7.4 Zone Belmont Plaza Add CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
5/6/95 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SEC~ON: O~GINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. 7 AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM:
NO. 4 and 4a Roy DudarkI~//~? ' ~'
BY: BY: ~,~-TZ'? '~ ~"
Item
Application #Z96-4, filed by Kaw Valley Engineering, on behalf of
Ph±l Bundy, requesting a change in zoning district classification
from A-1 (Agricultural) to PC-3 (Planned Shopping Center District)
for property located south of Mid-State Mall and the Lambertz
Addition between $. 9th Street and 1-135. (Old 81 Drive In site).
Nature of Request
This property is under contract to at least two potential buyers
who are interested in develop±ng this site w±th retail stores,
restaurants and possibly a motel. The request area was formerly
the site of the 81 Drive In Theater but the screen and all other
facilities associated with the drive in have been removed and the
property ±s currently vacant. Kaw Valley Engineering has filed
this application to rezone the entire tract from A-1 to PC-3 to
allow commercial development of the site. Because this is an
application for Planned C-3, Kaw Valley has submitted a
preliminary site plan showing conceptual dimensions and setbacks
of the proposed buildings, total floor area and site coverage,
proposed access drives and parking areas and proposed landscaping
on the site.
The subject property has been zoned A-1 since it first came into
the city limits in 1971 but has never been platted.
Sec. 42-8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that land be subdivided
in accordance with the City's subdivision regulations prior to
rezoning any area to any district other than A-1. The applicant
has submitted a companion plat application for the entire 15 acre
tract. The rezoning application should be considered first.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTIO~ / 6 / 9D:3&TE TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Paqe 2 BY: BY:
Suitability of the Site for Development Under Existing Zoning
The subject site is a 900' deep tract fronting partially on 9th
St. and partially on a 9th St. frontage road. The entire 900' X
720' tract is zoned A-1 Agricultural which is among the most
limiting and restrictive zones in the city. Given the level of
new commercial development along the S. 9th Street corridor and
the increased traffic volumes on 9th, staff would agree that the
current A-1 zoning serves to inhibit development on this site
compared to other property similarly situated.
Character of the Neighborhood
As noted, this section of S. 9th Street is a rapidly growing
commercial corridor. This site is surrounded by C-3 and C-5 zoned
property. Therefore staff believes the requested zoning change
would be compatible with the zoning and uses of nearby property.
Public Utilities and Services
Adequate water and sanitary sewer and gas lines are in place in
9th Street to serve commercial development on this site. Because
this is infill development, the change in zoning classification
and use proposed by the applicant should not result in any
additional burden on public facilities and services. Fire
protection would be provided by Station #3 located approximately
four blocks away. Access points, traffic control and drainage
will be addressed in the plat review.
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as commercial mixed
use. This designation envisions that the area could be developed
with office and residential uses in combination with commercial
uses. Rezoning to PC-3 would be consistent with this designation.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTIO~/6/~sATE TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 3 BY: BY:
Review of Preliminary Site Plan
Site Coverage
Total Land Area = 653,400 sq. ft.
Proposed Building Area = 98,795 sq. ft.
Total Site Coverage = 15%
C-3 Maximum = 40%
Building Setbacks - All buildings shown on the preliminary plan
have adequate setbacks from a public street and have areas set
aside for front yard landscaping. Paved parking and driving areas
may cover only 60% of the 25 ft. setback required adjacent to a
public street. This green space requirement will be reviewed at
the final site plan review stage.
It appears that a 20' paved access road for fire apparatus has
been provided around the back of each building shown on the plan.
Parking - The parking ratios shown on the preliminary plan exceed
the City's requirements for retail space. Parking requirements for
restaurants on individual outlots would be determined on an
individual basis at the final plan review stage. It appears that
on Lot 1, Block 1 (a proposed restaurant site) there is not
sufficient stacking space for vehicles at the ordering station.
There is a potential for vehicles entering from the south to be
stacking in the frontage road (a public street). This could be
addressed by repositioning the ordering station or closing the
south driveway entrance.
Signage - The preliminary plan shows only one (1) free-standing
pylon sign at the northeast corner of the development. No
proposed height or size was indicated. The location of the
proposed pylon sign could be problematic if the sign is intended
for an off-premise business. Off-premise advertising signs are
not permitted in the C-3 district.
Signage plans for individual building sites would be reviewed and
approved at the final site plan review stage.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTIO~ / 6 / ~-~ TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: iORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 4 BY: BY:
Landscaping -
Site Perimeter - The preliminary plan does not propose or show any
landscape plantings along the 9th Street frontage of the site but
a 10' - 15' wide strip of green space is shown along the eastern
boundary of the three (3) outlots adjacent to 9th Street.
Individual landscape plans for these outlots will be reviewed at
the final plan review stage.
The plan shows some trees and shrubs along the west side of the
frontage road north of Belmont and along the private access drive
leading west of Belmont. The plantings shown are Crabapple
(Ornamental) and Maple (Shade) trees and Spirea bushes. No
landscaping is shown south of Belmont which would be the final
phase of development. A more detailed landscape plan would have
to be approved for the building sites west of the frontage road as
well.
