that time, I know it is not a problem for him. If you go out and look,
the neighbors behind us have a great big shed and there is a lot of trees in that area, really
there is nothing in that view that this garage is going to take up that they an:! going to see
anyway. I don't know if that answers everything. It is going to be a wood frame structure
just like the rest of it with the steel siding on the outside. With the 10 ft., without the 6 ft.
variance there is no way that we could get the cars in one behind the other and like I said,
we do keep our automobiles 10 years, I do like to have it inside, there are a lot of trees and
we have the birds doing their things so this is the reason that I wanted to bE:! able to have
the extra room.
Mr. Hardy asked are there any questions of the applicant?
Mr. Worth asked you would use the existing driveway, you would not have to construct an
additional driveway around to the side or anything to get in there?
Mr. Henry stated that is true. What I would do is just where you could SeE! the garage I
would just put one vehicle in and pull the other vehicle in behind it.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 3
Mr. May asked I see about three different dimensions on the application, it is says 24 ft.
x 22 ft. on the drawing it shows 22 ft. 4 inches and then we talk about a 2:4 ft. which one
is it?
Mr. Henry stated the garage actually now is 22 ft. and 4 inches in width and! 22 ft. long and
I want to keep the 22 ft. and go on 16 more feet to the east.
Mr. May asked you are wanting to keep the 22 ft. 4 inch width but not the 24 ft. width?
Mr. Henry stated we will keep the same width, right.
Mr. Andrew stated there is a discrepancy about what we have in the staff report and what
is actually measured out there, I think we said it was 24 ft. wide in the staff report and it is
actually 22 ft. and 4 inches. So the garage will not actually be as large square footage
wise as we have indicated because it is not 24 ft. wide, it is only 22 ft. 4 inches wide times
38 not 24 times 38.
Mr. Sterrett asked it is my understanding then that we are just going to basically move the
ridge back an additional 16 ft. and therefore we area just going to be addin£1 approximately
355 sq. ft. to the existing structure?
, ' 7'
Mr. Henry stated right and I am sorry, I meant it is 24 ft. wide right now and that is what we
are going to use is the 24 ft. in width and like you said just add 16 ft. to th~:! east.
Mr. Sterrett asked 384 sq. ft. approximate.
Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Henry are you saying the roof is 24 ft. wide, not the base wall-to-
wall?
Mr. Henry stated this is outside measurement from the outside, that doesin't include the
overhang. That is the outside.
Mr. Andrew stated the drawing is mislabeled Charlie.
Mr. May asked the add on is mislabeled?
Mr. Andrew stated the drawing says 22 ft. 4 inches, the drawing should say 24 ft. 4 inches
on the width and 22 ft. deep.
Mr. Henry stated the original garage was 12 ft. 4 inches and we added 12 ft. in width which
makes it 22 ft. and 4 inches. That is the walls.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 4
Mr. Sterrett asked and that existing setback am I seeing that correct sir. ThE:! one foot and
eight inches off the side property line?
Mr. Henry stated right.
Mr. Sterrett asked and the trees that I saw earlier, when we add on hopefully, are we going
to be harming those trees at all?
Mr. Henry stated nope, there is plenty of room, as a matter of fact there is ~mother tree in
the backyard that you can't see that will still be approximately 16 ft. from the garage.
Mr. Hardy asked are there any other questions? Hearing none have we had any
correspondence on this one?
Mr. Andrew stated no.
Mr. Hardy asked is there anyone in the audience that would have comments regarding this
issue? Hearing none I will bring this back to the Board for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Sterrett stated I sure like the idea, in looking at total square footage that the lot actually
covers, that to me warrants justification for approval of this variance. Looking back on it
the lot size when I came to the uniqueness part, the number one thing that we had to
satisfy the lot size itself was unique when we are talking 10,000 sq. ft. and then Mr. Henry
mentioned the fact that he does have three vehicles that he does need to store and I just
felt that his presentation was pretty good and I am in favor of it.
MOTION:
Mr. Worth moved to approve the application.
SECOND:
Mr. Sterrett seconded the motion.
Mr. Umphrey asked since I mentioned other outbuildings would this be an additional out
building if we were to approve this would an additional outbuilding of up to :360 ft. still be
allowable?
Mr. Peterson stated yes unless you put it as a condition today to limit that. There could be
a storage building built of up to 360 sq. ft. in addition to this garage.
Mr. Sterrett stated in looking at that I notice that the lot coverage I believe was 16% with
a variance and my understanding in R-1 is 30% lot coverage and R-2 is 35%.
Mr. Andrew stated what the 16% refers to is that this would be 16% larger than what the
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 5
current maximum allows.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0.
#3.
Application #V00-6, filed by Tom & Connie Pelesky, requesting a m~lXimum garage
size variance of 94 sq. ft. from 770 sq. ft. to 864 sq. ft. to allow construction of a 24
ft. x 36 ft. detached garage/storage building in a residential district. The subject
property is legally described as Lot 4, Block 4 in the Jarvis Addition to the City of
Salina and addressed as 601 Lena Avenue.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report as contained in the case file.
Mr. Hardy asRed are there any questions of staff?
Mr. May asked Dean is there not a patio there on the backside of the hou:se? Does that
count as part of the lot coverage or not?
Mr. Andrew stated yes a covered patio does count as part of the lot covera!~e. You would
have to address that to the applicant in terms of what their plans are for that, but that did
go into calculations in terms of them being over the 30% limitation if this package is
approved as is.
, ,1'
Mr. Sterrett asked how close are we to that: 30% Dean? Since I don't haVE! an illustration
to show me the size of that awning in the back, I am coming up with about 318 ft. in the
good so apparently.
Mr. Andrew stated that is in the building permit file, I don't have that in front of me but it is
not much over, but it is in the neighborhood of 31 to 32% coverage but we wanted to bring
that to your attention so that every variance can be handled at one time and not go back
and have you approve the one for the size and then discover that it exceeds the 30%
coverage as well.
Mr. Sterrett asked but you are saying that we will need to give a variance for the 30%? We
will exceed the maximum 30% but we just don't know exactly how much and therefore we
are going to be required to have a variance for that also, is that the way that I understand
that?
Mr. Andrew stated right if you approve the 24 x 36 garage and you allow the covered porch
with it, that taken together with the house will exceed the 30% coverage limitation in a
single-family zone.
Mr. May asked is that based on staff's calculation of 7,946 sq. ft.?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 6
Mr. Andrew stated yes, that is a number we came up with for the square footage of the lot.
Mr. May stated I have a major problem with that value. I think it is closer tl:) the 8,560 sq.
ft. Which only enters into the last comment.
Mr. Andrew stated that is what the County Appraiser's record say they own is the 7,900.
Mr. May stated well mathematically if you calculate it it is in excess of that.
Mr. Andrew stated yes the 30% is based on 7,900 number not the 8,500.
Mr. Sterrett stated we are probably in if we took the actual, or what we have, that was a
surveyed outline, we would not even be discussing the 30% part. Correct?
Mr. Andrew stated right that is based on our information from the County Appraiser that the
lot contains 7,900 sq. ft.
Mr. Hardy stated which is probably the information that we should rE~ly on for our
discussion.
Mr. Andrew stated to be safe, tha 30% covera9~' should be included if it is later determined
that the lot is bigger than that, then we alsòneed to inform the County Appraiser's Office
that their records are in error.
Mr. Hardy asked are there any other questions for staff at this time? Hearing none would
the applicant care to comment?
Connie Pelesky, 601 Lena, Salina, Ks. In reference to the square foota~~e, I have two
appraisals here, the original appraisal that was done when the house was bought by my
husband in 1993 plus another appraisal that was done within the last coupl,e of months to
get approval for a loan for the house. In the original appraisal it is 8,540 sq. ft., in the
secondary appraisal it was 8,300 sq. ft. if that would help with that point.
Mr. Peterson stated did I hear you correctly say that you do have a survey?
Mrs. Pelesky stated I don't have it here with me, it is in the appraisal.
Mr. Pelesky stated they even broke it down to the 10th 100, 114.23 by 53.E. by 123.66 by
90.
