7.1 Zone Original Townsite CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
8/25/97 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. ? PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN'I' AGENDA:
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NO. i & la BY: /~
BY:~:~
Application #Z97-13, filed by Ron and Cheryl Ahrens on behalf of Sonic Drive-In, requesting a change
in zoning district classification from R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), to PC-3 (Planned Shopping
Center) District to allow additional off-street parking for the Sonic Drive-In. The subject property is
legally described as Lot 175 on Seventh Street in the Original Town of Salina, Saline County, Kansas
(aka 313 S. Seventh).
Nature of Current Request
The manager of the Sonic Drive In at 310 S. Santa Fe is seeking to acquire and rezone the dwelling and
property located directly behind the restaurant at 313 S. 7th. Sonic has expressed a need for additional
employee parking and apparently has been unable to reach any sort of agreement with the adjacent
Masonic Temple for any shared use of their parking lot. Sonic has expressed an interest in utilizing
the rear portion of the lot for parking but keeping the existing dwelling in place for office space and
storage, at least initially. There is a platted 10' alley that separates the lots on Santa Fe from the lots
on 7th.
Off-street parking to serve a commercial use must be located in a commercial district. Since the
subject property is currently zoned R-3 and the applicant is proposing to convert a residential property
to commercial use a change in zoning district classification must first be approved.
Information
The owners of the property, the Ahrens, have moved from Salina. Dennis Powell, the manager of the
Sonic Drive In has prepared and submitted a proposed site plan for the 7th Street lot. The site plan
shows a new area for the trash dumpster, an 8'x 16' storage shed and six (6) off-street parking spaces
for employees on the rear or east half of the 7th Street lot. Sonic's trash dumpster is currently located
within their north circulation drive next to the Mr. Windshield building. This plan would relocate the
dumpster across the alley to the southeast corner of the lot and get it out of the circulation path.
The proposed site plan shows the existing house remaining and no driveway connection to 7th Street.
Two additional concerns expressed at the July 16 hearing were about lighting and screening. Sonic
is proposing to light the rear parking area for security reasons. However, their site plan proposes 3 -
400 watt pole mounted lights facing SW, SE and NE. While these lights would be directed away from
the residence at 309 7th, stalTbelieves they are excessive for two reasons. First, 400 watts is excessive
since standard street lights are only 175 watts. Second, staff questions whether 3 additional lights are
needed since the Sonic Drive In area is already well illuminated.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
8/25/97 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN'1'
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NO.
Page 2 BY: BY:
Sonic is proposing a 6 ft. wood privacy fence along the north side of the expanded parking area to
screen it from the residence to the north, however, no buffer is shown along the north side of the lot.
The City's Landscaping regulations require a 15' buffer between commercial parking areas and single-
family residential uses. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this buffer requirement due to the
narrow width of the lot (50') and the effect such a 15' wide buffer would have on access to and from
the rear parking area.
The City Commission has the authority to modify or grant exceptions to the strict application of the
landscaping requirements in cases where there are exceptional circumstances or conditions present that
make it difficult for a property owner to comply. In this case 20' of width is needed to provide two way
access to the parking area.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this application on July 16, 1997.
Presentations were made by staff and the property owner and concerns were expressed from one
neighboring property owner. Commission members and staff expressed concern about the status of
the existing house, the potential for traffic access to 7th Street and the layout and lighting of the
expanded parking area. Based on these concerns the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to direct the
applicant to amend their request to Planned C-3 which would require the applicant to prepare and
submit a site plan and allow the Commission to delete potentially incompatible uses.
The public heating was continued on August 6, 1997 and at the conclusion of the hearing the Planning
Commission voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the requested change to allow employee parking on
this lot, including the requested waiver of the 15' buffer, subject to the following conditions:
1. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to a maximum of 3-175 watt light bulbs and shall be aimed
and/or shaded so that no direct light is cast on adjoining residential properties.
2. Suitable barriers (such as curb stops) shall be installed along the west side of the parking area
to insure there is no ingress or egress from 7th Street.
3. Development of the site shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and the existing
dwelling on the lot shall not be removed and no driveway connection to 7th Street shall be
made without a public hearing and approval of a plan amendment by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission offered the following reasons in support of their recommendation:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
8/25/97 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM ROY DUDARK
NO.