Parking Lots - Proposed landscaping is shown around the perimeter
of the parking areas west of the frontage road and at the ends of
parking rows. Staff would recommend that the final site plan show
additional islands and landscaping in the interior of the west
parking areas in order to improve the appearance of the lots by
breaking up the wide expanse of asphalt and to provide shade for
cars and the lot surface thus reducing heat build up. Islands
could be located around parking lot light poles.
Detention Pond - No landscaping is shown around the proposed
detention pond in the northwest corner of the site.
Streets/Access - The primary design feature of this proposed
development is the relocation of the frontage road 240' to the
west. Starting at the south property line, the existing frontage
road would be removed and replaced by a new frontage road that
would curve away from 9th Street. This design would create more
stacking space for vehicles entering the 9th and Belmont
intersection and is intended to avoid another 9th & Saturn
situation.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTIOn/6 / 9~AIE ~ME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
~LANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 5 BY: BY:
Belmont Blvd. would be extended 240' to the west from its existing
intersection with 9th Street and would terminate in a T-
intersection with the frontage road. Belmont extended would be a
41' wide street with a center turn lane. The two 9th and Belmont
outlots would each have a single entrance off of Belmont.
A 36' wide private entrance drive would lead from the intersection
into the commercial area west of the frontage road. Defined
driveway entrances and the use of curbs and islands should help
disperse and channel traffic down individual parking aisles and
somewhat discourage "cut through" in the parking lots.
As noted, fire lanes are proposed around the buildings for
emergency vehicle access. No separate access or driveway is
proposed for delivery and service trucks.
If any development on this site is proposed which is substantially
different than what was proposed on the preliminary site plan a
new public hearing and the submission and approval of a new site
development plan would be required.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this
rezoning request on April 17, 1996. Following presentation of the
staff report and comments from the applicant's representatives and
neighboring property owners, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend approval of Planned C-3 zoning and the preliminary site
development plan for this 15 acre site subject to the seven (7)
conditions contained in the attached ordinance.
The Planning Commission offered the following reasons in support
of their recommendation: 1) The proposed zoning map amendment is
consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and
2) The proposed map amendment is favorable to the public health,
safety and welfare of the city.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTIO~/6/9~TE IIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 6 BY: BY:
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation, the
attached ordinance should be approved on first reading. The
protest deadline expired on May 1, 1996 and nothing was filed.
Second reading would be scheduled on June 3, 1996 along with the
final plat.
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 reconsideration citing
the basis for disapproval.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of 4/17/96
Ordinance No. 96 - 9736
cc: Leon Osbourn
Phil Bundy
Wally Storey
95-1773
PUBLICATION DATE No Later Than March 21, 1996 APPLICATION NO. #Z96-4
HEARING DATE April 17, 1996 DATE FILED March 15, 1996
VICINITY MAP ATTACHED Yes FILING FEE $325.00
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED Yes RECEIPTNO. ur.(.,~(~ ~ ~,~-Iq'~(,~
(INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION ARE ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM)
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
DISTRICT ZONING MAP (REZONING)
1. Applicant's Name: Leon Do Osbourn
2. Applicant's Address 2319 N. Jac~on PO Box 1304 Junction City, KS Zip Code: 66441
3. Telephone (Business): 913-762-5040 (~¢9'~Y ~-' 91_%-762-7744
4. Owner's Name: DicJdnson ~C~r~f-'~n9 C'r~_.. Inr'
5. Owner's Address 5913 Woodson Rd, l~s~ion, ES Zip Code: 66202
6. Legal description of property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary):
Lot(s) **SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR LBLT~ DESCRIPTION** In Block No.
In Subdivision
Metes and bounds description if unplazted (a Surveyor's Certificate must be filed with this application and if approved
will be required to be platted):
7. Approximate street address: South 9th Street and Belmont Bivd, Salina, Kansas
8. Area of property (sq. ft. and/or acres): 647,991.36 SF / 14.88 acres
9. Present zoning: A-1 Use: VACANT (Old US 81 Drive-in %~neater)
10. Requested zoning: PC - 3 Use: Planned Commercial Develols~ent
11. Are there any covenants of record wh ch proh b t the proposed development? (Al:ta(;h CODY)'__. No
To facllztate proposed
12. List reasons for this request. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): commercial development
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)
With the relocation of the frontaqe road and the existinq traffic signal at Belmont,
traffic impact will be minimal.
14, Will there be sufficient off-street parking provided for the requested use? Ye~
Explain:
15. List exhibits or plans submitted: Site Developr~ent Plan, Preliminary_ Plat
PROPERTY OW~~,~. / APPLICANT'S ~_~.~
SIGNATURE: //'/J~/'2~''- ~ - SIGNATURE:
' ~OOD 6I~KINSO~-N-----'- 5~N D.
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: ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE (Business): AREA CODE:
White - Planning Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant
(Rev. 8/84) 101
(PLEASE DO NOT DETACH)
March 11, 1996
96-1773
DESCRIPTION FOR REZONING
A tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 14 South, Range 3 West
of the 6th Principal Meridian in Saline County, Kansas and described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 35;
thence N 89046'32'' W on the South line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 77.05 feet to the
Northeast comer of Shoney's Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas, said point also
being on the West Right-of-Way line of South Ninth Street (Old U.S. Highway 81) and being the
POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract to be described;
thence N 89046'32'' W on the North line of said Shoney's Addition a distance of 898.98 feet to the
Northwest comer of said Shoney's Addition, said point also being on the East Right-of-Way line of
Interstate Highway 135;
thence N 00014'55'' W on said East Right-of-Way line a distance of 720.06 feet to the Southwest
corner of Lambertz Addition to the City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas;
thence S 89°47'17'' E on the South line of said Lambertz Addition a distance of 906.06 feet to the
Southeast comer o£said Lambertz Addition, said point also being on said West Right-of-Way line
of South Ninth Street;
thence S 00018'52'' W on said West Right-of-Way line a distance of 720.40 feet to the point of
beginning. Contains 14.92 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO Easements, Reservations, and
Restrictions now of record.