Mr. Peterson stated if we could get a copy of that survey, I think Mr. Hardy's comment is
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 7
well taken, I don't think that there is much question for the Board about the issue of the
30% it doesn't appear, and if we can get a copy of that survey it may not be a necessity,
but Dean's point was you don't want to leave that empty today and then have to come back
to it later.
Mrs. Pelesky stated I will get a copy of that survey for you tomorrow. In reference to the
storage, we also have two motor cycles as well as the boat and the truc:k that will go in
there, we have patio furniture. The covered patio on the back of the house will eventually
be removed and a room put there for dining, because the kitchen is very small it does not
afford very much area to dine in. So we will have to have someplace to put the patio
furniture, the barbecue grilhthesmoker etc. As well as four bicyèles. .
Mr. Pelesky'stated we already went through the 30% coverage and they explained to us
how much the garage would be, how much the patio would change into a dining room and
even with adding that dining room we were still below the 30%.
Mr. Pelesky stated I have pictures here of everything that needs to be storE:!d in the garage
if you need those. The shed will be removed, there is a small shed in the back where the
garage is at and that will be removed, so all the things that are in the :shed, the snow
blower, motorcycle, lawnmower, gardening utilities, I am an avid gardene!r. I do all kinds
of flowers and vegetables and so and so forth so all of that stuff will need to be stored in
the garage. '" ,
Mr. Pelesky asked in the pictures from Huntco they have it of the porch that was being
added on. We had mutton bar windows, we had mutton bar windows in the doors, we had
cedar posts and all of the neighbors said that is the prettiest garage you have ever seen
by adding that porch on, it made it look like a country home. The side view is what is
important, a lot of people said that it didn't look like a garage.
Mrs. Pelesky stated it will be aesthetically pleasing and will match the house.
Mr. Sterrett asked what kind of siding are you going to be using hene, Masonite, or
horizontal or what?
Mrs. Pelesky stated it will be attractive. It will be the same color as the house. With the
same overhang and wide trim with the steel blue. Eventually the shutters em the house will
match the ones on the garage. And we are planning to put aluminum or 1iberglass siding
onto the house and it will match the garage as well. This is a 10-year plan.
Mr. Pelesky stated the garage will be exactly like the house. The biggest thing is the boat,
it is 25 ft. from tongue to tail and it is a 19 1/2 ft. bayline and if I get another one it will
bigger and if we have 32 ft. and then you have your workbench you would have a bout 1
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 8
1/2 ft. between your prop and the workbench so that is why we were going the extra
length. We weren't really crazy about adding the porch but it is so pleasing to the eye that
is why we did it as it is quite an expense but it made it look not like an old !~arage.
Mr. Umphrey asked what is your eventually use of the existing attached ~Jarage, is that
going to remain a garage?
Mrs. Pelesky stated it will stay a garage, it will store my car.
Mr. Pelesky stated -right now we all have to get out of the car except the driver to put it in
because the garage is not very wide.
Mr. Worth asked what about access to the proposed garage, would you have to build
another driveway to it?
Mr. Pelesky stated no we are done.
Mrs. Pelesky stated the drive is already there.
Mr. Pelesky stated we are about 6 ft. short fr9m making the approach into it. Mr. Albers
who lives just two doors down has been on the project from the curb cut back knowing that
the garage would be there someday. ' ,. ,
Mr. Sterrett asked so where the boat is sitting now you are going to use that drive.
Mr. Pelesky stated you can just like the drawing there a little bit that they are going to have
to leave. It is not quite like the drawing would be but it is about 5 or 6 ft. to pour from where
the boat was sitting in the picture to where the garage will start.
Mr. Sterrett asked when you bought this land did you have two curb cuts at that time.
Mr. Pelesky stated no I didn't, it is an exceptionally large frontage. And WE:! had enough
area, that is why we have so many square feet because it all of the lots around us was a
square lot, but ours was the one that got all the pie put into it.
Mr. May asked when you say a steel building are you talking about a Butlelr building?
Mr. Pelesky stated Huntco makes their own building, just like their office out front if you
have ever been by there, they put the overhang and the cedar type porch onto it and it
looks very nice. They get their stuff out of Hesston, Kansas, they have others in town.
Mrs. Pelesky stated it is a 29 gauge colored galvanized steel.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 9
Mr. Sterrett asked are you going to two tones or one?
Mrs. Pelesky stated it will be two toned, steel blue with the white trim and the door will look
like this one so that it matches the house.
Mr. Sterrett stated the only thing that I had left would be, we are not going to exceed the
house height with the truce system are we?
Mrs. Pelesky stated no it will be the same.
Mr. Hardy as~ed has there been any comments by the neighbors or any correspondence?
Mr. Andrew stated the neighbor to the rear on Harold were somehow not clear on the letter
in terms of thinking that this would somehow move the fence line or change the common
boundaries between the homes, but once we explained that the garage would still be, the
fence would remain intact and the garage would still be 9 1/2 ft. from the re¡ar. They didn't
have any concerns about it, they were thinking that somehow it was going to change that
existing fence line.
Mr. Hardy stated at this time I will bring this back to the board for further discussion.
Mr. May asked I think Dean mentioned thi$ büt I didn't catch it, is that ba:sically 2 1/2 ft.
offset from the easement line, is that adequate? I am reading 9 1/2 ft. and 7 ft.
Mr. Andrew stated that should be adequate for any over hang that they would have would
it not Mike?
Mr. Peterson stated yes and the rear yard setback is typically less than when you don't
have alley access the requirement is only five so as long as everyone is CIE!ar that no part
of the building can either overhand or enter into that easement at all with the 9 1/2 ft. and
the 7 ft. easement I would assume that we have, that 30 inches should work fine.
Mr. Hardy stated I have one concern, if you include the porch on this structure which is an
integral part of the building I see is just not an overhang of some kind of plastic material
or whatever. The structure approaches the size of the house as I calculate 1,080 sq. ft.
for the garage and approximately 1,152 sq. ft. for the house. Which approxiimates the size
of a house and any structure that size, I would tend to take from the category of a garage
to something like an additional house. In fact as the couple was describing the structure
it started to sound more and more like a house to me than it did a garage and for that
reason I am a little bit concerned about the total size, even though it remains within that
30% or right at the bubble to have two buildings of almost equal size on the same lot would
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 1 0
make the house not appear aesthetically like other homes with garages in the area is what
my guess is and I would throw that our for consideration.
MOTION:
Mr. Sterrett stated and well taken to and I thought that for just a moment and
then when I heard the presentation from the applicants they talked of a 10
year plan and converting the hang over or whatever we want to call the
awning into an add on for the kitchen and what have you so I think that we
are still headed into the right direction and I feel pretty comfortable with the
way that they presented it and I don't see that is going to be an issue at this
point. Further on, '~feelhere again that the presentation was presented very
well. Staff did a fine job on it. It appears pretty evident thaHhere is ample
space available here, the applicant has taken all neighbors concerns into
'consideration as far as aesthetics. The lot to me appears to bE:! unique in the
fact that it has 90 ft. frontage which is very abnormal for most residential lots
so therefore I move that we approve this variance.
SECOND:
Mr. Worth seconded the motion.
Mr. Umphrey stated I would like to add my comments, the lot seems with thE!Se two similar
size buildings and two distinct driveways plus the original house is stoop and concrete that
is already there it just gives me the feeling that the thing is too full and I don't see any
particular way around that and I would like to Bl11end the motion if we are going to consider
it seriously that nothing additional be added'to this property. It has already got all that it
can hold as far as I can see. So I would propose an amendment that nothing else be
added to this lot in the way of structures.
Mr. Sterrett asked would you say then that we shall not exceed the 30% bec:ause they are
entitled to that.
Mr. Umphrey stated I am talking about another building being added.
Mr. Andrew stated separate building.
Mr. Sterrett stated they are talking about adding an addition onto the house and still being
under the 30%.
Mr. Umphrey stated I would be against that.
Mr. Worth stated we are talking about an addition in the future possibly. VVe are talking
today about this addition about this garage and for that reason I think that we need to look
at this and if they want to make a change in the future and add something more they would
have to come back.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 11
Mr. Sterrett stated right, if they exceeded the 30% they could come back for another
variance.
Mr. May stated Mr. Chairman I have some concern that the staff expressed about the
survey.