Page 3, BY: BY:
1) The change will not destroy the character of the neighborhood; 2) The site is suitable for this type
of development; 3) There are adequate public facilities and; 4) The requested change conforms with
the Comprehensive Plan.
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the attached
ordinance should be approved on first reading. The protest deadline expired on August 20, 1997, and
nothing was filed. Second reading would be scheduled on September 8, 1997.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation, it may 1) overturn the Planning
Commission and deny the request provided four (4) votes are in support of such action; or 2) return
the application to the Planning Commission for consideration citing the basis for disapproval.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Site Development Plan
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of 7/16/97 & 8/6/97
Ordinance No. 97 - 9825
cc: Dennis Powell
PUBLICATION DATE No Eater Than ,~'llno ?/':
HEARING DATE July rE. t997
VICINITY MAP ATTACHED KG
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED KG
lqq7
APPLICATION NO. #Zq7-t
DATEFILED June 12: 19q7
FILING FEE $270.00
RECEIPT NO. ~
(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)
Ap,,,ca.t's Name:
Applicant's Address
Telephone (Business): ~ I ~- ~ SJ - ~[~ (Home):
O~er's Addre~
L~al ~escription of prope~y to be rezoned (a~ach additional sh~ts if nece~):
Metes and bounds description if unpla~e~(a Suweyor's Ce~ificate must be filed with this application and if approv~
will be required to be pla~ed):
7. Approximate street address: ,~1~'~ S. "~
8. Area of property (sq. ft. and/or acres): ~ ~ I ~C;) ~ 6,00{~) ..~ ~.
9. Present zoning: J~'3 Use: ?~%i L~l~h~_ ~JWI~ J
10. Requested zoning: O'S Use: P~' ~ ~% ~ S~.~
11. Are there any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development? (A~ach copy):
12. List rea~ns for this request. (A~ach additional sh~ts if nece~):
13.
14.
Supply factual data showing the effect the request will have on present and future traffic flow, schools, utilities,
refuse collection, surrounding properties, etc: (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
I-o,-s~et parking provided for the,requested use.7 yI~S~ ,~,
Will there be sufficient
U'
15. List exhibits or plans submitted:
PROPERTY OWN E~-"~
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
SIGNATURE:
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
APPLICATION #Z97-13
I I FILED BY RON AND CHERYL AHRENS
WAL ~ i~ T ST
C-4 ,
I
R
--QUEST
ARE~,
MULBERRY
' R- c-:~ g-~
~ ~'"'"'~"' EIID 81 -BID-~I BID #'
~-3
~, ,-r ,,
r' r I'' I,.
. ~ Z - "r'
, -, ~- BI£ #1
PDD
- linch --- 200 Feet BID #1
. /
BIE#1
THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY
SEVENTH
SITE PLAN
SONIC DRIVE IN
HOUSE
55.8'
q12.$'
19'
Paved Parking
Sonic
Scale I" = 28'
LEGAL DESC£1PTION
Lo! One Hundred Seventy-five (175)
on Seventh (7th) 5freef,
in fhe Original Town of Salina,
Saline Courtly, Kansas
ARROWSHOOT GEOMATICS, inc.
Saiina Planning Commission
July 16, 1997
Page 2
Bob Bostater, 2041 Ridgeview, as Roy stated we have had considerable discussion
concerning the property in the past week or two. I would ask that if you are
down zone this that you do at least give us the latitud~ of the C-3. It is a
~ecialized building with hydraulic lifts and so forth, there are very few in
zoning that the building is suitable for. I think a C-3 zoning would
be a ood compromise at this point and we can ail go away only slightly
damaged I would appreciate your consideration on ~
Mr. Blevins asked any questions of the
applicant but the Hearing no
members of the public who
back to the Commission for discus~
Actually you are not the
Bostater are there any
Hearing none we will bring this
MOTION: Mr. Morse stated it seems to me C-3 would provide the owner with
what they need as far uses, and still of our concerns about C-5
and with that in I would recommend to the approval of
application #Z rezoning that property from C-5 to C-3 is based upon the
fact that be no adverse affect on the surroundin there are
ade~gt~ public utilities available and it would be in with the
,~mprehensive Plan.
SECJ>~): Mr. Umphrey seconded the motion.