END OF DESCRIPTION
_ ~ _ ~~ APPLICATION #Z96-4
~ FILED BY PHILLIP BUNDY
I I~'1 --
REQUEST AREA
, . ........ '.. ~.'.',.~.~' ..'...'.
: .....:... ,:;.,..~.~'.:.. :' ~:..' :'. ,,..'...
. . ..~.~:....:.:~ ~.r.:~,."r ,.~:~ :~:,~'.~ .,. ~
.,.,'~, ?;:,. ~:.':~,. ::.', ',.v.,,,....; BELMC~NT
. ~..' .' ","."... ,.,.,.:.. :.4... ..... BD
. ",:~': :.~,'~'"' '::~'.' : .:'" ':' ~'. ': .': '" ':..:..
1 INCH = 400 FEET
Staff Recommendation
Staff would recommend approval of this application for Planned C-3
zoning and the preliminary site development plan for this 15 acre
site subject to the following conditions and revisions:
1. Uses shall be limited to those liSted in the C-3
regulations and shall be subject to all bulk and use
limitations in the C-3 district.
2. Signage on the site shall comply with C-3 regulations.
3. A final plat shall be approved prior to final approval of
C-3 zoning for the site.
4. The developer shall be responsible for the extension of
Belmont Boulevard and the new frontage road shown on the
site plan drawing.
5. A final site development plan and final landscape plan
for the entire development or for each individual
building site containing all required revisions and
amendments shall be approved by the Planning Commission
prior to issuance of any building permits.
6. A building permit for Phase I shall be applied for within
18 months of the approval date or the approved
development plan shall become null and void and the
zoning shall revert to its former classification.
7. Development of the site, including landscaping, shall
conform to the approved site development plan.
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
APRIL 17, 1996 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allen, Blevins, Duckers, Larson, and Umphrey
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brown, Hardman, McCoach and Morse
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Dudark and Barker.
OTHERS: O'Leary
The Hearing began at 4:00 p.m.
#1. The minutes of April 2, 1996 were approved as presented.
#2. Application #Z96-4, filed by Kaw Valley Engineering, on
behalf of Phil Bundy, requesting a change in zoning
district classification from A-1 (Agricultural) to PC-3
(Planned Shopping Center District) for property located
south of Mid-State Mall and the Lambertz Addition between
S. 9th Street and 1-135. (Old 81 Drive In site).
Mr. Dudark gave the staff report and stated this item and
the next one which is the plat, if it would be ok I would
like to give the staff report as a combination here, we
can get all the issues and perhaps the people interested
in this can speak to the whole project and go from there
if it is alright. This property as the chair has pointed
out is 15 acres, the Old 81 Drive In theater on the west
side of 9th street, you have the Chevrolet dealership
immediately to the south. There is a vacant 10 acre tract
immediately to the north and then north of that is Capitol
Federal and Food 4 Less and the Mid-State Mall. This
property, Belmont Blvd., comes into the middle of this at
9th Street. Of course right now it just goes across to
the frontage road and then ends right there. The
application is for planned commercial and what they have
is a layout that relocates the frontage road. That is the
most significant feature of this plan. It extends Belmont
about 240 ft. west into the tract and takes that frontage
road that now comes up right at 9th Street, removes that
and makes a kind of sweeping curve and comes back into
Belmont extended in a T-intersection and then continues
that onto the north edge of their property. What you end
up with is something very similar to the Sam's and Target
situation where you have the frontage road that is moved
behind the first tier of lots that become outlots. With
the frontage road in behind the lots it exposes that rear
property to street access which with a traditional
frontage road it is difficult to get that rear property
accessible to a vehicle. It also improves traffic safety
and I think from the City standpoint, is the paramount
feature of this plan. Our highest rate of accidents at
any intersection in the city is Planet and 9th Street
there where McDonald's is, Taco Tico and what you have is
congestion, people getting frustrated and then taking
chances of pulling into traffic and trying to negotiate
that very tight situation. There is no stacking room in
that area. This plan by creating an elongated Belmont
gives you some straight on stacking room so that you don't
have that turn right there at the intersection like you
Salina Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 2
would today or even if it were continued on to the north
of this, the frontage road you can see at the very top of
the screen. The next t~act which is the Lambertz Addition
when it was platted in the early 1980's it was with a 40'
right-of-way right next to 9th Street so that wouldn't
connect with this relocated frontage road, however it
could be abandoned, vacated and relocated from the west to
line up with this which would give access to that property
to Belmont and to 9th Street, which ks what the City's
obligation is, which is to provide access to 9th Street
via a frontage road through this property although in a
different location. This property being zoned A-1
Agricultural is not similarly situated to other
developments in the vicinity therefore a change of zoning
is called for. C-3 is a shopping center request, that ks
what the property to the north is zoned, some of the other
properties are zoned C-5 and we felt that a C-3 district
was probably more suitable for the type of development
that they are planning. If there is any need to look at
C-5 use in the future, they could look at it on a lot by
lot basis rather than an entire area so they would always
have that flexibility. The surrounding uses I think are
very compatible with this area, the city has existing
utilities, there is a water line in front along 9th Street
that they could hook into, take that into the property,
bring it across in front of the rear buildings, create a
loop system have the fire hydrants appropriately located.