Mr. Sterrett stated I would amend my motion to also signify that we are not granting any
variance that would exceed the 30% lot coverage. Would that satisfy your reservations.
Mr. Hardy stated we have the amended motion to include the statement that the lot
coverage will ,not exceed 30%.
Mr. Worth stated I will second that?
Mr. Hardy stated well once again garages are nice and 10 year plans are nice and people
that want to do a lot to their property is nice, but ultimately this Board is sitting here to
decide what is good for Salina and what maybe good for Salina may not Bllways be good
for the individuals concerned and that is the reason that I was making the statement that
I made.
Mr. Sterrett stated obviously the neighbors (ion't have any objections we haven't heard
anything from them. .
Mr. Hardy stated I am not talking about just the neighbors, we represent all of Salina and
that is why we are here and that is the only reason I was throwing that out And true the
neighbors did not respond, they don't always.
Mr. Sterrett stated I would.
Mr. Hardy stated well I know that.
Mr. Umphrey stated there is no doubt about that.
VOTE:
Motion failed 2-4. (Hardy, May, Morris and Umphrey).
Mr. Hardy stated the motion fails. Back to the drawing board. Any other discussion?
Mr. Sterrett stated somebody needs to say something because they presented a good
case here.
Mrs. Pelensky stated both of my neighbors do not have a problem with this. They have
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 12
both told us that.
Mr. Hardy asked is there any further discussion? Ok we are going to move on to the next
item on the agenda.
Mr. Sterrett asked we are? We haven't settled this one yet.
Mr. Hardy stated well we voted.
Mr. Sterrett stated we voted not to .go for my motion.
Mr. Hardy asked alright is there another motion?
Mr. Andrew stated I think that before we move to another item we need to have some
alternative motion so that both the applicant and staff can get some guidance as to what
to do.
Mr. Hardy stated very good, lets ask for another motion.
Mr. Sterrett asked what could we live with? The man has met the 30%, hE:! said that he
would bring the survey in and it will meet the 30%, what has he presented that you four
fellows are not comfortable with and maybe we, can give and take a little bit here?
Mr. Hardy stated I already voiced my concern here, it was the size of the building that
approached the size of the house, two houses on one lot.
Mr. Umphrey stated the addition is too large in relation to the rest of the improvements.
Mr. Sterrett asked can we not mandate that at no time whatsoever that the garage will ever
be used for residential?
Mr. Hardy stated I don't think that it will be used for a residence, it is just the size of the
structure itself. The proposal that I would be in favor of would be the limits of the zoning
ordinance right now which I think is that 770 sq. ft.
Mr. Sterrett asked what does the ordinance say in retrospect to a garage! and a main
dwelling? It says that the garage cannot supercede the size of the main dwelling, that is
the ordinance today. Am I not right?
Mr. Andrew stated the ordinance says that we can only issue a permit for a 24 ft. x 32 ft.
garage and that any size above 24 ft. x 32 ft. has to be approved as a valriance by the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 13
Mr. Sterrett stated maybe you missed what I said there, when we buiild a detached
structure it cannot exceed the size of the main structure, is that correct?
Mr. Peterson stated there are two limits and Dean quoted the first one and you quoted the
second. It can not be larger than 770 sq. ft. and it cannot larger than the house.
Mr. Sterrett stated right, we met the part not larger than the house, the reason we are here
today is because he is applying for something that exceeds the 770 ft. that is what we are
here for is a variance. - ,
Mr. Hardy stated right and what I was saying is, the 770 sq. ft. the part that doesn't require
anyone to be 'here is the part that I would feel comfortable with.
Mr. Sterrett stated well we aren't going anywhere this way but I just wantE!d to make the
point to you that the garage wasn't exceeding the house which is normal, ok and that is
acceptable. Can you cut back a couple of feet?
Mr. Andrew stated I guess what we would need from the four dissenters 011 the motion is
whether it is the additional four feet on the length of the garage that is a concern or
whether it is the fact that it is the porch attached to the garage that creates the additional
size that is of concern? , ',7"
Mr. May stated the reason I voted the way that I did is because I think we have to much
information that is unknown at this time. We are working with one square! footage of lot
size and we have another square footage of lot size, I don't know which one we are talking
about to be honest with you.
Mr. Morris asked am I correct in that there is a covered patio attached to the house at this
time.
Mr. Pelensky stated yes. It make it an L-shape.
Mr. Morris stated ok and how many sq. ft. are in it?
Mr. Umphrey asked how big is this patio?
Mr. Peterson stated 240 sq. ft. 12 ft. x 20 ft.
Mr. Morris asked and did I not here them indicate that at some point their plan is to expand
their kitchen into that area? Which would then further create a problem.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 14
Mr. Sterrett stated no, because we already have that considered.
Mr. Andrew stated we don't have that number included in our staff report bec::ause it wasn't
clear to us whether that was a covered patio or just an awning so in the number that you
see in your report as far as the size of the house, that does not include the covered patio.
There are a number of things that we can do here if it is going to inCreaSE! your comfort
level in terms of we can redraw the site plan to show the covered patio. WE! can go to the
Engineering Department and have them precisely calculate the square footage of this lot
with some surveying software that they have. But I am not sure what that tell us when what
are looking at is the relationship of this-proposed construction to. the house' and to the other.
buildings in the surrounding lots. '
MOTION:
'Mr. Worth stated we have several unanswered questions that none of us are
real comfortable with, would it be helpful if we postponed a d!ecision to our
next meeting and then asked them to bring more information ¡in? We would
have the exact square footage of the lot and we could reconsider at that
time. We have not defeated the application today, we have merely defeated
the motion and I would make a motion that we postpone decision for 30
days, ask the applicant to come in with further information regarding the size
of the lot which the City can determine exactly the square footage. And
maybe the applicant can do a little adjusting a make it a little more palatable.
Mr. Umphrey seconded the motfon.
SECOND:
Mr. Hardy stated I think along that line to make the dissenters more comfol1able I think it
might be helpful to have maybe an alternate design or plan or size for the proposed
building.
Mr. Worth stated that would be fine, that was my intention to give them the chance to make
some changes if need be. I went by their house today and their house as existing is
extremely attractive.
Mr. Hardy stated correct, no problem with that.
Mr. Sterrett asked would you perhaps the 6 ft. hangover on the garage, it is my
understanding that there will be a 6 ft. canopy if they modify that?
Mr. Umphrey stated just something to reduce the 30 ft. x 36 ft. size back there.
Mr. Hardy stated 30 ft. x 36 ft. is big.
Mr. Sterrett asked would a 4 ft. perhaps be a little more acceptable?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 15
Mr. Umphrey stated that is their call not mine.
Mr. Hardy asked is there any more discussion?
Mr. May stated yes Mr. Chairman I was a little concerned when I thought we were leaving
things hang when our original motion said did not exceed the 30% of the lot coverage
which to me this eliminated the drawing as presented to us or potentially did.
Mr. Andrew stated I will be the first one to admit that having a survey on a piece of property
is the most valuable information we could have. We were evaluating this without the
benefit of a survey and took the information that we got from the county property tax
records so obviously a survey would be helpful for everyone.
Mr. Worth stated I believe they have a copy of a survey that they could bring with them. Is
that true?
Mrs. Pelensky stated yes.
Mr. Worth stated that might eliminate the Engineering Department going out there.
Mr. Hardy stated the survey itself to me is not,the issue, that is the thing.
Mr. Worth stated if we have the square footage that would help.
Mr. Hardy stated that well it would be interesting but it is actually the building itself that is
more of an issue to me.
Mr. Umphrey stated we have a motion, I am going to call for the question.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6.0.
#4.
Application #VOO-7, filed by Salina Regional Health Center, requesting a maximum
structure height variance of 31 ft. from 35 ft. to 66 ft. to allow construction of a 4
story medical office building in a C-3 (Shopping Center) District. The subject
property is legally described as all of Lot 1, and the East Fifty feet of Lots 9, 10 and
11 in Block 5, in Beebes Addition to the City of Salina; Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Berk's
Addition to the City of Salina; and Lots 5, 6 and 7 in Surveyor's Plat D, in the City
of Salina, Saline County, Kansas and addressed as 520 S. Santa Fe.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report as contained in the case file.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 16
Mr. Hardy asked are there any questions of staff?
