Loading...
7.2 Zone Timberline Add CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 5/5/97 4:00 P.M. AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVEDFOR NO. 7 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT AGENDA: ITEM ROY DUDARK ff/~ NO. 2 & 2a BY: BY: c~::3'/~./~ Application #Z97-3, filed by Timberline Property, Inc., requesting a change in zoning district classification from RS (Residential Suburban) District to R-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential) District to allow construction of a 32 unit apartment complex. The subject property is located on the north side of West Republic between Vassar Drive and the Union Pacific railroad tracks (aka 1000 W. Republic). Nature of Reouest Timberline Property, Inc. recently acquired this 1.92 acre tract of surplus railroad land from the Union Pacific railroad. The property is currently unplatted and zoned RS. The new owners have filed this request to rezone this 150' x 570' tract to R-2.5 to allow the construction of a 32 unit apartment complex on the site. The concept plan submitted by the applicant shows four (4) 8 unit apartment buildings on the site that would be served by a single private drive off of Republic. The apartment units would be oriented to face east toward the railroad tracks and the parking area for the complex would be located between the buildings and the railroad right-of-way. The site plan submitted by the applicant's architect is conceptual and would not be binding on the developers. The RS district permits only single-family dwellings on lots 1 acre in size or greater. Therefore rezoning of the property from RS to R-2.5 is necessary before multi-family housing could be built on the site. In addition, Sec. 42-8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that land be subdivided (platted) in accordance with the city's subdivision regulations prior to rezoning any area to any district other than A-1. A combined preliminary/final plat for this proposed Timberline Addition has also been filed. This one lot subdivision would abut the Sunset Manor Addition on the west. Suitability of the Site for DeveloPment Under Existino Zonin~ The subject property is a relatively flat piece of ground. The natural surface water drainage pattern in this area is south to north, however, this property does not drain well and runoff tends to accumulate on-site. The property is not located within the mapped 100 year flood plain. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CiTY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 5/5/97 4:00 P.M. AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVEDFOR NO. AGENDA: PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT ITEM ROY DUDARK NO. Page2 BY: BY: This site is contiguous to existing residential development on the west and needed utilities are either in place or can be extended to serve development on this site. The current RS zoning has inhibited development of this 1.92 acre site by limiting the potential use to one (1) single-family dwelling. The width and shape of this tract make it unsuitable for division into individual home sites. The layout of the site is suitable for some form of multi-family housing or some institutional use that does not require subdividing ownership of the property. There is also a very limited supply of property in the community of this size and with frontage on an arterial or collector street that is suitable for multi-family housing. Character of the Neiahborhood This proposed development is located between a residential subdivision and a seldom used rail line. This 150' wide tract serves as a buffer between the rail line and the single-family homes that face Vassar Drive and Plaza Drive. Farther to the north along Franklin Street the strip between the rail line and Plaza Drive is zoned I-2 and used for repair businesses and outdoor storage. While there is almost no multi-family housing in the area, such housing would provide a more suitable buffer between the rail line and single-family homes than additional commercial or light industrial development such as mini-warehouses. Provided that adequate setbacks and screening are provided, the applicant's proposal should not adversely affect the neighborhood or damage the value of surrounding property. A similar zoning and development pattern exists at 415 E. Republic where the 18 unit Chalet Apartments were constructed next to the Second Street slough. Public Facilities and Services Adequate water, sanitary sewer, and gas and electrical lines are in place or can be extended to serve multi-family apartments on this site. The proposed change in zoning classification and use proposed by the applicant should not overburden public facilities and services. Republic Ave. is designated as a collector street in this location and carries 4,800 vehicles per day. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 5/5/97 4:00 P.M. AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVEDFOR NO. AGENDA: PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT ITEM ROY DUDARK NO. Page3 BY: BY: Staff would note that the Department of Engineering and Utilities has requested that this development be required to have a looped water system in order to provide the required fire flow of 1,500 g.p.m, and to provide the required flow in the case of a main break. While this is feasible it would necessitate some off-site improvements by the developer across adjoining property. At this point there is no plan in place for making this second connection. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - The Comprehensive Plan shows this site as bing appropriate for medium density residential development. The development density proposed by the applicant (32 units on 1.92 acres) computes to ~ units/acre which is in the high density category but still below the maximum density permitted under R-2.5 zoning which is ~ units/acre. Staff believes that the applicant's plan for 32 apartments is inconsistent with the medium density designation and would require an amendment to the land use plan prior to a zoning change to R-2.5. A zoning change to R-2 or some other lesser zone would not require an amendment to the land use plan. Plannina Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this application on April 2, 1997. Following comments from the applicant and surrounding property owners and discussion by members of the Commission, a motion was passed to table this item to April 16 with staff directed to provide additional information and clarification about issues raised during the public hearing. Identified concerns included traffic impact, schools, drainage, the scale (height) of the buildings and the type and height of screening on the east and west property lines. The public hearing was reopened on April 16, 1997. At the conclusion of the hearing a motion to amend the land use plan designation for this tract from medium density residential to high density residential failed on a 4-4 vote. A motion to recommend approval of a lesser zoning change from RS to R-2 was then approved 7-1 subject to satisfactory platting of the property. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 5/5/97 4:00 P.M. AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVEDFOR NO. AGENDA: PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT ITEM ROYDUDARK NO. Page4 BY: BY: On April 14, 1997, a protest petition containing 19 signatures, 11 of which were found to be valid, was filed by adjacent property owners representing ~ of the land area within 200 feet objecting to the applicant's request for R-2.5 zoning. Following the April 16 meeting, no new petition objecting to the recommended R-2 zoning was filed by adjacent owners. City Commission Alternatives 1. If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the attached ordinance rezoning the property to R-2 instead of R-2.5 should be approved on first reading. Second reading would be held in abeyance until the property is satisfactorily platted and the utility issues are resolved. Only a majority vote is needed if the Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 2. If the City Commission wishes to approve the applicant's original request for R-2.5 zoning, a motion should be passed to reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Because a valid protest petition has been filed, approval of R-2.5 zoning would require four (4) affirmative votes. If this action is taken, the City Commission should articulate the specific reasons for disagreeing with the Planning Commission's recommendation. 3. If the City Commission wishes to disapprove the rezoning request altogether, a motion should be passed to reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the application. In order to reject the recommendation on first consideration, four (4) affirmative votes are needed. Again, the City Commission should articulate specific reasons for disapproval of the application. 