There is a sewer line right in Belmont and 9th Street,
they can connect to that and bring that straight west to
serve the rear property and turn it north up the frontage
road to serve those two lots to the north, so the city has
existing utilities in this area to serve this. The
drainage plan is to drain the property to the west. They
have a storm water retention pond plan back there behind
those three buildings that you can see are connected and
that will retain the water and then it will be discharged
to the north eventually going up behind the Mid-State
Mall, Magnolia Road and then west to Dry Creek so they
will retain the runoff that would result from building and
maintain it in a pond that would be designed to meet their
drainage study that the engineering department will
review. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as
commercial mixed development. That means that this large
deep tract could be used not only for retail but some
office space and perhaps multi-family. They are not
proposing any multi-family but we believe that the plan
that they propose is consistent with that designation.
There is a possibility of a motel in this area that is
semi-residential so it is kind of an office park setting
with retail uses and perhaps some motel uses in the rear.
We don't know what the uses might be in the south area.
It might be retail or light office use. This plan is more
of a master plan which more or less outlines the entire
development and they would have a final site plan for each
tract when ready to develop it much like we did with Red
Lobster or Appleby's to have an overall plan and come in
with each phase as they are ready to propose a final plan
for that site. On this plan they show a pylon sign that
is located at the northeast corner. C-3 if you remember
only allows on-premise signs to advertise that business.
When that came up in the area around Sam's, Target wanted
Salina I)lannlng Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 3
a sign out on 9th Street so they submitted a request fox
C-5 designation, but with C-3 uses except for that off-
premise sign, and so it is a way to look at an individual
exception to the C-3 standards for a particular purpose so
when that happens you are able to see that sign and they
will present a plan drawing, a location and you are able
to measure that on a specific type basis rather than just
zoning it C-5 and that would open it up for any kind of
advertising sign including bill boards, so this will give
you some discretion over the signage without opening it
completely for advertising signs. I think the idea is to
try and have a sign for the large rear lot that might be
on the 9th Street side, so it is not completely opening up
the advertising of something throughout the City. On the
final plan that they submit, there would be landscaping
plans, here it is more or less conceptual they have just
an idea of about where the green areas might be, the
parking lot islands and that sort of thing, There would
be some green space along the 9th Street area that may be
grass or whether or not it would be landscaped or planted
is yet to be seen. Our recommendation on the zoning is to
approve this with the 7 conditions listed, primarily these
deal with the C-3 uses, having a final plat approved
before the zoning takes effect. The developer would be
responsible for the street and utility extensions. I need
to mention that the City Engineering Department is
recommending that the City remove the existing frontage
road and be responsible for the equivalent lineal feet of
that frontage road to be relocated because that was
special assessed once. And because there is a public
purpose of moving this back as far as a traffic safety,
they feel it is a city obligation to assist with that
rather then assess them for the same segment of street
twice. So that is being reconunended by the Engineering
Department on that segment of frontage road which is shown
in the grey area there in the bottom right-hand corner.
With planned commercial you have to do Phase I, get a
building permit within 18 months and then that validates
the zoning for the entire property following that. Then
the subdivision plat before you on the screen shows where
the blocks are, there are three blocks, five total lots
and it shows the utility easements, you can see where the
water line goes on the south side and then turns north and
kind of jogs and continues north and goes back east along
the north property line back to 9th Street. The sewer is
extended down Belmont to the west and then ends down there
in a manhole, so that is the utility plan and you can see
on the far west there is a drainage easement and a
detention pond. I would like to just put one more drawlng
on the screen to illustrate this continuation of that
frontage road to the north. The bottom half of the screen
there is this tract and that is the Belmont Street
extended and then this frontage road and then there the
Lambertz Addition would be the line and that would be
approximately approved as drawn the extension of that
frontage road which would then curve and come back out to
9th Street. Right now there is restricted access all
along that frontage road so even though that may be
constructed there is no driveway opening to 9th Street and
so access to that property is dependant upon the
cooperation of the abutting property owners, it is the
Salina Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 4
City's feeling that if this plan were adopted that there
could be an opening to 9th Street because you have a safe
alignment of that frontage road rather than having it
abutting with that road in a parallel kind of fashion so
that would we believe improve traffic access to this
property immensely than what exists now. It may even be
possible to make a median break in the middle of 9th
Street and be able to cross over there or make a left turn
out of this or into this from the south. If you are in
this area now and you are coming south on 9th Street you
have to go all the way to Belmont which is a half mile
from Magnolia to make a left turn, so now with the Sonic
and the Cotton Patch and those businesses over there, the
traffic has to go down to Belmont to make that sharp U-
turn and head back up north and that is congested as it
is, with a median opening here you could make a left turn
at Key Avenue and then get over to that neighborhood into
that strip of commercial uses on the east side of 9th
Street without having to go down and go through the
Belmont intersection. In the future we are going to be
looking at a corridor study from a traffic design
standpoint to see if that median is feasible and if it is
a safe design. It is one thing to open up a street so
that you can make a right in and a right out. It is
another thing to make a median so that you can have left
turn movements, that is what has got to be looked at to
see if that can be done and whether or not that will be a
safe type of design and whether or not a traffic signal
would be needed so I think that is in the future as to
whether or not that is done, but we think that this is a
great improvement in terms of traffic safety and
development of exposing the rear properties and getting
the best use of this property because it is 900 feet deep.