Mr. Sterrett asked what is the zoning of the existing hospital right now. We are talking C-3
here an I didn't get that earlier as the hospital?
Mr. Andrew stated the zoning of the hospital itself is PDD which is a Plannedl Development
District. Essentially it is a customized zoning just for the hospital facility itself and the
advantage of the PDD zoning is that you can customize things like building setbacks,
height limits it is a design your own zoning district. This particular property has been zoned
C-3 since the time the Sears Center was built there and the property across the street
where the Santa Fe Medical Plaza is located is also zoned C-3. . .
Mr. Sterrett asked so PDD basically gives us a lot of variation?
Mr. Peterson stated indoor limitation depending on which side of the iSSUE:! you are on.
Some people refer to PDD's as contract zoning, essentially you are signing an agreement
that you will do this and almost exactly that. Not everyone is enamored of PDD. I am sure
Mr. Umphrey could tell you some of the cases through the Planning Commission where
people didn't want to do it because it limits them so we use it in both ways to create some
allowances but also to create a certain amount of restriction.
Mr. Sterrett stated I guess my quastion would be then if the C-3 turned into PDD would we
be here today? . "
Mr. Andrew stated you wouldn't be here, the Planning Commission would bH here instead
but the reason this is being looked at in this way is the only thing that does not conform in
this case is the height and so because we are talking about a single iSSUE:! and it is the
Board of Zoning Appeals that deals with height, setback, lot coverage issues this was
brought to the Board because it is a single issue.
Mr. Hardy stated that was kind of like the questions I had. Would it have been an easier
issue to go for a C-4 say then a variance?
Mr. Andrew stated if you went for C-4 then you loose some of the protections that C-3
gives you in terms of C-3 allows you to cover only 40% of a lot and C-4 you can cover
100% of your building lot with building. C-4 has unlimited height and no minimum setbacks
so the issue is that there is no single zoning district that Salina has that neatly fits the
needs of a major hospital and so that is why you see kind of a mix of zoning around this
hospital site. We reiterate again that the only way in which this proposed construction does
not meet the C-3 zoning is the height. The use is a C-3 use, the setbacks. all meet C-3
requirements, lot coverage meets C-3 requirements, parking meets C-3 requirements, it
is strictly an issue of height and how this fits in with the surrounding development pattern.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18,2000
Page 17
Mr. Umphrey stated I should remember from Planning Commission but can you refresh us
on about how far back the Santa Fe Medical Plaza building on the east side and the
proposed parking garage is from Santa Fe Avenue?
Mr. Peterson stated we have two rows of parking plus another access aisle. I think the
existing building is approximately 120 ft. back from Santa Fe. That would be just figuring
in my head parking spaces and so forth in that realm, we thought of it as be!ing very similar
to the proposed setback for this.
Mr. Andrew stated the parking garage will be right on the Santa Fe parkin~J lot. There will
be no setback.
Mr. Peterson stated for the garage.
Mr. Umphrey stated I remember discussing that.
Mr. Andrew stated and part of the reason for that is there will be a pedestrian overpass
between the garage and the hospital side.
Mr. Hardy asked are there other questions of staff? Would the applicant care to comment?
Jack Hinnenkamp, I am representing Salina Regional Health Center with a business
address of 400 S. Santa Fe. First I would like to thank the Board of Zoning Appeals for
their consideration of our request and additionally City Staff for the professional aid and
assistance in responding to our questions related to zoning issues and helping us clearly
understand the necessary steps and measures for making this application. At this time,
unless further questions develop or arise I would rely on submitted matE3riais and staff
review information in the packets to speak for this application. I would be ~Jlad to respond
to specific questions that zoning appeals board members my have at this time however.
Mr. Hardy asked are there any questions of the applicant?
Mr. Peterson asked I had Dean put the site plan back up. Am I remembering correctly
Jack, is this layout in terms of depth from Santa Fe the same as or very similar to the
existing medical plaza as far as parking lot?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated very similar.
Mr. Peterson stated so the depth back off of Santa Fe should be the samle.
Mr. Sterrett asked have you folks considered the C-4 zoning and thought th¡at was perhaps
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 18
better.
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated yes we did consider the C-4 zoning. I think Dean and Mike very
thoroughly explained that. We talked with the City representatives about that. In the C-4
zoning we have to digress for just a moment on our parking structure as a Planned C-4.
We want nice and attractive facilities the same as everyone else does for the benefit of
Salina and for our own organization so we did a Planned C-4 which included additional
landscaping and setbacks that would might not normally be strictly required in a C-4 but
we felt that was important. As they explained a C-4 District while we had no intention to
proceed to that level of building coverage from property limit to property- limit and we
recognized that what we had in mind, what we see for the future growth and development
of the application of this variance would more than meet our needs so that is the reason
that we did nòt do that Randy.
Mr. Andrew stated we just want to reiterate one more time that this development does not,
the only thing that C-4 would help in this case is to give you unlimited height and if you had
C-4 zoning here there would be no ability to set minimum setbacks or any of those things
that are options today so in many ways C-4 zoning would allow more lot coverage, less
setbacks and you would not be able to impose things like insuring that we had adequate
setbacks from Santa Fe or adjoining residential properties so if you look at C-4 is what you
see downtown where you have a zero setback on a street or the parking garage which has
a zero setback on the street but we do not view this as C-4 type developmEmt because it
is surrounded by parking and has generoÜs setbacks. I think what we need to focus on
again is the height of this as compared to other construction on Santa Fe and in the
vicinity.
Mr. Hardy asked have we had any correspondence on this issue?
Mr. Andrew stated we have had some phone conversations with concerned citizens on
Prescott. We have gotten no feedback or correspondence from anyone on 8th Street or
the opposite side of Santa Fe.
Mr. Hardy asked are there comments by interested citizens on this issue? Please step to
the podium and give us your name and address for the record.
Jim Foley, 211 W. Prescott. I properly assume that the parking garage is going to occupy
the area that was formerly McCord Tire, about that area?
Mr. Peterson stated that is correct.
Mr. Foley asked and how tall is that building?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 19
Mr. Andrew stated 58 ft. tall.
Mr. Foley asked and how many cars will it accommodate?
Mr. Andrew stated I think we will let Mr. Hinnenkamp address that.
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated 697.
Mr. Foley asked so you are going to have when that parking garage is done, you are going
to have 697 more places available, is that right?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated no, they are removing 75 spaces for the new building.
Mr. Foley asked well Jack how many are you going to have with the garage?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated 697.
Mr. Foley asked where are you going to lose 75?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated we will lose 75 on the north side of Santa Fe Medical Plaza.
Mr. Foley asked net how many will you ga~n,?, ,
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated we will gain approximately 500 spaces.
Mr. Foley stated the ordinance of the height is my main concern, since in my judgement
I question whether it needs to be that high because there is plenty of room for parking
there and the height does make a difference and I think that we should sti,ck to the code.
I would really like to see as far as we are concerned that the present building as they have
it there be moved 300 ft. to the north and 100 ft. to the west. But keep it down below and
have it conform with the code like we have asked other people to do. It will have an
aesthetic value to have looking out from your yard to see a four story building in my
opinion. Now if this was a matter where we didn't have anyplace else to run, or it was
needed to be there and I just question that. Also there is an exit on Presc:ott and at one
time several years ago they were talking about they would not have anymore exits on
Prescott Street. So if we were making the decision in our area from an aesthetic
standpoint, talking about the other request and that sort of thing and I appeal, if we put it
back another 300 or 400 feet towards the hospital, after all, people that are! going to be in
that building are going to be in the hospital too, and closer to the parking lot, they still have
to keep it down to conform with the code. Close that exit on Prescott Street and move it
300 or 400 feet to the north and 100 feet to the west.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 20
Mr. Hardy asked would the applicant care to address the concern of the placement of the
building?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated I was going to wait and comment after everyone has voiced their
concerns.