4. If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission but can not muster 4 votes for either Alternative #2 or #3, a motion should be passed to return the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. In approving such a motion the City Commission should articulate any specific alternatives or changes to the proposal which the Planning Commission should consider prior to making a second recommendation. CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CiTY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME 5/5/97 4:00 P.M. AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVEDFOR NO. AGENDA: PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT ITEM ROYDUDARK NO. Page5 BY: BY: Encl: Application Vicinity Map Concept Plan Protest Petition Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of 4/2/97 and 4/16/97 Ordinance No. 97 - 9804 cc: Stan Byquist Gary Percival PUBLICATION DATE No Later Than March 11 ~ 1gq7 HEARING DATE April 2, 1997 VICINITY MAP ATTACHED Yes OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED Yes APPLICATION NO. #Z97-3 DATE FILED February FILING FEE $215.00 RECEIPT NO. ~ lOl(~L~ 1097 (INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION ARE ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE DISTRICT ZONING MAP (REZONING) Applicant's Address ~,'~ ~-~i~-f.~-[~_F3,/~[~ -~;~T'., ~$~IA ZipCode: G~(~ Telephone (Business): ~/~ C ~7- ~/ (Home): ~7 - ~/ _ Owner's Name: ~ ~U~ t ~ ~ I~T-~~~ ~. ~. O~er's Addre~ ~ ~L~ ~ ~. ~A Xip Code: ~q I~ Legal description of prope~y to be rezoned (a~ach additional sheets if nece~w): Lot(s) Q~~~ ~n moc~ No. In ~O~ ~ T ~O~ ~m,~l O ~ Subdivision Metes and bounds description if unplaced (a Suweyor's Ce~ificate must be filed with this application and ~ approved will be required to be pla~ed): 7. Approximate street address: 8. Area of property (sq. ft. and/or acres): 9. Present zoning: "J~-.-~ Use: VACA ~IT 10. Requested zoning: ~'~ "~', ~- Use: {i~,.pA.~-~L~.(~,d,~T~ ~ 11. Are there any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development? (Attach copy): 12. List reasons for this request. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): {.,O(~_. ~::~-~ ~' 13. Supply factual data showing the effect the request will have on present and future traffic flow, schools, utilities, refuse collection, surrounding properties, e[c: (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 14. Will there be sufficient off-street parking provided for the requested use? Explain: 15. List exhibits or plans submitted: O~-U~-~'(9~.'~ PROPERTY OWNER(S) ,~ APPLICANT'S,~., SIGNATURE~~ ~ ~~~IGNATURE: DATE: ~'~- ~ DATE: If the applicant is to be represented by legal counsel or an authorized agent, please complete the following so that correspondence and communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual. NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS:. TELEPHONE (Business): White - Planning Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection (PLEASE DO NOT DETACH) ZIP CODE: AREA CODE: Gold - Applicant (Rev. 8/84) 101 ' FRA N KLi N ST APPLICATION #Z97-3 ~ FILED BY TIMBERUNE PROPERTY, Inc. ~' . ~ / t WILSON, I REPUBLi - \ . ~qr~-- I inch = 200 feet !IEQUI~$' i- AREA Lot C~ven3ge: coverage Percentage. 16.4~ b~66ooeooeoeeoeoooooooooooeoeooo · :-: ?,:.:, ..-...~ Scale: 1~= 30'-0" · '-o' ~0'-0' ~0'-0' PROTEST COMPUTATION PETITION 4138 Protesting APPLICATION ~ #z97-3 FILED BY Timberline Property, Inc. TOTAL AREA 500~095 sq. ft. Less Request Area Less R/W 84,282 sq. ft. 160,108 sq. ft. TOTAL PROTEST AREA 255,105 sq. ft. AMOUNT OF PROTEST 65,010 sq. ft. PERCENT OF PROTEST 2s.,z CITY OF SALINA~ KANSAS PROTEST PETITION PETITIOH NUHBER q/~2,~ ~ . The understgnedt owners of reel estate located wtthtn 200 feet of property proposed to be rezoned, protest the proposed change of zoning for property described tn Zoning Application ~Z~-~ SECTION II. - Protestor(s) Proper~y o~ned Slgne~ure(s) Hebe~ a~d ~unds description o~ Lot(s) Block(s) Addition / "- ACKNOWLEDCEHEHT STATE OF KANSAS ) ) SS COUNTY OF SALINE ) The foregoJn9 Instrument was acknowledged before me this 19qOJ, by (LIST EACH PERSON ACKNONLEDCED) Ity Comlsston explrest ~-Ib .q q EACH SIGNATURE HUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED .:ddltt.onal statements of acknowledgement may be attached and made s part of this petition as necessary. [Rev. 7/86) CITY OF SALINA~ KANSAS PROTEST PETITION The undersigned, owners of real estate located within 200 feet of property proposed to be rezoned~ protest the proposed Change of zoning for property described tn Zoning Application ~ SECTION II. - Proteator(s) Signature(s) Property owned Hates and Bounda description or Lot(a) Block(a) Addition .... qqo ~kt,~ c ACKNOWLEDGE]~ENT STATE OF KANSAS ) SS COUNTY OF SALINE ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this 19~q, by (LIST EACH PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED) 8TATEOF ~CH SIC~TURE HUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED .~ddltl.onal statwnts of ackn~le~nt may be arrayed and made 4 part of ~fl peCltJ~ aa necessary. (Rev. 7/86) CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS PROTEST PETITION PETI TIOU NLIMBER FILED CITY OF SALINA, KS CITY CLERK'S OFFICE The undersigned, owners of real estate located within 200 feet of property proposed to be rezoned, protest the proposed change of zoning for proporty daaortbed in Zoning Appllcatton.Z~'~ -5 zone change fro. R ~ to ~' ~.' .~ Property owned Hates and Bounds description or Lot(s) Block(s) Addition ACKNOWLEDGE24ENT STATE OF KANSAS ) ) SS COUNTY OF SALINE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me 'chis /~/~3['day of lg~T, by ~J/LIST ERC~ ~ ACKNOWlEDGE:O) ":" "' Hy Co.,,,issto...,ires! a~ m.'im~lumm ~' tay P.~llc ~E ACKNOWLEDGED Addtti.onal statements of acknowle gO~nt may be etta~ed and ~de 4 part of ~f~ petttt~ as necessary. :Rev. 7/86) Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Umphrey stated I just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Thompson asked I assume that the addition to the pond meets our standards or the city standards as far as drainage and flood control? Mr. Andrew stated the addition is actually being designed by our City Engineering Department and it will be a city project. Mr. Blevins asked are there any interested citizens who care to approach? Hearing none we will close the public portion of this application and bring it back to' the Commission for further comments and possible action. MOTION: Mr. Morse moved to approve Application #P97-1/1A including the exception on the minimum street frontage requirements for Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 subject to the one condition in regard to underground lines on Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11. SECOND: Mr. Macy seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion carried 7-0. Application #Z97-3, filed by Timberline Property Inc., requesting a change in zoning district classification from RS (Residential Suburban) District to R-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential) District to allow construction of a 32 unit apartment complex. The subject property is located on the north side of West Republic between Vassar Drive and the Union Pacific railroad tracks (aka 1000 W. Republic). Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated you have vicinity map on the screen that shows the property requested for rezoning. You can see from the ma it currently zoned RS and it is vacant, to the of this is property that is zoned I-2 is also alol the railroad and it has a mix of [/commercial uses. To the sou' across Republic is R and single-family homes, the east is the railroad and across from more single-family homes and ly to the is the Sunset Manor Addition and ~-family The applicant has recently acquired land. It is currentl. district that only a acre lots and it re~ property is not It is now be which was surplus' railroad ~latted and zoned RS. RS is a tingle-family dwellings on 1 as a holding zone when the and is proposed for any use. for to R-2.5 to allow construction a 32 unit apartment )lex. The concept plan ~t have in your packet four eight unit a gs on the site that served by a sing driveway. Again we want to point this is a plan and that it is not necessarily on applicant or what will actually get is ect to modification but it is a statement of intent and it helps you and it helps us evaluate plan. We have noted on page two what the general outlines are in R-2.5 it does allow a density of 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit and so this property that is over 80,000 sq. ft. has more than enough land area for the number of units Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 11 proposed. As far as parking, we require that the first 20 dwelling units have 2 off-street parking spaces and that parking be provided at 1 1/2 spaces per unit thereafter. They are proposing to provide 2 spaces per unit for all 32 units. We have also outlined for you the various landscape requirements that would apply to this project when a building permit application would come in should you approve this. As far as the suitability of the site for development under existing zoning, this current R-S zoning obviously inhibits development of the site because it is limited to one single-family dwelling. Our feeling is the width and shape of this lot make it unsuitable for division into individual home sites, therefore this layout is suitable for either some form of multi-family housing or perhaps an institutional use that wouldn't require this lot to be subdivided into individual lots. The character of the neighborhood is predominately single-family except for the I-2 property that is used for repair businesses and outdoor storage to the north. While there is no multi-family zoning in the vicinity, it is our belief that multi-family housing would provide a suitable buffer between