TE Motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Bostater stated I would like to thank the staffand yourselves for working with me.
Mr. Blevins stated good luck on your negotiations.
Application #Z97-13, filed by Ron and Cheryl Ahrens on behalf of Sonic Drive-In,
requesting a change in zoning district classification from R-3 (Multi-Family
Residential) to C-3 (Shopping Center) District to ailow additionai off-street parking
for the Sonic Drive-In. The subject property is legaily described as Lot 175 on
Seventh Street in the Original Town of Saiina, Saiine County, Kansas (aka 313 S.
Seventh).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated this is a rezoning request to go from R-3
(Multi-Family) to C-3 (Shopping Center) District. This is a property that is adjacent to
existing C-3 zoning district along the west side of Santa Fe. As we point out in our
report as far as the Comprehensive Plan, it shows a dividing line on 7th Street with the
east side showing as commercial and the west side as residentiai, however, ire current
zoning pattern is divided in the middle of the block which is more traditional which is
the east half of the block being zoned C-3 along Santa Fe and the west haif of the
block facing 7th being zoned R-3. The manager of the Sonic Drive In at 310 S. Santa
Fe is seeking to acquire this property from the applicants, the Ahrens and wishes to
rezone the dwelling and surrounding property behind the restaurant. Their indication
to us was that they have a need for additionai employee parking and they have been
unable to reach any sort of agreement with the Masonic Temple as far as utilizing any
of the existing parking there on a shared basis, therefore they have expressed interest
in utilizing the rear portion of this lot that contains the house to use for parking and to
possibly use the house for office space and storage. There is a ten foot platted alley
that separates the Sonic site on Santa Fe from the lots on 7th. We point out that the
Sonic Drive In is currently in the C-3 zone which was created in 1977. The C-3 zone
actually would not allow a Sonic Drive In to be built there today. So it is actually a
nonconforming use because it is a drive in restaurant. However off-street parking is a
permitted use in a commercial zone but not in R-3 and because it is now zoned
residential they have made this request to create a commercial zoning district and
expand the commerciai zoning. We have indicated there on page 2 some of the C-3
development limitations as well as designs standards for parking lots. Sonic has not
submitted any sort of plan showing their intended use of the 7th Street lot or how they
have planned to incorporate it into their existing facilities as far as access or
circulation. They will if they put in parking have to install some buffers and screening
because of the existing residentiai properties to the north on 7th Street. In some ways
Salina Planning Commission
July 16, ! 997
Page 3
this is similar to some of the other cases you have had recently on drawing a line
between commercial and residential areas. This lot that we are speaking of, it is only
50 ft. x 120 ft. so there is only a total of 6,000 sq. ft. and it contains a dwelling. The
Sonic site has 12,000 sq. fi. and it is sandwiched between the Mr. Windshield facility
to the north and the Masonic Temple and its parking lot to the south. As we point out,
the question here for you is whether the property requested for rezoning in this case is
more suitable for continued residential use or for some sort of expanded commercial
development. As far as the character of the neighborhood, it is kind of mixed. This
site is zoned R-3 but it is located in the downtown improvement district. The
Comprehensive Plan shows it commercial but the zoning all along this side of Seventh
Street is residential until you get down to South Street directly across from the
hospital. Two lots directly to the north contain houses and the other side of Seventh
Street is zoned residentially and as you get over to 8th Street it' is zoned residential and
fairly is a stable residential setting. So the two areas that would be most affected
would be the homes across the street on 7th and the homes to the north on the east side
of 7th. There is a possibility for noise, light spillage and additional traffic coming onto
7th Street, those are all possible and we can't really address those issues because we
have not received any kind of concept or plan from Sonic as to how they want to
utilize the property. We point out there that straight C-3 zoning will not give you any
control over whether the existing dwelling remains or whether it is removed, it won't
give you any control over whether there are driveway openings onto 7th Street. These
questions could be addressed through a planned commercial district with a site plan so
in some ways this has some similarities to the Green Lantern application at Ohio and
Iron and similar applications that we have when we want to expand commercial
zoning into an existing residential area and balancing the need for expansion with the
possible effects. So we have laid out some alternatives for you, number one being to
recommend a zoning change with just straight C-3 zoning as requested because this is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the second option would be to direct the
applicant to amend the application to a Planned C-3 which would require submittal of
a site plan allowing the Commission to review the plan for retention or removal of the
house and for traffic circulation and access to 7th Street or deny the request altogether
because C-3 zoning is not compatible with the surrounding area, particularly the
houses to the north and to the west on 7th Street. It is unfortunate today that we have
Mr. Ahrens the property owner here but we don't have anyone here from the Sonic to
speak to this application as to their future plans for the property, so if you are
concerned about the future status of the dwelling or the introduction of driveways and
additional traffic on 7th we would recommend alternative two, if you are favorably
disposed towards a straight C-3 zoning then alternative one would be the direction you
could go in. With that we will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Blevins asked are there any questions of staff7.