Karen Peters, 115 W. Prescott which is on the southern side of Prescott from where the
neighbors were notified. I do think that the City has done a good job with the pictures and
describing the facility and how it would match existing hospital structures. Obviously the
neighbors here are concerned about the height of a building going to 66 ft. from a
residential prospective which is very different than what the hospital issues are in trying to
match their e~isting facilities. Following up on what Mr. Foley had mentioned in moving the
structure north and west, it would remove the invasion of that structure into the residential
area and I believe on the diagrams where you had shown different heights of buildings as
compared to the Masonic Temple is again from the neighborhood prospective misleading
in that the proposed structure that they are talking about is the closest in height to the
Masonic Temple but is closest to the residential area. So as residents we lose that
transition that happened between the residential area and going to the height of the
Masonic Temple with their proposed structure would be right in the residential area so that
is our primary concern as neighbors to being located close to that facility. I guess the other
concern that some of us have had about the application and the request for the height
variance is that we haven't heard much discussion about their need to go higher in order
to have more parking spaces and I understarid"that the hospital is short on parking spaces
now and is going to address some of that with their parking garage. But as a neighbor it
seems slightly unfair in that they will be having a taller building so they æn have more
surface parking in transferring that burden onto the neighborhood by putting a taller
building that is almost twice the current height level is just another concern that the
neighbors have at this time.
Lyle Turner, 623 Highland, I don't think that the Masonic Temple was put there so that we
could build buildings using that height. I think it is a unique building and I don't think that
we should use it as a guideline to build buildings from.
Mr. Hardy asked are there any other comments?
Rob Peters, I live at 115 W. Prescott. Several issues, not to be redundant but I think that
I would like to clarify that one of the big concerns is the question of transitions from the
residential area into the commercial area. I talked to a city staff member as we were trying
to get a handle on how we do feel about this issue and asked him "What is the reason for
having a 35 ft. limit in C-3, why is there a C-3 limit of 35 ft.? There must have been some
thought behind it. I was told that the reason is that that is supposed to be an area of
transition from commercial unlimited height into the residential area that is why it is
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 21
supposed to be 35 ft. If you allow the hospital to have a variance which doubles that we
lose the transition. In particular coming back to the point that Jim Foley was making,
location of that building which has butted right up against those two historic properties
there on the left, I should say properties in the historic district is not of a nature if you were
to draw the skyline, you are building residential houses, that building parkin~g and then you
run into the present hospital and the Masonic Temple. So there is no gradualism built in
here and I think we could perhaps live with it better if that building was moved to the north,
then it would be part and parcel to those higher buildings and we would have the drop off
and not have a massive building right up against the houses there. Another point that I
wanted to make which you are probably aware of, but that is the neighborh():xj that is being
impacted here is the neighborhood within the historic district. That I feel places special
duties on the ,City and it also puts special duties on you guys to consider the effect on that
residential str'eetscape, the neighborhood, perhaps more than you would ¡if it were not in
a historic district. As you know, one of the concerns in a historic district is something called
environs, which means basically the streets cape and that is something by law that one has
to consider impacts on. The law here, the hospital structure is outside the lHistoric District
so it doesn't precisely affect but I think it makes a higher level of concern there. Another
point, I wanted to basically ask you, the Board today to consider a motion to postpone
decision, which I think was perhaps option four. The reason for that is because we feel this
area is so sensitive being in the historic district that we would like additional opportunity for
the neighbors to be notified and to discuss it and to think through the options and to have
conversations with the hospitaL The city f9Uowed regulation by notifyin~J neighbors or
owners of property immediately adjacent to the hospital property as they are required to
with this variance request. However we would like to have seen the hospital be a good
neighbor and go beyond that minimum requirement and notify and hold discussions with
a wider neighborhood, the people that would be within the sight line whose houses would
be and whose views would be affected by this extremely large structure a~lain more than
you twice the present maximum limit. I am going to put it to you to see if you couldn't find
a postponement possible so that we could have greater community input on this issue.
One more thing that I will just mention quickly because I forgot it, the importance of the
Prescott-Foley House that Jim Foley lives in at 211 W. Prescott. The Prescott-Foley
House is a nationally listed Historic Property. As a nationally listed Historic Property um
it has around it by State law a 500 ft. circle if you will and which John Burger has drawn for
me before on a map so I know exactly where it is and within that 500 ft. cimle again there
is special consideration needed. The City Planning Departments position I think at the
moment, well let me just say the hospital property, a good deal of it falls within that 500 ft.
circle so all I want to know is if the legalities of that needs to trigger a review by the
Heritage Commission right now. I think again from a what is good for Salina, what is good
for our Historic District point of view it raises a special level of concern for that property and
for any construction within that 500 ft. limit. Again I would ask for a postponement so that
we can chew this over more.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 22
Mr. Hardy asked are there any other comments?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated I am not quite sure where to begin on a couple of these, what I
might do is start from some of the later remarks, John Burger is here today and I would like
to have him respond on the environs issue as well. One of the things that we have been
advised that we have not been good neighbors and felt that we had not oommunicated,
what I would want to point out is when we first finalized our acquisition of the Sears
property we knew that we would have some more development and we saw the potential
for growth. We initiated meetings with the neighborhood. We had a meeting on April 15,
1998, the purpose of which was to get acquainted, obtain their thoughts, begin the process
of discussion, begin a response and get a response from the neighborhood forward
material showing the current site development and begin discussion of likely future plans.
We had a seèond meeting with Warren Ediger on June 1, and the purpose of that meeting
was Warren has been our architect of choice, he knows how are plans are dHveloping. We
had general discussions with the neighbors, we wanted to elaborate on the plans and
options of Salina Regional Health Center, acquire more thoughts of the neighbors
regarding this property and area development as a result of our first meeting with them. We
had Warren met with them at them at the hospital expense to discuss those issues. Some
of their thoughts regarding vertical growth and those were introduced from the first meeting
and address issues related to current zoning. We had a third meeting in .July or August
and these are my notes from that meeting so:1 didn't have the date but I have a letter that
addresses it here. In that one we were wahttng to determine our ability to blend our
proposals and needs at Salina Regional Health Center we had reached thl:! stage where
we felt we needed to begin discussion with the City on issues that would impact them. For
example what type of zoning should we be applying for and those issues. 1We discussed
those topics, looked at the Sears Center as a flexible site for specialty services and our
own continued investment in community and region. From the first three meetings, what
we heard from neighbors was consider building up and reduce lateral growth as much as
possible. We heard concerns regarding avoidance of additional service entrances added
or beyond those existing along Prescott Street. In our plan we presented we do not have
additional entrances on Prescott Street. We have heard concerns related to parking and
the long term adequacy and viability at that parking. That led to the development of the
parking structure and improved land parking. We worked very closely with the City on
those issues. We felt we took a hard listen at the neighborhood plans to inc:orporate that.
Now once after that meeting that we had, the last meeting in 1998, it was time to begin the
development. These projects of this nature and this scope are not established overnight,
we have had that input, we began the development based on the feed bac::k that we felt
that we had received. When they indicate that they were concerned that they did not have
notification, they have a neighborhood or did have a neighborhood newsletter, this one was
titled threat to the historic district. It states in this and this was shortly after our meeting
and recent meetings with neighbors, hospital spokesmen announced their plans to tear
down the old Sears Center on Santa Fe and Prescott and replace it with a Medical Building
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 23
and a multi-level parking structure. We have disclosed that from the outset and we were
not able to give details if this is the exact height, these are the exact dimensions. We have
identified that we have an existing structure and it would be similar to that. One of the
things that we did not do was compound the site by placing a parking sitructure at this
location. We have limited that to the second medical office building development. We did
not develop these medical office buildings lightly, this is a very costly endeavor and it is
something that we need to think very thoroughly about and we do not go beyond what we
feel is needed to meet the needs of the community and the region served. I have a VHA
which is Volunteer Hospitals of America, an organization which we belong which had a
needs assessment and this needs assessment and physician practice development as it
relates to our area was established out of the health futures, development utilization
demand of 1994 and 1999 estimates. The American Medical Association bench marked
in the U.S. pòsition work force in the United Sates and population and positions from a
market place perspective in the general health care management. In that study it indicated
in the Sunflower network area and it goes through the number of the service area
population is 168,455 people. What was identified in that is in primary care there was a
shortage of 39.05 positions and medical specialties in this region served by Salina
Regional Health Center there is a shortage of 21.81 allergy, cardiology, dE:!rmatologyand
so on. Surgical specialties, cardiac surgery, general surgery, neurosur~Jery, there is a
shortage of 21.65 physicians in hospital based anthesology, pathology, radiology in those
there was a shortage of 9.14. We have to take those we feel as a fiduciary obligation to
continue to attract quality medical service ~o Salina. One of the ways that: happens is for
buildings that will meet physician's needs and our Santa Fe Medical Plaza one the one
judgement error was probably the fact that it was built to meet current needs with only
about 3,800 sq. ft. of additional space available. What we were able to do with that space
was bring a much needed specialty to Salina Kansas in concert with other local positions.