the railroad tracks and the housing to the west and that this would be better than continuing the I-2 zoning that lies to the north of this track. As far as public facilities and services there are public utilities in the area and the proposed change in zoning should not overburden existing public facilities and services or Republic Avenue which is designated as a collector street. The actual street access point, utility extensions and easements and drainage will be addressed in detail in our plat review but we wanted to point out to you that after their review the Department of Engineering and Utilities has requested that this development be required to have a looped water system in order to provide required fire flows and also to provide two sources of flow. While we believe that this is feasible it will necessitate some off-site improvements and connections by the developer and we don't have that plan in place for you today. This rezoning request would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property. We show it as medium density designation and with the 32 units that they are proposing here that would fall into a higher density category so it would require amendment of the plan. On page five we have identified three alternatives for you. One would be to recommend approval of this zoning change subject to satisfactory platting of the property. We would not bring in the plat for your review and approval until the utility issues have been resolved. Your second option would be to table this request if you believe additional infoz~ation is required or a third would be to recommend denial of the request for any reasons that you might cite. Our position on this is that we think the applicant deserves some indication from you as to what your position would be on the zoning change before they go to additional time and expense of looking into alternatives for the second water line connection. Therefore, we would recommend alternative number one which would be approval of this subject to platting and we offer the reasons underneath our recommendation for recommending approval of this request. Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Blevins asked are there any questions of staff? I have some concerns about the transition between the apartments and the residential development to the west. I think those proposed trees at least at this stage, looking at 4 foot trees, are we considering a buffer here with landscaping? Mr. Andrew stated their concept proposal is to replace the Elm trees which are pretty scrubby right now and replace those with evergreen trees. That would provide a solid year round screen as opposed to trees that lose their leaves. Their feeling was that the evergreen buffer would be more attractive than a very long solid fence so their proposal was evergreens. Mr. Blevins asked would you consider 4 ft. adequate? Mr. Andrew stated they would have to grow to a mature height. I think they have to be a minimum of five feet tall when planted if they are used as a screen and then you would have to allow them the opportunity to grow into a screen. Mr. Blevins stated is this a two-story development? Mr. Andrew stated it is a two-story building proposed. Mr. Blevins stated I have some concern about that screening when it comes back to us. Are there any other questions of staff? Hearing none would the applicant care to comment? Please approach the podium and state your name and address. Stan Byquist, 233 Highland, Assaria, Ks, first of all thank you for taking the time to hear our proposal here. Our proposal is pretty much as laid out. We don't have any problem with looping the water system. The screening we understand that as being a problem. It is a little tough to say these trees are going to grow exceptionally fast but the eastern red cedars, once they are rooted which takes about a year will grow on the average of two to three feet a year once they get going, so it wouldn't be but a few years once those trees grow up. Our other choice is a fence, a solid fence I guess, but there again we are limited to a 6' fence height in town, so in our opinion we felt that the trees would be a little more better for screening and more pleasing to look at. Mr. Blevins asked are there any questions of the applicant? Mr. Brown asked is it possible to reverse this layout and have the off-street parking on the west side, the houses against the railroad, would that reduce some of your screening concerns? In other words put the entrance of this area closer to the other streets to the west. Mr. Andrew stated staff actually encouraged them to put the parking on the railroad side because the noise, the headlights, the engine noise and such from having that many parking spaces and that many vehicles, having the Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 13 building between the parking lot and the houses provides a sound buffer as well as a buffer to the headlights and things like that so we actually encouraged them to put the parking on the railroad side. Mr. Dudark stated we thought t~e back of the apartments is usually a pretty quite area there is no real door opening, no coming and going from the rear, so in fact with rear yards you don't see much activity if the vehicles are over in front. Mr. Blevlns asked do you have any comment on that Mr. Byquist? Mr. Byquist stated we would like to see if it would pass on the west side, we feel as the Planning Department does that headlights, car engines, doors slamming should be kept as far as away from the residents as possible. Mr. Blevins asked are there any interested citizens who would like to comment, if so please approach the podium and give us your name and address. Donna Banman, 908 Hancock, I am one of the houses that you want to have the parking lot next to. My backyard is the railroad tracks. The railroad comes through on a fairly regular basis. I bought that home because I am a single person and I don't have to worry about children in my backyard being there safety wise for the railroad so I have several concerns. Number one, we keep building apartments in this town that are too expensive for a lot of people to rent. I rented in this town for 12 years before I was able to buy a home. You cannot tell me that building new homes in that area, new apartments that it is going to be affordable good housing for what we already have in town. It is going to be just as expensive as the ones out by Central Mall. Number two we are all single story homes and I can go out in my backyard and look across the fields and there are trees and there are single story homes on the other side, so you put a two story apartment complex and I am going to feel like I am living in New York City not Assaria. Number three I frankly didn't buy that home in that area to put up with noise from apartment complexes so no I am not happy abOut it and I am certainly not pleased with what they are discussing. That is a nice little area in there, we have a lot to be proud of in our community in the Sunset Park area and to me putting more traffic on and off of Republic Avenue and in my backyard, I don't care which side of the lot the parking is on either way it is going to affect me. Mr. Andrew stated in response to these concerns they are showing on their sketch plan here a privacy fence along the east edge of the parking lot. That fence would not be required because the distance from the parking lot to the homes on Hancock is far enough away, it ks over 100 ft., that that fence would not be required. The other thing would be that as a condition of the sale of this property the railroad has required that a fence be installed the length of this property parallel to the railroad tracks and they have also required that that fence be chain link Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 14 and not be solid so they are going to be required to put a chain link fence along the property line next to the railroad, and that would be a duplication to have the privacy fence and then 17 feet over have another chain link fence, it would be difficult to keep that area maintained and have access to it if you had that. Conceivably that could be a condition of approval but it is not something that our screening or our landscape regulations would require because there is 66 ft. of railroad right-of-way plus another 17 ft. of railroad easement plus the rear yard of the lots on Hancock before you get to any homes and that distance is more than what we would require for screening. Gary Percival, 1001 W. Republic, directly to the south, they were talking about some water lines being redone and stuff and my question one would be on the special assessment, who would get caught up with that, the builder or the people along the road? Another thing I would like to bring up is traffic. I am going to say a car and a half would be 48 more cars in less than a block area. I do believe that is considered an emergency route. I know at times I wait 15 minutes to get out of my driveway the way it is right now. Water drainage, I know two houses to the west of me is a low spot and when we get hard rains that road right there is covered with water so that is something that might need to be looked at again. And what is a companion plat? Mr. Andrew stated one of the questions related to drainage and the design of this plan is to have the parking lot drain from south to north and have a detention pond installed