Mr. Macy asked what is the character of the parking situation there, is there parking
spaces along 7th Street already or is that all residential across the alley?
Mr. Andrew stated over here we have the Sonic and then along the other side of 7th we
don't have any parking except on the street, we have three dwellings there and there is
a parking lot at the comer of Mulberry that is grandfathered in which is gravel. But
the perception of the Sonic Manager is they have places for their customers to park and
that uses up the entire site and there is no place for their employees to park off-street,
there is very limited space available on Santa Fe itself. There are a number driveways
and parking is limited to two hours.
Mr. Macy asked so there is already parking in existence right next to the site?
Mr. Andrew stated the Masonic Temple has a substantial amount of parking to the
south but they have not been able to reach any kind of agreement to share the use of
that lot.
Mr. Morse asked this is probably not a fair question of you Dean but do you have any
idea where the employees are parking now, are they parking along the street?
Salina Planning Commission
July 16, 1997
Page 4
Mr. Andrew stated I think primarily they are parking on the street because there are
maybe one or two spots where you could park a vehicle but they are not designed as
parking stalls, almost the entire site is used for circulation to get around the building or
for pull in stalls.
Mr. Blevins asked would C-3 allow the kind of facility that is on S. 9th Street?
Mr. Andrew stated no. The primary difference is there is a historical basis for this
prior to 1977, C-3 will allow you to have a restaurant that is either sit down or has a
drive through window, but to have a drive in restaurant, which is what Sonic is
requires C-5 zoning.
Mr. Blevins asked what about the recreational facility?
Mr. Andrew stated that would not be permitted in C-3. They couldn't build a twin so
what they have there now is just a restaurant.
Mr. Umphrey asked I noticed on question thirteen of their application, they are
indicating that they are going to provide illuminated parking, do you have any
information on the Masonic parking lot, is it lighted at this time or not?
Mr. Andrew stated I think it has some remote security lighting there but it is not what
you would think of as a lighted parking lot. There are some KPL power poles that
have some spot lighting on them, but it is not like a hospital parking lot or shopping
center parking lot in terms of illumination.
Mr. Brown asked I am wondering if as the next step we ought to consider also zoning
that area to the south of the area in question between the Sonic or is that something
that would need to be brought in by the property owner?
Mr. Andrew stated it wouldn't have to initiated by the property owner, we were kind of
surprised when we noticed that the parking lot for the Masonic Temple had been built
on R-3 zoned property, but many years ago that was something that was just allowed
to take R-3 zoned property and build a parking lot on it. Something that is not allowed
under the current ordinance, but yes it is kind of unusual that all of the Masonic
Temple's holdings are C-3 except the two lots in the comer.
Mr. Blevins asked would the owner care to approach and address the Commission? If
so for the record please state your name and address.
Ron Ahrens, 313 S. 7th, from what I understand, Mr. Powell who is the manager of
Sonic said that all of his employees either have to park in front of my'house on 7th
Street or on Santa Fe and like Dean said he couldn't get any kind of agreement going
with Masonic Temple and they have a little trash bin right at the comer of the drive
through and they want to put that on the property also.
Mr. Blevins asked now where is your residence on the map?
Mr. Ahrens stated exactly right beside the property.
Mr. Blevins asked how do you personally feel about the project?
Mr. Ahrens asked how do I feel about it? I am going to Alaska tomorrow. What we
had originally done was we bought the property and we rented it out, my wife was a
volleyball coach and we rented it out to some girls for volleyball so it was a rental
house to us. We are just trying to sell it.