By putting that road back in that area you are able to not
only have a tier of lots right along 9th Street for your
high visibility uses you are going to have a street in
behind to get traffic to the rear of the tract. Our
recommendation is to approve the preliminary plat that is
presented today with the 2 conditions in your report.
Mrs. Duckers asked are there any questions of staff?
Mr. Allen asked Roy does Key Avenue continue to the east
there on the other side?
Mr. Dudark stated yes it is a residential street east of
the frontage road that goes into the housing area.
Mrs. Duckers asked are there any other questions? Hearing
none would the applicant care to make a statement.
Sam Mallnowsky, KAW Valley Engineering, I don't have any
presentation, we are in agreement with everything that
staff has recommended. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mrs. Duckers asked are there any questions of the
applicant? Hearing none are there any interested citizens
that wish to make a statement either pro or con in regard
to this rezoning and the approval of the preliminary plat?
If so please state your name and address.
Sallna Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 5
Vern Lambertz, Wichita, I am opposed and I would like to
give you a few reasons why. Back in 1967 I came to Salina
to do just exactly what is being done today, to select a
site for a shopping center and it eventually evolved into
the Mid-State Mall. At that time it was in the County and
we got permission to go ahead and build and the City would
take it into Salina. I then acquired the rest of the land
which is on either side, the Lambertz Addition is part of
the original plan. We thought we were zoned until 1982 or
1983 and we found out we were not zoned that only the Mid-
State Mall site was zoned. Our plat for zoning was a
little bit different than what got approved and at that
time we suggested a crossover street realizing of course
at the time that it would be almost impossible to get it
also realizing of course that the state or federal
government or the city whichever it is has whole
jurisdiction involving crossovers, they can vacate them or
open them whenever they wish. Seems to me it is something
like a district request if it is necessary as needed. So
we platted in keeping with that and I would like to show
you the letter of the request. In keeping with that
request paragraph two item number one it says "No break or
restricted access along S. 9th Street will be permitted.
The frontage road connection at Belmont Blvd. and S. 9th
Street intersection is a continuation of the frontage road
north, all adjacent to the Capital Federal Subdivision
will provide access to this subdivision. City records
indicate that the access to this tract was purchased by
KDOT the Kansas Department of Highway in August of 1950.
Delete all records of turnout and crossovers in the plat."
At that time much the same discussion was had and it was
fairly thorough that to create a crossover at Key Street
and we didn't call it Key Street at that time but thought
a crossover at that particular location would create a
terrible traffic hazard and during the last 40 years my
experience with shopping centers is that they do create
some traffic, they bring business to the City we are going
to one day sacrifice ourselves out I guess I should say
that we think that two crossovers within a 1/4 of a mile
is what we think is good planning. We believe that the
frontage road as it exists and is proposed is apt to be
well received by merchants as well as by us it was
proposed to be a 40 ft. which we dedicated or deeded
whichever the case may be was dedicated in a plat. I
presume that if we were to go along with this frontage
road change then our plat would have to be redone. And I
think that is probably necessary to vacate the frontage
road and therefore I don't know really well but I do think
that that would be necessary and would be appropriate.
The traffic pattern of Salina has improved greatly and
increased greatly in the last 30 years since we started
developing Salina. It is not as great as it is going to
be as years go on and Mr. Dudark commented on the stacking
of traffic and I think it probably will stack but I think
the further away the two stoplights can be would be better
for stacking to be relieved. People will stop and go the
length of light and so forth, but I am not a traffic
engineer. The only experience that I have had throughout
the 40 years of people buying or leasing sites want less
entrances. They are satisfied with the limited access. I
think the Mid-State Mall only has one entrance to Mid-
Sallna Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 6
State Mall from 9th Street and I am sure it handles the
on-site traffic which is what we usually recommend. It is
my opinion that it should be retained as is, receiving the
notice that I received I immediately tried to find out who
owned property and I know some. I talked with Mr. Scott
and Mr. Joe Conklin and asked if they had received a
similar notice that I received and the answer was no, that
is the automobile agency to the south which is on the
frontage road. Joe Conklin told me two or three weeks ago
that he was satisfied with the way it was and is. I
talked this morning to Scott Conklin and he said that he
would like to see what I had to send and I faxed the
information to him, I have not heard back from him as yet.