at the north end of the parking lot. The water would be detained and then pumped from the pond through a pipe that would go through an easement and over to Vassar Drive which is to the west of this site and then directly into a storm sewer so the pond serves two purposes, it is a collection point to make sure that the water doesn't go directly to Republic but goes to the north and then it will detain that water and then release it at a controlled rate directed back to a storm sewer so there will be some runoff to Republic but it shouldn't increase the runoff over what is presently there. I think another concern was traffic and as we point out on page five of the report from the Comprehensive Plan that it is encouraged that if we have multi-family development that it be on or next to arterial or collector streets and Republic Avenue is a collector street which is designed and intended to carry more traffic than a local residential street and then there is the question on water lines and assessments this is the layout of the water lines in the area, and there is a water main along Republic here and they would tie into that to serve their development and what the Engineering Department wants them to do is to take this line and either tie it back into the line in Plaza Drive or up possibly to a line in Franklin but their concern is that should a long line be run here to serve these apartments should there by any break or interruption of service in that line there would be no water for fire protection and domestic supply but if they could tie that line to Plaza or Franklin or another system then there would be two Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 15 sources of flow for the apartment complex and that is our concern. Any line that is built from here to here would be financed by the developer and there would not be any special assessment for the area at large. Mr. Blevins asked would anyone else like to comment? Vicky Reinbold, 928 Hancock and I own 932 Hancock, my biggest concern is the drainage. What I have been wondering is is it going to be built up? Is everything going to be built up as high as the track? And also north there is already a problem to the north because when there is heavy rains the water fills the streets and I feel very fortunate that I have lived at 928 for 28 years and always had a dry basement and no water in front of the house. To the north there is a problem already and would it do any good to get a petition? Mr. Andrew stated again we would refer back to the pond, this is an unplatted tract of land and as part of our subdivision regulations they are required to submit a drainage study which they have done and their engineer has designed a system that would have a pond here so that the water from the parking lot would be collected in that pond and that should intercept a lot of the water that is now draining from south to north across the open field to the north and pipe it directly over to Plaza or Vassar Drive and so they are not obligated to improve the drainage conditions in the area but to make them no worse by increasing the paving and building in the area and so they have sized the pond accordingly. Mr. Blevins asked any comment in regard to the question of petitioning? Mr. Andrew stated we would be happy to assist individuals on what it takes to file a formal protest petition. We have forms and pamphlets upstairs in the Planning Department if they have questions about what it takes to have a formal protest petition. Mr. Blevins asked the matter would go before the City Commission, is that correct? Mr. Andrew stated yes that is correct. Violet Stone, 901 Plaza Drive and I don't understand this ponding thing you are talking about. That would put it right behind my house, explain that to me. Mr. Andrew stated their plan is that these would be two story eight unit buildings, four units down, four units up actually 8 units per building for a total of 32 then there would be a yard area behind the apartments and then they are proposing as their screen or their buffer on the west there to eliminate the tree line that is there now that is primarily Chinese and Siberian Elms and to replant Eastern Red Cedars and to have that provide a buffer, a side screen between the apartments and the rear of the lots that face Plaza Drive. Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 16 Mrs. Stone asked would those buildings be facing the west? Mr. Andrew stated the doors would face the parking lot, you would have perhaps patios and balconies, I don't know if they plan to do that but the only thing that would face the rear would be windows and if they had a deck or patio behind the apartments, only the developers could answer that question. Mrs. Stone asked and the drainage part? Mr. Andrew stated the pond would be located at the very north end of the property. They would provide an easement on their plat which has not been brought forward today. There would be a pipe placed in the ground at a point along here where there is an easement, they would run a pipe through and over to Plaza Drive and then discharge the water into the storm sewer. This particular map doesn't show the location of the storm sewer inlet but their inlet is down here at the corner of Vassar and Plaza Drive so they would build a pipe and pipe the water from the pond to that storm sewer. Mr. Blevins stated the pond is obviously a graded holding pond, retention facility that is designed to retain all the water that would be flowing in that direction. There is one over by Presbyterian Manor if you care to .go by there and take a look at that and see what it looks like. That is one of the larger ones in town. Mr. Dudark stated the Eastgate area has one. Mr. Umphrey stated a point of comment I think that should be pointed out is an explanation is that this ponding area would be void of water the majority of the time. It would be a dry holding area except in times of heavy rain and then it would be gradually pumped out but most of the time there would be no water in the pond. Loretta Barrentine, 1708 Pershing, this is my mother's home that we are talking about. When you think of single family homes there and then you think of building that monstrosity right behind that is going to be an eyesore. It doesn't even fit in with that area. Yes I would like to get a petition together. Mr. Andrew stated after the meeting we would be happy to take you upstairs and show you what would need to be done for a petition. Mrs. Barrentine stated I feel like a meeting at 4:00 in the afternoon is kind of hard for some people who work and everything to come and I think that there are more people who would like to have a say than are present today. Mrs. Banman, stated Mr. Perez had a good point, it seems like we are squashing buildings every place in the town, and I know that Salina is growing but I would hope and from what I have seen it looks like you guys do a lot of work and this is all new to me on planning and designing and medium density and low density, these are all words I Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 17 have never heard before today here. And so I am really pleased to hear that but then when I hear we are medium density and we are going to go to high density and then go to Republic Avenue and for those of you that have driven up and down Republic Avenue by S~nset Park lately that is not a thoroughfare, we have cars slowing down and turning in and out of Sunset Park all the time, we have a huge contingent of people going in and out of that park so it is not Just a two-way street that people are zooming up and down the street. And I still feel that the railroad, that is an active railroad, the train goes by several times a day sometimes and I don't see that is safe. I don't know how else it would addressed, they talk about a chain link fence or a privacy fence, I would feel better with that, knowing that there was some type of fence Just because any apartment complex is for families that can't afford to own a home, I have been there, done that and I know how hard it is to find affordable housing in this town to rent. Mr. Blevins asked are there any other citizens who wish to comment. Hearing none we will close the public portion of this application and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion and possible action. MOTION: Mr. Thompson stated Mr. Chairman in light of the information that we have been able to receive I would like to move that we table this rezoning request pending further information on the traffic issue, myself I feel that Republic is a very ~usy street. Have we done any kind of traffic count on it, it is a major arterial but is it wide enough to accommodate an additional 48 cars that are going in and out of there and getting in and out. Have we looked at the possibility of making a setback street so that they could move out of the line of traffic and get into that area? Are we confident that the flood plan with the holding pond is adequate because I to have been in that area after heavy rains and have recognized that without ponds we have some significant problems there at the present time and I think that those kinds of questions need to be addressed before we proceed any further. SECOND: Mr. Blevins seconded the motion. Mr. Blevins stated I am generally in favor of the development but I share some of the concerns and I think thls would give us a chance for further public