We brought two dermatologists to Salina and as some of you may be aware that is a
specialty where we had some part time positions here in Salina who had terminated their
practice but we were able to do that and Salina was attractive to them bE:!cause we had
medical office buildings that we could move them into and get placed for them quickly. We
brought a neurosurgeon, Salina had one neurosurgeon and we have brought a second
neurosurgeon once again in concert with other medical practices in the community by
having space available to do that we were able to achieve that. This medical office building
that we have here and the height is not at random and the dimensions were! not at random,
this was through very careful thought, we will have a basement and four floors above grade
as indicated, in the total of this we have approximately 1,500 sq. ft. that would not be
spoken for, possibly 3,000 sq. ft. in the basement, the rest of the space 1that we have is
either currently leased. We have leases for these and we have some space where the
tenants have asked for first right of refusal meaning they have seen the demand for growth
and our Santa Fe Medical Plaza one we have position, office practices that need to go
there. That is the reasoning behind the development of this and the reasem that we have
asked for this size as well. Another thing that I might point out with relationship to the
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 24
parking structure. We tried to design this facility and structure not only to meet our current
needs but some additional future growth needs as well. It is very difficult to add onto a
parking structure after it is in place and that would create a greater impact so we have tried
to think ahead to minimize the future impact on the neighborhood in all areas and minimize
that. We cannot move north for this development as suggested. I have an overhead but
I would try to explain and if it needs to be shown I would be glad to. Salina is a growing
community and I think that we are grateful for that. Salina is also growing VE~ry much in the
medical field as well. What we have recognized at Salina Regional Health Center, there
is probably continued development that is going to have to take place as attachments to
the hospital. The original hospital was in 1921 in a house with a major concrete addition
brick addition in 1926. The next additions were in the 40's and 50's. We still use those
and those are still serviceable, but we recognize over time we are going to have to use
those facilities for other applications and patient care. We have under consideration an
additional medical tower or development to meet the growing needs of Salina and the
Region that we serve. That will connect and go directly to the south which positions this
building very well. I would like folks to keep in mind, this is a medical office building for
outpatient and physician services, it is not a direct connection type building to the hospital
the same as the Santa Fe Medical Plaza I would be. The Masonic Temple does have
residential property immediately to the west of it as what is being described here. I do
believe that we do have transition zones on Santa Fe that make this property and this
development favorable. We have immediately to the south we have the Bank of Tescott,
we have two other office buildings there, the'transition that along Santa Fe and into the
neighborhood. This building is not the same height as the Masonic Temple, what we are
asking for is 22 ft. lower than their 88 ft. parapet height, we are actually 30 ft. lower at 58
ft. The medical office building also has its own parking requirements and we have talked
about medical office building and using the parking structure medical office building has
its own parking requirements which we are meeting by the design features that we have
with this building the layout and the footprint to maximize that parking space! available. As
we have stated I think hopefully rather sufficiently in the materials we presented, requiring
that this variance that 35 ft. be the maximum allowable limit places a tremendous hardship
not only on Salina Regional Health Center trying to develop this space but also in Salina
in general. One of the remarks I am impressed with was Randall Hardy's comment about
doing what is best for Salina and it is clear to me that this is the best interest in Salina.
One thing that I might add and I don't have the documentation that I did for the other on
this. Each time a physician comes into Salina and sets up practice that means a million
dollars a year to Salina based on additional revenue, services, opt jobs and support that
comes to this community from people on the outside. I did take some photographs of
various locations which I will be glad to pass around. There are quite a few trees on the
Prescott side there and as I took those I think we did have one that probably if you got right
to the vacant lot you would possibly see through but I took from the locations of where this
building would stand towards the Prescott House or the Jim Foley's HOUSE~ and from the
reverse of that and when you look at the angle there it is difficult for me to see how this
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 25
would be intrusive. I might note that we try to do as attractive property as possible and I
would have some photographs here that would kind of compare with the city's as far as
when we develop the properties we do try to make them attractive in a complimentary
appearance to Salina and the area. I think I tried to address the questions that have been
raised. We would ask that this not be postponed and the variance as applied for be
granted. I think we did have the option to request a C-4 I think part of it i:s wanting to be
good neighbors, we have no desire to build to those levels and we fee II this is a good
compromise for us. Do you have other questions?
Mr. Worth asked maybe I misunderstood, did you say it would be impossible to move the
building north and west?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated we have future development for that area due to the existing
structures clear to the north that were established in 1926, 1940's and HI50's. You can
see the front entrance of the hospital, I don't have a pointer or anything. From-that
entrance we are what we are anticipating will very likely occur is we would tee off of that
meeting the depth requirements with a medical hospital tower for in patient services to
meet the growing needs that we are seeing in the community and it is not just the
community it is the region served. We serve about 14 counties and those ~Dlks come here
for many of their medical services so obviously moving that 300 ft. or closer to that
prevents that development which we find to be very necessary for Salina Kansas and the
region.
Mr. Worth stated my question was why it would be impossible to move it and you have
answered that.
Mr. Umphrey stated I just have a comment Mr. Hinnenkamp, you mentioned at least three
maybe four meetings in 1998 with interested citizens but none in 1999 or so far this year,
I wonder if that was just an omission on your part or too busy or in the interest of good
community communication I wonder why the big gap from 1998 until now.
Mr. Hinnenkamp at the conclusion of our meetings that we had, we felt that we had
established part of those meetings were associated with the request to remove two houses
that were on Prescott and just the lot dimensions. Sears is kind of an odd lot as you can
see, the outcome of that and at that time it was well can we build out a little bit more with
more lot space or do we build up? I guess we felt at the conclusion of the meeting the
determination was that we would actually there was a survey that followed and a survey
that came back from the neighborhood which we honored and respected was we would
rather not see any further development or consideration of 120 and 130 W. Prescott
properties which gave us the answer that we would need to develop vertically to do that.
We did a survey to determine, I mean if we had very little interest in this medical office and
the medical community ant the experience that we have had we would not be doing that.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 26
If we had interest only for a low grade, three levels above grade that is what we would have
done, but there has been a tremendous interest in the community. I guess I felt we had
answered those questions at the conclusion of 1998. It does take quite a bit of time to
develop those plans and we have presented those here.
Mr. Worth asked at that time you didn't have the detailed plans that you h¡ave today?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated that is correct we did not.
Mr. Worth stated you could not have presented them to the neighborhood citizens at that
time? .
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated that is right.
Mr. Sterrett asked give me the distance from Santa Fe heading west down Prescott to that
approach, what are we looking at there 250 or 300 ft.?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated I am not sure.
Mr. Peterson stated it appears when I scaled it in the realm of 180.
Mr. Sterrett asked that 75 ft. setback line that ,I 'am looking at on this particular one, the one
that you have, that is not 75 ft. from that line tothe back of curb or center of street or what
have you?
Mr. Andrew stated 75 ft. setback line is on an arterial street like Santa Fe, the minimum
setback is 75 ft. from the center line.
Mr. Sterrett stated from the center of the street so that is what threw my numbers off
because I thought perhaps we had a longer distance down to that approach than what we
expected.
Mr. Andrew stated if they wish to they could locate this building within and up to that line
and they have moved it farther back.
Mr. Sterrett stated sure and you said then we are approximately from the center of the
street down to that which would be the east wing there on that approach ¡and we would
have a 150 ft. or better there abouts.
Mr. Peterson stated I am measuring approximately 180 to the middle of it so you would be
160 probably.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 27
Mr. Sterrett asked has anybody took notice, is their approach directly across the street or
what lies there, is that just curb?