The frontage road was and has been completed from
basically Belmont Avenue down to Wal-Mart in order to
accomplish a favorable development in the area. The dept
of the site doesn't worry me. We handle the traffic on
the site as it is designed. Our plan shows not exactly
continuation of the Mid-States Mall because there is no
connection between the ownership but it is to make stores
going south from here where the old Ward Store was and the
Hobby Lobby and so forth. I believe that would do better
for it. In my opinion to go straight into our site at the
location that is shown and I don't have the plat in front
of me, we almost show that we would have maybe a 50 or 60
ft. site between where the T-Street would come in, it
might be 100 ft. but it is small adjacent to Capital
Federal. Presuming that Capital Federal might not know
either and incidently I called and learned that they had
not been notified which when Capital Federal filed their
plan, it too was demanded to have 40 ft. frontage road, so
all in all it was planned to go that way. My person
opinion is I am not a Traffic Engineer and I would be
willing to talk to any of them and the experience that I
have had is that traffic is handled in most towns quite
aptly where they do have frontage roads and where they do
have them cross over. Another illustration that I will
tell you, it is one that you know about, we developed East
Gate Shopping Center about 41 or 42 years ago in Wichita,
we have one cross over into a 26 acre site, 250,000 sq.
ft. of floor space and it serves it adequately. Yes I am
sure that we have accidents as you do in Saltna, it
depends on the driver if he can drive or not. At the time
that we developed Eastgate, frontage roads were just then
being introduced to Wichita. We had people approve the
crossover and approve the plan as JC Penny and other major
national branches with concern which I think the same
would be approved here, I also would like to say that the
unified developments where they handle the traffic on
their own land are generally pretty well satisfied. The
tenants the owners or whoever they might be a bunch of
people on the plat, they get together and they maintain
their entrance and exit road, driveway or whichever you
want to call it. They move the snow when they think it is
necessary not when the city can get to it. It takes that
responsibility of the city. I think that would be an
important part to any retailer and it would be in my case,
we as a real estate broker are told to tell people all we
know if we don't know we are supposed to find out what
might be wrong and that would be one of the things,
getting the snow removed and ~t is a shopping center we
Salina Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 7
contracted for it every year to take care of the very
center of the aisles and that way we can get the customers
in. The other factors that I think might be of interest
to you, I don't know who is going to pay for the
meandering frontage road and the maintenance of it the
cost of construction the cost of keeping it clean I am
sure it is going to be the tax payers, it may be assessed
only to the people that own the site but I doubt it and I
don't want to see myself pay more taxes than what is
necessary and I go a step further to say that I would be
happy to cooperate, I have talked with Mr. Lacey and Mr.
Storey about this matter back in October and express my
concern then and also wrote on October 16 Mr. Hoff of your
city and have correspondence from Mr. Dudark and some of
the things that are in here is a complete reversal of what
we were sold on because we were happy with what we got and
I think that the frontage road being completed from north
of our land which is presently the Capital Federal Bank we
are tied in yet to the parking lot to the north and also I
would say just pointing to it the distance between the
frontage road is diagramed into our site I doubt that it
is 60 ft. but it may be, it may be 100 ft. But if you
look at it and carry it on further north we would almost
have to move Food 4 Less and probably Capital Federal in
order to get that in there. The dept of this site doesn't
worry me. It is good depth, 250 ft. scares me and have
for years just as a pedestrian. But in handling shopping
centers it is almost a nightmare it creates entrance and
exit. Some comment was made that it puts the businesses
closer to the road, good, bad or indifferent, if I were
asking a business I wouldn't want a business within 25 ft.
to 50 ft. of the road I would want to sit back at least 65
ft. or 70 ft. and why so I could be seen better, so people
could come in a park in front of my business and so forth.
I could think of better ideas, these people that are doing
things in that business, I would be happy to answer your
questions and I would also state that these people not
being notified that are adjoining property owners and I
think the law says a certain number of feet that was
complied with, but in instances such as this I think the
owners of Mid-State Mall should have been notified,
Capital Federal and the Conklin car shop all the way down
to Wal-Mart, I am sure they all want this information and
I think what is proposed is not in keeping with what I
feel is good neighboring, lets do it the way it was
planned and I doubt that the State or County or anybody
else would let the crossover be installed and if they did
there would be no assurance that it was going to be open
by the time I die. By the time of you younger people die
then it might be feasible, please consider thoroughly and
don't act hastily on what I said or what has been applied
for and I will be happy to visit with you on an individual
basis and take as much time as you want anytime, and I
have made myself available and I have written Mr. Dudark
and I contend that we want to be good neighbors, we have
always been good neighbors, we haven't developed any junk
and we don't plan to start and with what has happened on
9th Street at Magnolia at the time that we got our zoning
it is too far out in the country, it is not the right
location but my intuition and my studies indicate that
that was the one best location in Salina Kansas for a
Salina Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 8
shopping retail center and my opinion has been somewhat
proven as you know with the Eastgate mall.
Mrs. Duckers asked are there any questions of Mr.
Lambertz? Hearing none are there comments from other
interested citizens? If so please state your name and
address.
Mr. Wally Storey, I am speaking on behalf of Dickinson
Theater who owns this company. When we entered into this
agreement and started on our development of this shopping
area, we spoke with Mr. Dudark, Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Hoff
because we were concerned about the traffic stacking
problem that you have at Belmont and S.9th and it is a
very serious problem, if you go out there today it will
scare you half to death. Consequently through their
suggestion and what has worked with Appleby's and Red
Lobster and so forth, we elected to do this as to the
pavement of the street that will paid for by the owners of
the Dickinson Theater property. Mr. Bundy owns the whole
north half and the outlot, they will have a prorated share
and the remainder of the south half which was sold into
individual lots as to one developer that will all be
shared by each individual owner. And I think we spoke to
Mr. Lambertz as he mentioned, we made two trips down there
to visit with him and work with him on this and we feel to
eliminate, as Mr. Dudark has drawn, entering out onto Key
ks probably the best thing that we can do to eliminate
this traffic problem. When Mr. Lambertz sells his
property you know that and whatever engineering he does
and we have asked Mr. Appleby to do his design or whoever
he will have to design within that property but we think
in answer to his question as far as snow removal and
pavement of the street falls here.