input to table this matter. I hear the concern that we give the developer some direction before they go into further expense, based on what I am hearing and you can add to my comments that we are generally open to this development but we have some concerns that need to be addressed some substantial concerns regarding water and cars. Personally I am not as concerned about the fact that it changes, I don't think it substantially changes the character of the area, certainly not in a detrimental way but I think that we have seen and heard some issues here that need to be addressed and I support the motion to table it on that basis. Salina Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Page 18 Mr. Thompson stated I don't mean to imply that I am asking for the Commission to table it for the reasons of wanting to deny it, I think that knowing the rental needs in Salina, I support that, I just want to make sure that we have all our other questions answered substantially enough for this particular location to be appropriate. Mr. Brown stated my opinion is that I think it is fine to table it from this standpoint but my opinion and direction to the owner, it doesn't appear to me to be high density in population, that is a lot of people in a real small area with no green area and if this really is going to be for kids, where do the kids go? Maybe that is nothing that as the Planning Commission we can affect. It appears that they have met all the rules but that is Just my opinion, I think that it is great that this building is going into the city instead of expanding further and further out, I love that. The question is, could you also consider single story there too which would cut this in half as well as lower the density. Mr. Morse stated I guess I don't have a concern about the flooding in that area historically I have never been a big fan of detention ponds but they do work and in many cases they improve the situation for those people in that area because it does hold that water on site and does not let it drain off at a rate faster than it did originally and I guess 48 or 100 new trips per day is probably insignificant for the amount of traffic that is going up Republic now. I think that probably generates two trips as residential. I guess I don't think that is a major impact and staff looked at it and they feel it is not a major impact. Mr. Umphrey asked what elementary school district is this in? Mr. Andrew stated the Sunset School district which is west of this site on Republic. Mr. Umphrey asked it is on the other side of Broadway? Mr. Thompson stated I think it is Lowell School. Mr. Blevins asked are there any other questions or comments? Rearing none I will call for the question. VOTE: Motion carried 5-2. Mr. Thompson left the meeting at 5:00 p.m. ~_ #6. Application #P97-2/2A, filed by Timberline Property, Inc. ~--~ requesting approval of a final plat of a proposed -~- subdivision of a 1.93 tract on the north side~ "' ~---~ Republic between the Sunset Manor Additiona_,~-~'he Union ~P~=3~c railroad tracks. (To be know~L-a~-the Timberline Additio~;~~ . Mr. Blevins state~t'a~f~ know would recommend that this · matter b~ Could we~w~-~-~amline this and have a MINUTES SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COMMISSION ROOM APRIL 16, 1997 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Blevins, Brown, Duckers, Macy, Morse, Thompson, Umphrey and Weiner MEMBERS ABSENT: Davidson DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark, Andrew and Barker. OTHER: O'Leary The Hearing began at 4:00 p.m. The minutes of April 16, 1997, were approved as presented. Application #Z97-3, filed by Timberline Property, Inc., requesting a change in zoning district classification from RS (Residentail Suburban) District to R-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential) District to allow construction of a 32 unit apartment complex. The subject property is located on the north side of West Republic between Vassar Drive and Union Pacific railroad tracks (aka 1000 W. Republic). Tabled on April 2, 1997. Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated the picture you have on the screen is the vicinty map of the area, the area shaded in grey is the area requested for rezoning which is currently zoned RS and the surrounding zoning is also on the map. You took comments on this application from the applicant and surrounding property owners, discussed it amongst yourselves and approved a motion to table this item to today asking staff to provide you with some additional information. From the minutes and our notes we identified what we thought were the five main concerns at the last meeting which were traffic impact, schools, drainage, the scale of the project and the type and height of screening proposed on the east and the west. We have attempted to go over those in our staff report and address each of these items as best we could and we will start out with streets and traffic. Republic Ave. is a collector street it has 80 ft. of right-of-way and 37 ft. of paving. The last available traffic count from KDOT shows that it carries 4,800 vehicles per day (vpd) in this location. The Engineering Department said that as a general rule of thumb a collector street is classified as a street that carries from 2,000 to 5,000 vpd. We gave you some comparisons in there of other east-west streets that are classified as collectors and have two lanes, Ash Street carries 3,600 vpd between 9th and Broadway, and Cloud Street carries 7,325 vehicles per day between 9th and Broadway so Republic would kind of fall in between those two numbers. We did some research on what kind of trips would be generated from an apartment complex and the published sources that we had said that you could expect about 6.6 trips per day to be generated per apartment and take that times the 32 units proposed that is an additional 211 vehicle trips per day. That would be both entering Republic and exiting off Republic and that would be over a 24 hour period. We took this information and plan and showed that to the Engineering Department and based on those numbers they still did not believe that this project would create enough traffic impact to require any additional traffic control or turning lanes or acceleration or deceleration lanes. As far as schools we did determine that this is in the Franklin-Lowell enrollment area so you would have Kindergarten through 3rd Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 2 graders attending Franklin and 4th through 6th graders attending Lowell. There is no sidewalk on the north side of Republic, however there is one on the south side that runs all the way from Broadway over to 9th Street. As far as storm drainage we went into that in detail at the last meeting. Again I remind you' this is a concept plan and not necessarily the specific .site plan that you would be approving for this site.' As you can see there is a detention pond located at the north end of the parking lot. It would be about 7 ft. deep and it would be 9 ft. by 64 ft. at the bottom, there would be a pump in there and an underground pipe and the water from the pond would be pumped into that pipeline and discharged into a storm sewer that is near the intersection of Vassar Drive and Plaza Drive. All of this would be underground and the pipe would be constructed in a public utility easement between the homes and over to the storm sewer at the Plaza and Vassar Drive intersection. There was some concern expressed about the scale of this project primarily about the height of the buildings because they were two story. We just wanted to point out that the height limitation in this zoning district is 75 ft. and that is primarily because it would allow for elderly housing, the type of high rises you would see like Oakdale Towers and Johnstown Towers but even in R-1 you could have a structure that is 35 ft. tall which is essentially a 2 1/2 story building so it just so happens that the housing in the surrounding area is primarily one story housing but we did point out that the Chalet Apartments on East Republic right next to the slough those are two story'apartments that are adjacent to single-family homes on either side and also the Chapel Ridge Apartments which are across the railroad tracks from Leland Way those are also two-story apartments essentially in the backyard of single-family homes so that would give you something to compare that to. As far as screening they are proposing a buffer on the west, in lieu of a fence they would like to use Eastern Red Cedars as a buffer. As we point out there they would have to be at least 5 ft. tall at the time of planting and would grow to a mature height and can reach up to 30 ft. in height. It is our opinion that that would provide a more effective screen than a 6 ft. fence as far as screening the actual building. The parking lot on the east is more than a 100 ft. from the homes on Hancock and therefore a landscape screen wouldn't be required. In our discussions with them they have indicated a willingness to plant trees in the island areas along the east of the parking lot, if similar Eastern Red Cedars once again were allowed to grow and spread that would provide a little bit of a buffer on that side as well. As we pointed out on page four, there are essentially three alternatives for you; first you could recommend approval of this zoning subject to their satisfactory platting of the