Mr. Andrew stated it lines up with the driveway that enters the medical offiœs on the south
side of Prescott.
Mr. Umphrey asked I believe I am understanding clearly that you would like us to decide
on this proposal with no changes or recommendations, just as you have presented it and
you are not in favor of any continuance?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated my preference would be to grant the variance application as is.
Mr. Umphrey'asked no alterations, no changes?
Mr. Hinnenkamp asked do you have suggestions for alterations or changl:!s?
Mr. Umphrey stated I think some of this discussion is trying to circle around that and of
course Mr. Foley's suggestion that the building site be moved was one that I thought might
be worthy of some consideration so that is the reason I was asking for your final answer.
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated we would like to ask the Zoning Appeals Boalrd to grant the
variance. If they feel that they cannot do that: and they must table it, we would be glad to
go back and gather more information on thecônsequences and implications of relocation
for the medical office building.
Mr. Sterrett stated Jack I want to get back to the meat and potatoes here for just a minutes,
we were talking about what was good for Salina here and then we were talking dollars and
when you said each position had the potential to bring in one million dollars or so for
economic growth annually, how many jobs are we talking about here. Give me an estimate
here.
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated I guess I would say I am not sure because alii will say quite frankly
most of this medical office building is filled with physicians that are in Salina that are in
existing places that are not meeting their needs. I would say that based on the space that
you would have left between the two buildings, we would have the potemtial of adding
somewhere between 5 and 10 positions depending on the type of position and the type of
practice. Some positions require a fairly large amount of square footage for the practice.
Others just require perhaps 1,000 square feet per practice. If they are primarily a surgeon
they don't need a lot of office space. If they are primary care then they do need more
space for exam rooms and so on. So it varies depending on the specialty. Once again
referring back to the VHA report that was off of several with documentation or reference
to American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, those were the
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 28
specialties that were defined as being shortages in which Salina Regional Health Center
and the Medical Community is working to alleviate and bring those in and that is why we
would like to have a Medical Office Building that has some space to accommodate those
as well as met existing physicians within the community.
Mr. Sterrett asked so we are just going to have all and all about nothing said!, we are going
to have more physicians, more technology, we are going to draw from some! of the smaller
communities?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated as we continue it gets better and better I think. One of the things
that we have difficulty with is comments about well it is difficult to find at primary care
physician or I ,can't get into see the specialist.
Mr. Sterrett stated so that is tax dollars that are being lost right now will be coming our way.
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated that is right.
Mr. Sterrett stated I think that is the nuts and bolts of the whole issue. I know that we are
close to the historical area but even Rome and Greece had to give way to advancements
and technologies and I sure like you presentation. You folks did a fine job with it and to me
the layout looks exceptionally well. '
'", ,
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated we had the environs is'sues. John I don't know if you are able to
address that.
Mr. Andrew stated we would like John Burger our Architectural Historian to tell you what
staff's perspective was on the environ's issue.
Mr. Burger stated the Historic District went thorough in 1992 at the request of the tenants
and residents along there through a strong percentage of that. It didn't include any of the
commercial properties except the Tescott and Medical Building at the southwest corner of
Prescott and Santa Fe. It bordered the existing Sears Center and also thE! hospital and
part of that reason was to protect those residences from expansion of thE! hospital into
historic areas. In addition to that, the Prescott-Foley House was from the National Register
in 1976 and in Kansas it is little bit unusual having an environs clause in their State Historic
Preservation. We will review a certain area, immediate surroundings of a National Register
property is handled whenever there is an alteration construction within that. But the 500
foot is usually the area of notification that the state has use, it triggers where
administratively those reviewing the cases would step in see if this was affecting the
historic environs. In 1996 the City signed an agreement with the State Preservation Office
to do all that locally so the Salina Heritage Commission does that type of review now. We
also got some rules and regulations in 1998 that specifically addressed envimns cases and
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 29
basically what those said is that the environs as it associates surroundin~~s that serve to
characterize any historic property. We have considered the old Sears Center to be a
contemporary building, it actually removes the Historic environs of the Prescott House
when it was constructed in 1959. So our review of that building itself would not radically
change the futures which are important to find that overall historic charact4:!r of the district
so while a portion of that probably may be in that 500 ft. It doesn't alter the Historic
Environs which are the older houses that occupied that site before in 1959. And that is our
feeling on planning's view of that and we try to communicate that also to the applicant and
those area residents who have had questions. I would be willing to answer any of your
questions.
Mr. Sterrett a~ked if I understand you correctly, you are saying that this proposal today has
a good frame' of help should we say as far as the Historical Society goes?
Mr. Burger stated as far as affecting the Historic Environs which are part of the rules and
regulations on that, it actually wouldn't be. It is an all terrain those associated surroundings
that characterize those historic properties in this case the Prescott House., The Prescott
house environs along Prescott Street South 8th to a portion of Highland, if the Prescott
House was located on Santa Fe then it would be considered more directly ¡:¡ffected by this
development. There are intervening properties giving the distance to the new development
and location that it is in. We feel it doesn't affect the Historic Environs of that property.
Mr. Sterrett asked thereagain, this proposal'ì~.:iront of me today has a cle¡;¡n bill of health
as far as the Historical Society is concerned?
Mr. Burger stated the Planning Department has made a determination.
Mr. Hardy asked are there any more questions?
Mr. Andrew stated before you bring it back to the Board we just wanted to sum up some
clarifications here. The purpose of the hearing today and what the Board ¡is being asked
to do, to clarify that if they applied for a building permit for this same proje,ct in the same
location with the same design and it was 35 ft. tall we wouldn't be here today. We would
be issuing a building permit for the project without any additional review or public hearings.
The fact that they are asking for a height exception has opened them up to a public hearing
process and also opens them up to you placing some conditions on any height variance
that might be granted as long as those conditions are related to the extra height of the
building. I think a term was used during the presentation that this building would be right
up against residential properties. The C-3 District, the minimum setback between a
commercial building and residential property is 15 ft. They are proposing 125 ft. setback
instead of 15 ft. The former Sears Center was located much closer to the residential
properties then this building that is being proposed so we need to do that to put that in
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 30
perspective. The second thing is that this building is not a historic building or designed
necessarily to be that way but nor was the Sears Center that was in this same location.
The other thing that we wanted to point out was that if you take the four floors and a
footprint of this building you come up with 92,000 sq. ft. If you were to stretch that out
horizontally instead of vertically you would be in a position where the hospital would be
trying to consume more land then they have under this proposal. The other thing that has
not been brought out by staff or the applicant, if we were to take this building and look at
the number of parking spaces that would have to be allocated to serve this building it is 460
spaces. That means that if that is 460 more spaces that they are required to provide that
aren't required to be provided today because this office square footage doe!sn't exist. So
by building this building they have actually created an additional parking requirement of
460 spaces that is not there today. So we wanted to sum up those points that what there
are asking for is an exception to the height limit you are in a position where you may grant
that in total or modify it and you may attach conditions to any approval as long as those
conditions are related to the height of the building and two of those again that we have
recommended on page four of your report is to keep some minimum setbacks as proposed
in place because we want to reiterate that we could have come forward with a proposal for
a 35 ft. building that was located much closer to Santa Fe and much closer to Prescott and
much closer to the rear yards of the homes on 8th Street and we would have issued a
building permit for that. By coming forward today and asking for this height E~xception, you
had the ability to tie down some of those setb'acks and locations and make it greater than
what it would normally be requirad in C-3 and 'that is what we are recommending in those
conditions. ' '
Mr. Worth stated Mr. Peters has a comment I believe.