Mr. Blevins asked are there any questions of Mr. Ahrens? Heating none are there any
members of the public who would like to comment? If so please state your name and
address and address your comments to the Commission.
Mike Sheffield, 309 S. 7th, and my real main concern is the noise and the lights. If
they put a parking lot with the overhead lights, I work 2 a.m. to 10 a.m. and that is
Salina Planning Commission
July 16, 1997
Page 5
going to eliminate my sleeping, I have a hard enough time with the radios and stuff
going on now.
Mr. Blevins asked does that place you next to the corner or at the corner?
Mr. Sheffield said it is right beside, 309 it is the very next lot to the north. I know you
said that they would talk about fencing or screening but I don't know, with overhead
lights like out at the mall that will light my whole house up. Then the traffic is another
thing.
Mr. Blevins asked are there further comments?
Mr. Ahrens stated Mr. Powell did state that the reason he was putting lights on the lot
was because when the employees leave during the weekend at midnight or 10:00 p.m.
and it is dark and he doesn't want someone to get hurt or raped and that is why he
wanted lights up. As far as the trash goes, the trash is basically on the back part of
their property anyway. It is against Mr. Windshield and the back part of Sonic but it is
still located close to the property.
Mr. Blevins asked is there anyone else caring to address the Commission?
Mr. Andrew stated we did have one other matter of correspondence, there was a phone
call from a neighbor on the west side of 7th Street and their concern was primarily that
Sonic might put a driveway through connecting Santa Fe with 7th and people would be
exiting that way onto 7th as opposed to the current pattern now and that was their
primary concern.
Mr. Blevins stated I will bring it back to the Commission for further discussion and
possible action.
Mr. Morse stated I went by there last night and those homes along there in my mind
are well kept homes, all of them, and I know that ifI lived where Mr. Sheffield lives I
think I would be concerned if the house next to me became a parking lot and now I am
the adjoining neighbor, especially if we didn't take a look at that parking lot and layout
and its lighting and do our best to work in some protection for him.
MOTION:
Mr. Thompson moved to direct the applicant to amend their application to Planned C-
3 which would require submittal of a site plan and allow the Commission to review the
applicant's plans for retention or removal of the house and for traffic circulation and
access to the street. My reasons for making that motion, I think are about the same
concerns that were expressed earlier and we need to make sure that what is going to
placed in there is going to be comfortable for all people that are residing in that area
and that it would not be a problem for those residential people.
SECOND: Mr. Brown seconded the motion.
VOTE: Motion carried 7-0.
g4. Discussion of PDD approval process.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated atter reviewing the final plans for the
~-~-~---~_~ Arrowhead Townhomes project down at the south end of the Bonnie Ridge
-~u~_d two Commissioners that had raised two different concerns
meehn&~.One dealt with why are we seeing what is the same we saw
before for ~o. cq_nd time and a kind of differing a Commissioner
who felt that the addld,~oof the fill dirt and in elevation were a fairly
substantial change and that n~a property owners should have been
notified and given the opportunity on that at the final plan stage. So what
we have presented for vo~,>nf the tnfc is just a summary of the PDD
approval process_~o>, ts set out in our current in there that
your dis~?,;o~n the final plan is pretty limited in some cases and
i,, ~o~n% cases it is pretty cut and dried. In this particular case the
Salina Planning Commission
August 6, 1997
Page 14
Mr. Haworth stated I agree with Dennis, right now we are saying lets put it to a
committee, first of all we have in my opinion some very good experts on the staff and
couldn't they look at things first for a little bit about possibilities there have been some
really fantastic things done in this community with our commercial development area
of town with the greenery and everything it has been fantastic. And if we all of a
sudden form a committee I am not sure this is the right time to do it. I am wondedn
if we should give them some direction to do this within the staff a little bit. You
find out what cities do in the surrounding areas.
Mr. Kissinger stated and that is probably what we would do with the City
is to say look here are some narrowing of the issues and focus, before
put together we would have to do a staff report and the work and very
Liar to what we did you know. It may not be making in the first
it may be asking for some preliminary research is together
with the same procedure that we used for the s years
ago.
Mr. Haworth
be on
Mr. Kissinger
use some common
that.