property, second if you desire you can approve a lesser change say for instance for R-2 zoning which would allow development of two-family dwellings either duplexes or townhomes on this site. If you built that up to the maximum density allowed in R-2 that would still, if they arranged it correctly, would allow up to 28 units on the site which is only slightly less than the 32 that they proposed, or thirdly you could recommend denial of this request citing your reasons for that. As we pointed out last time there are some issues relating to their plat both for sizing the pond and for obtaining water, they would have to go offsite to make a second water line connection and therefore we believe that they deserve some indication from you whether you are favorably disposed to the apartment zoning. If you are Saltna Planning April 16, 1997 Page 3 inclined to approve this ~equest they wouldn't receive final approval until the plat was submitted and the City Commission approved that plat. We would offer the three reasons on page four of the report in support of this request if that is your desire and we ~lso note on page five that this is currently designated for medium-density residential development and the plan that they have submitted would come under a high density classification so you would need to amend the plan to high-density prior to recommending the change in zoning to R-2.5. With that Roy or I or Shawn would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Blevins asked are there any questions of staff? Mr. Thompson asked under streets and traffic you mentioned that it is 37 ft. wide and the new standard is 41 ft. If my math is correct if you went with the full 32 units that would increase it to over 5,000 vehicles per day where if you were going with 28 units you would be just under the 5,000 vehicles per day which is the suggested maximum apparently for collector streets, so does the maximum mean anything? Mr. O'Leary stated we have given you a ball park range there that is all that that is, 2,000 to 5,000 is something that we look at and we have 250 miles of streets and we try to classify those into one of those three categories, that is nothing more than a ball park number. What we really look at more is the performance of that street, are we experincing delays, are we having congestion, are experiencing accidents in the vicinity of this project. We are not finding that here as we look in this area on Republic Ave. and so we look at the increase of the small percentage of traffic, the 211 trips per day, we are not seeing that causing that. kind of delay or congestion or accident experience that we would be concerned enough about to bring that back to you in this situation. Mr. Umphrey asked you mentioned if we approved the 2.5 zoning that we need to change the plan from medium-density residential to high-density, is that the case if we were to adopt alternative number 2 or would that still fall under medium-density? Mr. Andrew stated I think that R-2 is intended to be a medium density designation so it is only when you get into R-2.5 or R-3 that we would be looking at high density, again we don't have a plan in front of us or a concept for duplex or townhome development on this site but that 28 unit figure is the maximum and I doubt very much whether they could fit 14 two-unit dwellings on this site and make it work. That is just an absolute maximum there so the answer would be if you were just going to rezone to R-2 it wouldn't take an amendment to the plan because that would still be medium density housing. Mr. Umphrey asked in your conversation with the applicant has any mention been made of sidewalk on the north side of Republic? Mr. Andrew stated that is something that you could possibly consider or require during review of the plat but that is not something that we have discussed with the applicant. Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 4 Mrs. Duckers asked since Sunset Park borders on Republic and it exits onto Republic in that area, does that generate more or less traffic in that residential area south? Mr. O'Leary stated I think .that is a factor obviously it is a fluctuating behavior of that and I think that you are going to see fluctuations certainly during special events at the park, baseball games and so on, during the summer more so than in the winter, that sort of thing. Again our numbers are based on some average counts taken probably during the summer periods actually so we think that the numbers and our perception of increase reflects what would happen there in a worst case scenario. Mr. Morse asked what is the maximum height of buildings in R-27 Mr. Andrew stated R-2 is also 35 ft. That would be a 2 1/2 story building. Mr. Brown asked if we go to the R-2.5 right now there is a parking lot arrangement, does the townhome situation convert the parking lot to a street type situation or would it still be based on this parking lot plan? Mr. Andrew stated that would be up to the applicant because up to this point they are proposing to go with rental apartments and a parking lot, if you were to approve a lesser change to R-2 they would have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new layout and a new concept. But chances are it would probably be a private street with individual driveways per unit. Mr. Thompson asked could it still be the apartment type of setup just reduce the number of buildings or is that not feasible? Mr. Dudark stated under R-2 you could put in duplexes two units per building with a building permit. If you wanted to do more than that, a tri-plex, four-plex or something like that it would take a conditional use application so they would then submit you a drawing which shows how the street system would work and the access and the number of units per building and that sort of thing. It would allow more, perhaps up to 28. Mr. Thompson asked so with a conditional use permit it would not necessarily have to just be two family duplexes? Mr. Dudark stated no it could be multi-family with another hearing and your approval. Mr. Andrew stated the thing is that under R-2 they can still have two-story townhomes and two-story duplexes because that would still be within the height limitations, that would not necessarily rule out two-story buildings. Mr. Brown asked the parking arrangement you have on the screen seems to be very long and narrow and the deep end of the lot, does that create any known security problems as far as the police being able to look down and seeing what is going on down at the far end? Mr. Andrew stated it is actually a fairly open plan and the width of the driving area they have there between the two aisles of parking is actually fairly wide. It is Sal]na Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 5 wider than what the city minimum would be so there would be a fairly good sight line from Republic down to the end and there is no buildings or anything obstructing the view from Republic down to the far end of the lot it is Just that we are dealinG with a lot here that is 150' wide and 570' deep and it is an odd shaped lot that takes some creativity in terms of finding a layout and good use for the property. Mr. Blevins asked would the applicant care to comment? If so would you approach the podium and identify yourself and give your address. Stan Byquist, 233 Highland, Assaria, KS, thanks for taking the time to hear our request here, I guess I think that the City Staff has done a real good job of laying out our intentions and everything. The only one component that I have and this depends on market conditions at the time, we would envision this project hopefully catering to the elderly, but, there again, like I say that depends on market conditions at the time. That is all I really have to say unless you have any questions? Mr. Blevins asked do you have any position in regard to R- 2 zoning on this piece of property which it would appear would limit the number of dwelling units to 28 rather than 32? Are you opposed to that? Mr. Byquist stated I guess I am not going to say that I am totally oppossed but what it does do is it will limit the number of units, it will downsize it and then in doing so it will push the cost up per unit. That is really all I have to say on that. Mr. Blevins asked in regard to the trees on the west side, could you state your position in regard to those elm trees serving as a screen versus the new cedar trees? Mr. Byquist stated I am not real big on elm trees and I don't think you will find too many people in town that are they are kind of a nuisance actually. Whatever the Commission would decide would be fine with us, but I think long term, for a better screen the Eastern Red Cedars will make a lot better screen. Mr. Blevins asked are there any further questions of Mr. Byquist? Hearing none are there any citizens who wish to speak? This matter has been heard two weeks ago and we would ask the citizens that do care to comment today to try to limit your comments today to things that might supplement what you had to say two weeks ago because we are still cognizant of what was mentioned last time and if you would state your name and address for the record that would also be helpful. Gary Percival, 1001 W. Republic, I am still concerned over the traffic part of it. He gave a width of the size of the street, is that on the east or the west side of the railroad tracks, there is quite a differential there. Mr. O'Leary