Mr. Peters stated just a brief question and I wanted to address something on the Heritage
Commission issue and I just want to say that you know we are not against hospital
expansion. We recognize the need of the hospital to grow essentially what we are asking
for is that the neighbors be included in discussions as to the various options such as
whether the building could be moved or couldn't be moved, whether it was a trade off in
parking. I am scratching my head now on the whole parking issue because if they are
going to infill that parking lot. If their long range plans are to infill that parking lot with a
brand new, an additional building between the two structures that raises whole other issues
so there is lots of stuff that we would like to be able to discuss with the hospital and that
is why we are asking for an extension. As to the issue of whether the 500 ft. limit, I am on
the Heritage Commission, I have had discussions about this with the Chairman, Jack
O'Leary of the Heritage Commission and I must say that we differ in out opinion as to
whether or not a review is required by the Heritage Commission from City Development
Staff. And this is another reason that we would like a little more time is to scratch our
heads and chew this through. It seems pretty clear to me from state law, from the city's
agreement with state and from the procedures that the Heritage Commission itself has to
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 31
follow that a review is required for any significant construction within f)QO feet of the
Prescott-Foley House a nationally listed structure. I will just read you a line! from the State
Law it says "When the proposed project or any portion therein thereof is located within 500
ft. of the boundaries of the historic property located within the corporate limits of the city."
That is supposed to trigger notification of the State Historic Office. As John said,
application of the law or carrying out the law has been given to the City of Salina in an
agreement with the City which was made in 1996 and the very first article of that
agreement says that the City's Historic Preservation Board or Commission herein after
referred to as Commission shall perform all responsibilities of the State Historic
Preservation Officer under the state law and it says that the Commission shall review and
make a determination on all projects that are required to be sent through the City to the
State and Hi$toric Preservation Officer for review. So if you take those 1wo together, a
requirement óf notification' of the State Historic Officer if a projèct falls within 500 ft. of a
listed property then you take;thisagreemenÌ'thaLsays..th~tjhe.CityGommission is
supposed to fulfill all obligations or 'respÓnsibilitiß's...of:1I'Je.,Historic iOfficer that seems to
suggest to me certainly thaUhe Heritage'Corrimíssiönls'supposed to have input and then
finally I read you from the S,alinaHeritageCommissiÓnproeedures for é:l Certificate of
Appropriateness application "Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness ApplicatiOn shall
be required before the following actions affecting a National or State Registered property
a property with its environs which we go back to the 500 ft. limit or the exterior architectural
appearance". And the action that will trigger"is any construction, demolition of part or all
and alteration or removal requiring a building"permit from the City of Salina. OK, so my
reading of that law is rather contrary of 'that development, I am sorry the Planning
Department. So that is an issue also, we would like a little more time on it so basically our
request again is that there are a lot of issues there, there has not been notification of the
wider neighborhood by the hospital since 1998 when these plans were not far along, we
haven't been able to discuss with the hospital or be told by the hospital about alternatives.
There is likely to be an impact on the historic neighborhood. On the Prescott-Foley House
and my opinion is that there should be triggered review by the Heritage Commission which
mayor may not come about but nonetheless it certainly raises I think the level of care I
think that has to be made in your decision and all we are really asking for is a little more
time so that we can all discuss this together. Because if you approve this today, we are
locked into, true it only a four-story building, but 66 ft. that is almost a 6 stOirY building and
we are locked into that and there no holding back so I would ask that you consider putting
it off a little bit.
Mr. Sterrett asked your interpretation now, is that from structure to structun9, that 500 ft.?
Mr. Peters stated from structure to structure, it is just from you draw a (:ircle from the
property from the structure I believe.
Mr. Sterrett stated because I did a scale from structure to structure and WE~ past 500 ft.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 32
Mr. Peters stated either way from the proposed building and the parking lot and
development falls within the 500 ft. circle.
Mr. Sterrett asked from the proposed building to the Foley House you think it is within 500
ft.?
Mr. Peters stated oh absolutely, John Burger provided me with a site map that has the 500
ft. limit circle on it.
Mr. Hardy stated ok if there are no further questions I will bring the question back to the
Board.
Mr. Sterrett stated I would like to look at that 500 ft. circle if I could. Do we have that
available?
Mr. Andrew stated I would advise the Board that that is not an issue for the Board to be
discussing for two reasons. One we have been consistent in our interpretation, if that
interpretation was accepted then we would have had to have an environs reviiew before the
demolition permit was issued for the Sears Center, because the Sears Center was also
within 500 ft. of the Prescott-Foley House and removal of that building could have had an
affect. The interpretation was an environs review was not needed for a demolition permit.
The other issue being that if that is still in fact an interpretation that is goin~~ to be made,
that could be done at the building permit stage and not now. The issue before the Board
is whether their request to go from 35 ft. to 66 ft. in building height has been supported by
sufficient information relating to uniqueness, affect on neighboring properties, how it blends
in with the surrounding development pattern and the hardship on the health center if they
are required to have a smaller or shorter building. If you action today only allows the
building official to issue a building permit for a 66 ft. tall building. If the issue is about the
impact on the Historic District are going to be raised they can still be raised at the time of
building permit review and not necessarily need to be addressed at this timE:!. Your job is
to focus on the difference between the 35 ft. and a 66 ft. building, whether they have
presented sufficient justification for that and its potential impact on neighboriing properties
and also the hardship to them is you force them to have a shorter or smaller building.
Mr. Worth asked am I correct in assuming then that even if we grant this variance the
people in the neighborhood still have a right of appeal based on other issues and they
could appeal to somebody else the Heritage issue or whatever?
Mr. Andrew stated they could appeal staff's interpretation of the Heritage Commission
issue at the time that a building permit is applied for.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 33
Mr. Peterson stated and it would not come back to this Board for that appeal.
Mr. Sterrett asked on staff recommendation item number one the proposed medical office
building shall be located no closer than 40 ft. from any residential lot line and no closer
than 100 ft. from Santa Fe Avenue and on our proposed map here we are showing a 75
ft. setback line, is that the 75 ft. setback line and then we would hope to ascertain another
25 ft. so we are actually talking a 100 ft. setback? The special building would be 145 ft.
Mr. Andrew stated we are measuring from the property line on Santa Fe, that setback line
that you see on the drawing is measured from the center line of Santa fe. We are talking
about no closer than 100 ft. from the property line on Santa Fe. '
Mr. Sterrett asked structures, now parking will be fine?
Mr. Andrew stated we are talking about the front of the building has to be set back at least
100 ft. from the property line on Santa Fe. The 40 ft. number is based on the distance
between the side of the building and the residentiallot that is addressed ¡:IS 120 Prescott.
If you wish to amplify or expand that condition you could say that it could be no closer than
125 ft. from the residential lots along 8th Street if you wish to expand that. The 40 ft.
number refers to the distance between the south side of the building and the lot on
Prescott, 120 W. Prescott. The reason for'that is that this is the plan that they brought
forward for public consumption today. It goes'i)eyond the minimum stand~lrds, the reason
for those conditions is to not allow them to when they apply for a building permit move the
building any closer to the residential properties.
Mr. Worth asked what about their setback on Prescott from the street to 1the building?
Mr. Andrew stated that would be tied down from the 40 ft. distance from the rear property
line. They couldn't move the building closer. If you wish to have that number tied down
you can do that as well.
Mr. Sterrett asked will that in turn affect, you talked about perhaps five or ten years down
the road would that hinder your plans for future development as you talked about bringing
the wing out? That would be fine with that setback and what have you?
Mr. Hinnenkamp stated yes.
MOTION:
Mr. Sterrett moved to approve this application. I think it is fine and that we
should stick with the number one option that no closer than 40 ft. on Prescott
and no closer than 100 ft. on N. Santa Fe Avenue.
SECOND:
Mr. May seconded the motion.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2000
Page 34
Mr. May asked the drawings on here, this 100 ft. that is recommended, is that to the front
edge of the canopy or is that to the building proper?
Mr. Andrew stated I would say we would consider the front of the building the canopy.
Mr. May stated what I am calling the canopy is that projection out there where they drive
through I assume.
Mr. Peterson showed where staff believed the 100 ft. was located on the overhead
projector.
Mr. Andrew stated you could ask the hospital architect for clarification but according to our
measurements as shown today, the front canopy is 100 ft. back from the Santa Fe property
line.
Mr. Umphrey asked Mr. Hinnenkamp had mentioned that we had earlier considered what
is good for Salina overall and I think that needs to be taken into consideration today and
therefore I am going to vote for the motion but I would like to at least to include a request
that the hospital staff take a look at possibly moving the building to the north at least a
short distance.'
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0.
#5.0ther Matters.
There being no other business the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Dean Andrew, Assistant Secretary