Mrs. Duckers asked are there any questions of Mr. Storey?
hearing none are there other interested citizens who care
to make comment? Hearing none I will bring it back to the
Planning Commission for consideration and possible action
closing the public portion. Mr. Dudark have we received
any correspondence?
Mr. Dudark stated I would like to respond to that, I
talked to Capital Federal and to Mr. Appleby and the Mid-
State Mall, and to my knowledge we sent the notices to
everyone within 200 ft. and probably on the car dealership
it may have gone to the titled land owner rather than the
new business owner, I don't know if there has been a deed
filed yet or not so we are only using existing information
that we have available in the County records. I believe
that we sent letters to everyone that we were required to.
I also sent a letter to Mr. Lambertz back in November
about this plan and outlined these ideas. I think the
location of frontage roads right parallel to a four lane
arterial very close is a 20 year old plan and if you are
familiar with Kellogg in east Wichita you have the
frontage road that is right next to the road it is a
abomination as far as traffic circulation. You can hardly
get off and on the street closest to it. We have that
situation here at Saturn and 9th and we don't want to
repeat that. I think the reason why in 1983 that his
Salina Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 9
letter said no access to 9th Street was because of the
location of the frontage road being right there, we don't
want that to come in and turn immediately when you are
trying to get lined up in front of the green light, it is
just difficult so that is the reason why there is
restricted access all along his addition and also Capital
Federal. That frontage road doesn't go anywhere once it
goes to the north of Capital Federal it is on private
property. There is no continuation of that platted
frontage road, you may never get access out up to the Mid-
State Mall opening. The other thing I wanted to say as I
said earlier we are only talking about a connection to 9th
Street. The median break and the crossover has not been
decided we are going to have to study that. That is
really part of this corridor planning to see if it could
be done and when and if it is done whether or not a
traffic light is needed there so at this point we are only
suggesting the opening which will be a right in and right
out movement which is a fairly safe movement. In our
opinion that is the only way you would want that is if you
had some stacking to make that and wind up in somewhat of
a 90° orientation and so our opinion is this is beneficial
to everyone including the motorists who are going to be
using this. We are very much in favor of this relocation
of the frontage road.
Mrs. Duckers asked the frontage road has nothing to do
with the rezoning of this property is that correct? This
has bogged down into the preliminary plat is that right?
Mr. Dudark stated right.
Mrs. Duckers asked was there not a sign posted out in that
general area that the businesses in that area should have
seen?
Mr. Dudark stated right, we placed it at the end of
Belmont I believe.
Mrs. Duckers stated having traveled a great deal in Texas
they have marvelous frontage roads they almost parallel
the interstate and they set back so they are not in the
way.
Mr. Dudark stated it is our understanding that KDOT is not
in favor of frontage roads that are adjacent to the
arterial streets.
Mr. Larson asked Roy on Capital Federal on the right-of-
way to the east of their property would having a frontage
road right-of-way is that going to land lock them in?
Mr. Dudark stated they have no access across the mall
property now, they have an easement for their customers
and employees to use so they don't really have to have a
frontage road to do business. The only thing they would
look at is whether or not they wanted to construct the
road that would connect with this new one when and if the
Lambertz Addition were to put that in and that is really
down the road. Would it be on the east side of Capital
Federal or perhaps would it be in between Food 4 Less and
Salina Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 10
Capital Federal coming in kind of at the curve of the
street. There are various options here about how to tie
in Mid-State Mall and Capital Federal to this new street
whether it is right at 9th Street or a little ways back
west.
Mr. Umphrey stated but all of these options involve the
Lambertz property is that correct?
Mr. Dudark stated that is right they do.
Mr. Umphrey stated you are proposing to change this
frontage road so that it deadends against the south end of
the Lambertz property and then if he ever develops it he
must conform to the new routing of the road is that really
what we are saying here?
Mr. Dudark stated that is really what we are .saying and
the reason for that is that the only frontage road that we
really have is this one across the Lambertz and Capital
Federal with no real outlet.
Mr. Umphrey stated but we have it, the frontage road north
of there along where Waratta Buick and McDonalds and that
stuff is and also south of there is almost adjacent to 9th
Street.
Mr. Dudark stated north of there of course is north of
Magnolia.
Mr. Umphrey stated I am not clear as to why we suddenly
need to back away from 9th Street all these extra feet
when we haven't done it north of here or south of here.
Mr. Dudark stated because of the problems that we have
encountered with the traffic accident rate of having these
roads right in proximity. Even the east side of Belmont
there, Kwik Shop and the skating rink it is very difficult
to make that turn and turn back again when you have
traffic moving through.
Mr. O'Leary stated Commissioners our highest accident
location in Salina is the corner of Saturn and North 9th
that is where the McDonald's is and the main entrance to
the Central Mall, we are experiencing over 30 accident a
year at that location. We have tried a number of things
and there is only so much that you can do. I don't think
Salina's problems with that concept of close proximity
roads is unique, Wichita has that experience and so does
Kansas City. As Roy mentioned, the Kansas DOT has
departed from that as most transportation professionals in
this country have, not from frontage roads, frontage roads
are a very good thing. We want the traffic to get off the
main arterial street and into the various commercial and
residential area. It is that close proximity to the
frontage road and the problem lies in where you intersect
the two. The frontage road itself is not the problem but
where those two intersect in this case at Belmont.