stated the number we gave was on the west side. Mr. Percival stated did you know the east side is probably 2/3's that width, also I would like to see a current traffic flow detail pulled because if you go out there the traffic is quite heavy and another thing that I would like Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 6 to bring up, I didn't bring this piece of paper with me, but the Salina Journal last week had quite a write up on rentals, as to there is no real big shortage of rentals. Mr. Blevins asked are there further comments from interested citizens? Linda McReynolds, 937 Vassar, this project is going to be in my backyard. Due to the traffic flow on Republic in the last 5 years that I have lived there I have noticed a big increase on traffic on Vassar for the simple reason that people go to Sunset Plaza, rather then go up and fight the traffic light at Broadway they will cut through Vassar, we have a lot of traffic down Vassar, we get a lot of night time traffic. I am a working person, I sleep at night and I am gone in the day time. As far as the drainage, when you go down north of my house to the intersection of Plaza and Vassar, when it rains there is big time water there. It gets up over the curbs. And water will get up to curb deep in front of my house and I am the third house from the corner off of Republic. We don't need the water, we don't need the noise and we don't need the traffic. Mr. Blevins asked could you hold on for Just one second? It is my understanding Mr. Dudark that with the holding pond arrangement that the pumping of run off water to this intersection would not occur until sometime after a storm when the storm sewer could manage the runoff and that the very purpose of the holding pond is to serve during that interim period. Mr. Dudark stated that is correct the pond collects the water during the rain storm and then after the water subsides some several hours later the pump then discharges the pond into the storm sewers when they are available to accept that. Mrs. McReynolds asked how do you know how big to build your pond. What if it runs over, where ls it going? Mr. Dudark stated it is based on the runoff from the building roofs and the paved area so there is an engineering study that determines the amount of the runoff and the size of the pond that is needed to accept that. It is calculated by an engineer. Mr. Blevins asked are there any other comments? Mrs. McReynolds stated I just hope we don't have water in our backyard. Mr. Blevins stated thank you. Are there any other citizens who wish to comment? If so plese come forward at this time. Hearing no further comments we will bring it back to the Commission for dicussion and possible action. Mr. Umphrey stated well just by way of a comment to open it up, I believe I would not be able to support anything more than a change to the R-2 because that would at least alleviate a little bit of the proposed traffic increase, it would also increase the private green area that would help with the drainage and perhaps have a lesser runoff so I think that the R-2 would be appropriate zoning. Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Blevins asked how does the Commission feel in regard to the development of the property as premised? Is this property we want to see developed? Mr. Brown stated in my opinion I think that it is nice to develop in town but I Just think it is too many people for that area and I also would agree to a lesser density but it just seems like a lot of people in this small area. would also be more for a less dense area. Mrs. Duckers asked if we would go to the R-2 rather than the R-2.5 do we still have the second connection to the water that would need to be identified? Mr. Andrew stated that would have to be looked at again as to how many units they would propose, there is a higher fire flow requirement for multi-family dwellings than there is for the townhomes or single-family, but I think the Engineering Department is still looking at having two sources of flow regardless of the minimum fire flow and I might let Mr. O'Leary address that. Mrs. Duckers stated you are looking for a loop of some kind? Mr. Andrew stated right a loop that provides two sources. Mr. O'Leary stated right in fact we have talked about that a number of times with the circulation of the water and the stagnant water and a long pipe line going 500 ft. in this case, it has just not been a good functional system in other locations and we think that that connection in this case is a fairly short connection, although it is a little messy going through someones side yard, it is the right thing to do for certainly R-2 zoning. Mrs. Weiner stated in looking at an R-2 versus an R-2.5 the only difference would be the setbacks, the front and side setbacks in an R-2 conditional use compared to multi- family. The difference would be the 32 to 28 because if they designed it such they could still end up with 28 units in a 2 acre site. So there is no guarantee that we are going to get substantially less units and also as the minimum dwelling size in R-2 is 3,000 sq. ft. so then I am afraid you are going to drive the price of your units up which would be nicer if we could somehow, and I too am concerned with 32 units, but if we did an R-2.5 could we extend later on down the road look toward reducing the number of units? Mr. Dudark stated no they would be able to develop under the R-2.5 standards if it was granted so they would only have to look in the zoning ordinance and have the R-2.5 requirements satisfied in order to build that. Mr. Blevins stated the options as I see it are R-1 which is basically where it starts and the size for five or six single-family houses. Mr. Dudark stated at most and more then likely on one side of the street. Mr. Blevins stated which our concern there I think would be obviously the feasiblity of developing property with only one side of the street bearing the cost for the street improvements and capital improvement so I think that what we are looking at is an option of not developing Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 8 the property or permitting up to 28 units which frames the issue for us. Mrs. Duckers stated I can't see anyone want to build residential house there, they will either be in the front yard or the back yard. Mr. Blevins stated and I am in favor of appropriate development of this piece of property having seen it and been around it, and I think it is a large piece that as it currently exists without development does cause an unattractive nuisance. In fact the exposure of the back yards of the surrounding properties to the street I think a well done project could add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood substantially and should even increase property values. MOTION: Mr. Morse stated I guess I feel that the reduction to an R-2 is not going to gain us what we. would like to see gained and with that in mind I would move to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site from medium density residential to high density residential. SECOND: Mrs. Duckers seconded the motion. Mr. Blevins stated I am in favor of the slight advantage of a little bit lower density so I am going to vote against it to gain those extra four units, I think it is a small improvement but a worthy one. Mr. Brown stated my concern is similar, in fact I guess I would rather see nothing than see high density. VOTE: Motion failed 4-4. Mr. Umphrey stated I have a question of staff, I think from what I am hearing here that the majority of us are in favor of seeing the property developed, is there another viable alternative open to us to allow, I am Just throwing this number out say instead of 32 units say 24 units or something like that, would a PDD or a PUD something like that work in this case? Mr. Dudark stated it possibly could, although I think the R-2 could get you there if that is the direction you want to take. Mr. Umphrey asked what is the minimum size you can build then as far as per unit? Mr. Dudark stated well if the property were zoned R-2 you could just build two units per building by meeting the regulations. Now if you want to do more than two units per building then it would take a conditional use permit and that would then be the number of units you would see how many they wanted to do. Mr. Umphrey asked so the progression would be to zone it R-2 and then seek a conditional use permit to allow the amount of apartment units but not 32 of them? Mr. Dudark stated exactly and that would then be a binding plan and would be equal to a PDD. Mrs. Duckers stated as I understand it if we go to R-2 we do not have to amend tf~ Comprehensive Plan and we are only doing this plan a~endment motion that we made to Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 9 permit them to go to R-2.5 we don't have to do that if we work with R-2. Mr. Dudark stated that is correct. MOTION: Mr. Thompson moved to approve the lesser change to R-2 on the basis that I think it would allow us to get a better control of traffic, also 'a better control of the runoff and at the same time recognize the need for a development similar to what the gentlemen have brought to us. SECOND: Mr. Umphrey seconded the motion. Mrs. Weiner asked if we go R-2 can we also change the minimum dwelling size, do we have to build 3,000 sq. ft.? Mr. Dudark stated the requirement in R-2 is 3,000 sq. ft. of land area per dwelling unit. They have enough land area for 28 units. Mrs. Weiner stated I was just thinking also of the cost of the unit because you have to increase the size. Mr. Dudark stated not necessarily. 