I can see this thing just kind
that if we went
up and I wouldn't want to
this with the intent that we should
we look at this we can all handle
Mr. Blevins stated it sounds
down or speed it up or change is
is to get the ball rolling and we can slow it
go but Clay?
AMENDED Mr. Thompson stated
MOTION: to have the staff issue of
areas.
recommend to the City Commission
of building construction in residential
SECOND: Mr. Morse secon/d~d the motion.
/
VOTE: Motion car/[,idd 9-0.
/
#3. Applic/afion #Z97-8, Para D, Inc., requesting a change in district classification
fro~la/A-1 (Agricultural) to R (Single-Family Residential) ~R-2 (Multi-Family
/l*¢ffsidenti.al). to allow development of 24.79 acre residential liv'l~on. The subject
/~property is located at the east end of Republic Ave. between the Ea~ate Ditch and
/ the fl0od control levee. Tabled on July 2, 1997. ~
#4. ,/ Application #P97-3, filed by Para-D, Inc., requesting approval of a prelimifl~y plat
// oaf the Lands End Addition a 52 lot subdivision of 24.79 acre tract located in'~ E
// 1/2 of Sec. 19-T.14S.-R~2W. of the 6th PM in the City of Salina, Saline Cou'h~ly
Kansas (East of the GICO Addition, Eastgate Addition and Laurie Subdivision~
Tabled °n July 2' 1997'
Mr. An. drew stat.ed., our recommendation is to table any action on these items and not
to receive any public input until September 3.
MOTION:- Mrs. Duckers moved to table applications #Z98-7 and #P97-3 until the meeting on
September 3, 1997.
SvEoCTOE :ND: MM r~ t i oMf rfaer ~ ~ ci~0e,d the mOtiOn'
Application #Z97-13, filed by Ron and Cheryl Ahrens on behalf of Sonic Drive-In,
requesting a change is zoning district classification from R-3 (Multi-Family
Residential) to C-3 (Shopping Center) District to allow additional off-street parking
for the Sonic Drive-In. The subject property is legally described as Lot 175 on
Seventh Street in the Original Town of Salina, Saline County, Kansas (aka 313 S.
Seventh). Continued on July 16, 1997 to allow submission of a site plan.
Salina I)Jamfi.g Commission
August 6, I
Page ]5
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated this is an application that you saw at a
previous meeting, it was a request filed by the property owners at 313 S. 7th to
rezone their property from R-3 to C-3. You received a staff report and some
concerns from a neighboring property owner and at the end of that public hearing you
voted 7-0 to direct the applicant to amend their request to Planned C-3 which would
require them to prepare and submit a site plan. What we have here is a vicinity map
to refresh your memory as to where this property is located. It is just north of the
Masonic Temple parking lot and directly behind the current Sonic Drive-In. The lot
in question is only a 50' x 120' lot. In the interim period this is the site plan that they
came up with. The Ahrens who own the property have since moved from Salina so
the Sonic Drive-In is taking the lead on having this plan prepared and the highlights
are a relocated trash dumpster, a new storage shed and six additional paved spaces
for employees to park on in the rear half of that lot. You will note that the house
does remain and that there is no driveway connection to 7th Street. We would point
out in the plan that they are showing a light pole there with directional lighting to the
southwest, southeast, and northeast, I don't know if this is with fore thought or came
from their surveyor but they are showing 400 watt lighting which we find to be quite
excessive as standard street lights are only 175 watts so that probably exceeds their
need to provide security. The only other item we note is that they are proposing a six
foot privacy fence on the north side of the parking area next to the residence. We
wanted to point out to you generally for this type of use where we are doing new
construction or new development, for instance the new Sonic Drive-In out on Market
Place, under the landscape regulations regardless of setbacks they are required to
have a 15 ft. green space or buffer between any activity whether it is a dumpster,
parking lot or building and the residential lot lines to the rear. In this case they are
not proposing a buffer and the primary reason for that is they are only dealing with a
50' wide lot and if you add the buffer in there you have to eliminate something, either
the dumpster or the ability to have 2-way traffic so essentially on their request they
are asking for a waiver of that buffer due to the width of the lot and to preserve the
access back there. We point out to you as was the case in the hospital parking lot
that landscaping buffers are required but it is within your discretion to waive that
requirement in certain cases if you think an applicant may have a strong case for that
so the discretion is in your hands. We have laid out on Page 3 some alternatives for
you, one would be to approve the request as proposed and grant them the waiver of
that 15 ft. buffer along the fence on the north property line. You could approve the
zoning change but ask them to go back and revise their plan to provide that and that
would require probably eliminating the dumpster location or the shed to provide a
different access back to that lot, you could table this if you think you need additional
information or you can deny it outright. If you wish to approve it we have suggested
three conditions there on page three of the report that we think should be imposed,
they would first of all reduce the amount of light that would come out of the fixtures
and make sure that they are shaded so that they don't shine on the residential property
to the north, we would want to make sure that there is some sort of barrier to prevent
traffic getting to 7th Street and we would also require them to come back to you with
a revised plan if there is ever an action to eliminate the house or have further
commercial development on this site and with that I believe there are representatives
of Sonic present and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Blevins asked are there any questions of staff? Hearing none would the
applicant care to comment? If so please state your name and address.
