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)