3,000 ks not the unit size it is the land area per dwelling unit, you can build a smaller apartment. Mr. Morse stated I am not discussing my vote I just want to say that I think staff did a very good job of addressing the drainage and the traffic flow out there and I don't see those still as questions with what they have researched on those two items. Mr. Blevins stated yes we need to remember that our action today if any will be in the nature of a recommendation to the City Commission and of course that will also leave recourse for any interested citizens. Mr. Thompson stated since it is a zoning request I think that according to Policy 87-2 that it falls into that category and it is obvious that it will enhance the area, it is suitable for development of R-2 uses as stated and there are enough public facilities to service this area. VOTE: Motion carried 7-1 (Morse). Mr. Andrew stated Mr. Chairman before we move onto the other items I was going to mention a few things, first of all the applicant can either accept your recommendation and follow that as it goes to the City Commission or he can still request that the City Commission consider R-2.5 zoning, now with that in mind there has been some discussion by surrounding residents about a protest petition and so it is still uncertain whether they will protest your R-2 recommendation but that is the recommendation that is going to go to the City Commission, they still have the option of protesting that recommendation as well If they are oppossed to that. The second item I have is that we did want to remind the neighboring property owners that any petition that is submitted and a property is owned Jointly by a husband and wife that both parties must sign the petition in order for that signature to be valid. They still have the option of protesting your recommendation for R-2 zoning, it is going to have to be up to the applicant to decide whether they want to continue to pursue the R-2.5 to the City Commission or work with your recommendation. Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Thompson asked a point of clarification, if the applicants want a variance on R-2 would they need to submit that, in other words if they wanted to go with apartment buildings as oppossed to duplexes? Mr. Dudark stated that would 'take a separate application. Mr. Thompson stated but they would be the ones that would need to submit that? Mr. Dudark stated yes to the Planning Commission. Mr. Blevlns stated which would also provide a further forum for comment and participation by the public. Application #P97-2/2A, filed by Timberline Property, Inc. requesting approval of a final plat of a proposed 1 lot subdivision of a 1.93 tract on the north side of West Republic between the Sunset Manor Addition and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. (To be known as the Timberline Addition). Tabled on April 2, 1997. Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated this item was also tabled at the last meeting. We are also recommending tabling it at this juncture because part of the work they needed to do on the plat is going to be determined by what the underlying zoning of this property is. If they have a smaller number of units and less lot coverage, the pond may not need to be as large, they may have less parking and so things like the size of the drainage easement will be determined by that also and the question on looping the water line will also need to be looked at so we believe the zoning question needs to be determined before that can be addressed and the way we are looking at it the meeting on May 7 does not look realistic because the zoning probably won't be resolved by then and maybe May 21 is in fact not realistic either because the City Commission is going to have to determine the zoning question before they can design the plat. So our recommendation is that you consider tabling this to May 7 or May 21, even June 4 might be more realistic than those two dates but you probably would need some input from the applicant. Mr. Blevins asked are there any questions of staff before asking the applicant to address the Commission? Hearing none would the applicant approach and let us know of your position. Mr. Byquist stated that is fine and seems to make sense to me. Mr. Umphrey asked which date do you prefer? Mr. Byquist stated probably the later, June 4, I think it is going to take some time and I need to get back to the architect and get something drawn up. Mr. Blevins asked are there any members of the public who wish to comment in regard to the tabling of this application? Hearing none I would entertain a motion. MOTION: Mr. Umphrey moved to table Application #P97-2/2A until June 4, 1997. SECOND: Mrs. Duckers seconded the motion. Salina Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Percival asked are we going to get a renotification of the pending hearing being as this has all been rezoned and all that stuff, will the homeowners get another notification or not as to the next meeting? Mr. Dudark stated your notification was the tabling of the item the last time it was heard as a zoning case. As for the plat that is being done today so you are getting notice today that that will come up on June 4. Mr. Percival asked so we need to just go around the neighborhood and notify everybody that the meeting will be on June 4? Mr. Dudark stated yes you may wish to do that and the media may report it. If the media doesn't report it then you could notify the neighborhood as you stated above. The zoning application will come up before the City Commission on Monday May 5, for the R-2 recommendation. VOTE: Motion carried 8-0. Application #Z97-4, filed by Mowery Clinic, requesting a change in zoning district classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) District to C-3 (Shopping Center) District to allow a building addition. The subject property is legally described as Lots 1, 12 and a portion of Lot 11, Block 8 in the Replat of Lots 1-15, Garden Home Addition to the City of Salina, Kansas and addressed as 671Elmore Drive. Mr. Andrew stated this is an application filed by Jone Glllam Architect on behalf of Mowery Clinic whose re( is to go from C-1 (Restricted Business) which is an office district to C-3 (Shopping Center ) a ~<.classification that allows more intense use of site. %.~ pointed out that the architect had the re%<~irements of the C-1 District and them to the size~f the lot that they had to and they though~ehat the C-1 regulations might or restrict their use of the site and so this request for C-3 ]. On page two and t of your report we have and outlined the .fferences between C-3 and C-1. ~ly there is difference in the number and f uses The C-1 district requires an 8 ft. and the C-3 district doesn't require any setback. We pointed out the fact that back in 199: .ere was a variance granted for the existing Mowery building that allowed it to be located 20 ft. Elmore Drive and that this building that is is n of that and they would be able that Parking requirements are one s for every 200 sq. of building area. They real need this change on their use but the cha from C-1 to C-3 would them to reduce their~ g setback on the east, increase the all,able lot coverage and the allowable ~g that they c~_ d have in the front yard. We pointed ~that the /xist~ng Mowery Clinic covers about 22% of t~lot it occupies and the new Santa Fe Medical Plaza on S~a Fe covers about 18% of the lot that it occupies. If~is plan were carried out it would cover about 40% of this w~ich would be r~ght at the C-3 maximum and 10% over wha~ t~e C-1 district would allow. As far as the character of the neighborhood, essentially there is C-3 to the west and C~i for the YWCA and for the offices to the east and to the south is the Central High School campus. The Ordinance Number 97-9804 Attachment "A" A parcel of land situated in the Sou/heast Ouader (S£1/4) of the Northwest Ouorfer (NWl/4) of Secfio~ Twenty-three (25), Township 14 Sou/h, /~ange $ ~Yesf of the Eixfh (6ih) Pr/nc/pa/Meridian in the Ci~ of So/ina, Saline County, Kansas, more padicularly described as fo/lows: Commencing a/the Horfheosf corner of Lo/Nineteen (19), B/ack One.(l) of SUNSET MANOr? ADDITION fo the City of Sa/ina, said point being One Hundred £/ghly-fhree (185) feet distant ~Yesferfy, measured at right angles from the cenler/ine of main tract of /he blissouri Pacific f?oiiroad Company, czs now consfruc/ed and opera/ed; thence thence South parallel w//h said cenlerline of main /rack, cz diskznce of Six Hundred Sixty (66J7) fee/ 1o /he true point of beginning, thence continuing South along said para#e///ne, a d/s/ance of Five Hundred Seventy. (57B) feet, more or less, fo cz pain/ on /he South //ne of said Southeast Ouarfer Northwest Ouarfer (SE/4 NE/d); thence East along sczid .South line, cz dis/ance of One Hundred f'iffy (15~) feet fo./he. Southeast corner of said Southeast OuaHer Nor~hwes! Ouarfer (SE/~ NFl, I) cz distance of Five Hundred Seven~' ~$7~) feet, more or/ess, fo cz. pain! opposite of and perpendicular fo the point of beginning; thence ~/esf 'along a straight //ne, a distance of One Hundred Fifty {15J7) feet, more or less, fo the po/n/ of beginning. (Except that pad taken for roads, highways and righ/-of-ways)