Dawn May, 435 S. Deleware, I am the manager and partner of Sonic Drive-In and we
would like to go with staffs recommendation on this property.
Mr. Blevins stated are you referring to the three items listed?
Ms May stated yes.
Mr. Blevins asked do you know is it an all or nothing issue on the buffer on the north
side? Can any form of barrier or buffer be put in any width or does any buffer at all
create an insurmountable problem?
Salina I'lanning Commission
August 6, 1997
Page 16
Ms May stated right now if there is a buffer there we won't be able to put a fence in.
Mr. Blevins asked are there further questions of the applicant or any members of the
public who wish to comment? Hearing none we will bring it back to the
Commission and close the public portion of this application.
MOTION:
Mrs. Duckers moved to approve Application #Z97-13 changing the zoning from R-3
to PC-3 and waiving the requirement of the landscape buffer and that this be done
with the staffs three (3) recommended conditions because this will not destroy the
character of the neighborhood, it is suitable for this type of development, there are
adequate public facilities and this request conforms with the proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
SECOND: Mrs. Weiner seconded the motion.
VOTE: Motion carried 9-0.
Mr. Blevins excused Mr. Umphrey from the meeting at this time (5:15).
Application #PDD97-2, filed by Brown Welding Supply, requesting a change in
zoning district classification from C-6 (Heavy Commercial) to PDD (Planned
Development District) to allow a gas storage and compression facility on property
legally described as Lots 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45 & 47 on 7th Street in the
Original Town of Salina (aka 340 N. 7th Street).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated you have on the screen a vicinity map
that shows the holdings for Brown Welding at the northeast corner of 7th and
Street. You have a two page letter with the application from Mr. Paul
Brown Welding that probably better explains their operation than our
could, but the issue from a zoning standpoint was the proposed
transferring and storage of hydrogen gas which is a zoning
administrator determined that the only zone that the City has that that type
,f operation was I-3 (Heavy Industrial) zoning and it would to a bulk plant
~etroleum or gasoline products. In this case
at options and determined that having this
corn with what was around it so the
Planned District. As we note
create a zoning district for a
having a C-6 but the addition
handling and/or
focused on
hydrogen this isn't any
we have in the City that are
Department and
our existing codes to sure
a flammable. We
I-3 was probably not
pursued was creation of a
PDD process allows you to
ect so essentially we would be
approved would be to allow the
as an additional permitted use. We
transfer and the compression of
any of the other welding supply businesses that
zones and we reviewed this with the Fire
we think there are safeguards in place under
is a safe operation. We also note that the
Fire Department ~ ~ their ~eriodic inspections of the site and our
recommendations approval of this ~ject to the four conditions that you
have on pag..~?o.and three of the report, thel~resentative of the Fire Department
has anyjlsl~titional comments you can take those or~u can address any questions to
,~lr. Blevins asked are there any questions of staff?. Hearing?lql~e does the applicant
hav7 any c°mments? ._.~
Paul Webb, 1938 Larson, I am the representative for Brown Welding S~ly, I would
be hapPy t° answer anY questi°ns that Y°U may have' '~
Mr. Blevin, s..aske~d ale you familiar and if y~e yo.u agreeable to the s~
recommendations? T~ here are four cond itl OhS set out in the report that they~~
recommend, are those ok w~th Brown Welding?