Belmont was another one of our high accident locations
until we installed the signal system there in 1991. At
that time we couldn't do much with the east side of the
Sallna Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 11
intersection, that was already developed and in place. We
did our best but we did so on the basis that we might be
able to correct this when this property came before you
and that has really been our intent ever since that time
and we actually initiated that discussion with this
developer and anyone else since that time that has come to
us. We are very adamant about this. We feel very
strongly that this sort of concept has to be adopted.
Mr. Umphrey stated I would like to hear another comment
from Mr. Labertz about how he feels about this new concept
having to be adopted. Maybe I am still out in the cold
but I don't understand why, if we are considering a zoning
change for property adjacent to you why we need to use
your property to solve the problem. Do you understand
that?
Mr. Lambertz stated sir if I did I wouldn't be here, I
don't think it is necessary, that is the reason that I am
here, I would say in my opinion, we gave, dedicated
whatever means it was the frontage road was then the
proper way and I don't know this gentleman over here (Mr.
O'Leary) but would you rather have a frontage road along
side 9th Street or have a business built within 30 ft. to
40 ft. of that same street? And some day when the town
grows the traffic is going to be condemning those
companies to get in and out of. I think that the frontage
road is a good system. The site that I gave you of East
gate I think the traffic is 40,000 a day and one cross
over handles it pretty well. I can't tell you if we have
30 or 40 accidents there, I am not aware but I can find
out. I would say that I don't see any reason to change it
now, I don't think it is convenient I think the developers
of the old theater can handle their own traffic on their
own property, I can handle mine, I plan to handle mine, I
don't want to have to make the City of Salina have the
burden of handling mine and I understand your question but
by now I don't know.
Mrs. Duckers stated Mr. Lambertz as I am reading your
comments, you are for this project and everything, but the
only hang up is this road, is that correct?
Mr. Lambertz stated ma'am I would love to see them get
their zoning and development, the frontage road is my hang
up.
Mrs. Duckers asked ok is there an area of compromise, are
you willing to compromise and work with the other
developer to come up with a solution to this problem?
Mr. Lambertz stated I am always willing to work with
people, I don't see this as a feasible solution for me
today or for the development we have or really for Salina.
I don't know, I am not a traffic engineer, I haven't hired
one and I don't plan to because I think that is the job of
the City of Salina, but as far as letting them have their
zoning it has been needed for a long time. Salina needs
to grow commercially and it has grown commercially.
Mr. Umphrey stated I do agree with Mr. O'Leary and Mr.
Salina Planning Commission
April 17, 1996
Page 12
Dudark that we do have a problem with the growing traffic
snarls in that area. I do take opposition though to using
a neighbors property to solve a problem that is going to
be increased by the proposed rezoning that is before us
today.
Mrs. Duckers stated I think the first item we have to
consider is the rezoning issue which has nothing to do
with the frontage road, the frontage road has to do with
the approval of the preliminary plat, what type of action
would the commissioners like to make on the rezoning?
MOTION: Mr. Blevins moved to recommend to the City Commission that
Application #Z96-4, requesting a change in zoning
classification from A-1 Agricultural to PC-3, on the
property located south of the Mid-State Mall and Lamberts
Addition be approved for the reasons that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
zoning ordinance and the proposed amendment certainly
appears to be favorable to the public health, safety and
general welfare of the city along with the seven staff
recommendations.
SECOND: Deane Allen.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
Mrs. Duckers stated now we will take up the second item
which is the approval of the preliminary plat and this is
~ pretty well covered except the two things are related to
each other. The dissention seems to be this road.
~Mr.~Dudark stated I would like to make a couple more ~omments if I may. In my opinion one of the reasons the
L'a4nbertz Addition has not developed like other tracts is
because of this very frontage road. There is no access to
~L.~this p~perty~ from 9th Street. You can't even get lnto~
the
prop~x~y. The City, the staff at least is
p~epared---to ~ommend the opening to 9th Street as longz~s
~tt f~ontage Rd is setting right next to 9th s~eet.
That . i~ ion goo~ck~,traffic safety planning. /~e are
searching for a way t~ enable Mr. Lamberts whic~s
beyond
me to allow him to have~ market for his
la~ and
have
an
opening t0 9th Street~whi~k he doesn't ha~e now. He has
not invested in the fron~age~.ad, he~s not even built
it yet so he has not built a ro~ t~% he has to abandon,
he has not had any investment in%~W~,plan drawing, it is a
very simple replat drawing so ~ust ~ql't see the reason,
sure it requires his coop~tion but i~b~ is to his best
interest to do a coope~ive arrangement~X]ko
get
a
road
through this development and get it attached to 9th
Street, and that j~hld enable someone to take"~-~ closer
look at his land~/
Mr. Blevin/s~ stated I think this particular matter i~
somewha~/z~f a~ example of the early bird getting the worm
the p/~zO~ert? has laid vacant for quite a bit of time. We
h~a dey~lop%r in here finally making some initiative to
/z~evelop jt _and there has been opportunity for the two
~ ow.ner~ of the property to get together and it appears to
not have been successful and the proposal looks very