7.1 Zone Woodland Add CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
9/11/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM DEAN ANDREW
NO.
1, la BY: DA BY:~
Item
Application #PDD00-1, filed by Bert Wilson, Requesting a change in zoning district
classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District to PDD (MHP) (Planned
Development District) on property legally described as Lots 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19,
Block 7 of the Woodland Addition (aka 704-720 N. 2nd Street).
Back.qround
The property that is the subject of this application is a preexisting licensed mobile home park
located on the east side of North 2nd Street between Forest and Woodland. In 1977, when
the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the Planning Commission adopted a new zoning
map for the city as well. This site was zoned R-2 when the new map was adopted making
the existing mobile homes in this park preexisting nonconforming uses. As a result of this
action and staffs interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, if an existing mobile home is
removed from this property another mobile home could not be moved back in its place.
Under the current R-2 zoning only a stick built home or a double wide manufactured home
on a permanent foundation could be put back in its place.
The current owner, Bert Wilson, has filed this application in order to get that restriction lifted.
The applicant is requesting this zoning change form R-2 to MH-P so that older mobile homes
in the existing Woodland Mobile Home Park can be removed and replaced by newer units.
Proposed Site Plan
The applicant's plan shows 9 manufactured home spaces each of which are 38.83 ft. wide.
The front yard setback along N. 2nd Street would be 25 ft. instead of 20 ft. as originally
proposed. The maximum unit length would be 80 ft. which would leave a 20 ft. setback
along the rear alley if an 80 ft. long unit were placed on a lot. An earthen wall storm shelter
is located on Lots 11 and 13 near the rear alley and the applicant would need to modify and
expand this shelter to meet current standards. If this request is approved the underlying
zoning of this tract would be MH-P, but approval of a Planned Development District for this
site is necessary because the applicant's plan and the site itself do not meet the
requirements for new manufactured home parks. The MH-P standards for newly developed
parks require a minimum of 2 acres of land area and do not allow manufactured homes to
be placed along public streets. Creation of a PDD would allow the City Commission to vary
those standards for the applicant's property. Also, the applicant is proposing nine (9) 38 ft.
wide lots to accommodate nine (9) single-wide homes. This proposed width is less than the
40 ft. minimum lot width required by the MH-P regulations. The City Commission can only
approve a variation of this requirement through the PDD process.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
9/11/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM DEAN ANDREW
NO.
Page 2 BY: BY:
Because this is a PDD application, the City Commission also has the authority to set
conditions relating to unit size, roof and siding materials and type of foundation or anchoring
system. These items are not specified in the MHP regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. A
summary of the MH-P district regulations and how this application compares with those
standards is as follows:
MH-P District Standard Proposed Plan
Minimum project size - 2 acres *(1 acre)
Lot area - 4,000 sq. ft. (4,923 sq. ft.)
Lot width - 40 ft. *(38.8 ft.)
Lot depth - 100 ft. (125 ft.)
Front yard setback - 25 ft. (25 ft.)
Side yard - 7.5 ft. (7.5 ft.)
Rear yard - 25 ft. *(20 ft.)
Lot coverage Up to 40% allowed (26%)
Residential density 4,500 sq. ft./unit 4,923 sq. ft./unit
total land area land area
*Variances and exceptions from MH-P standards being requested -
1. An exception to the minimum development area requirement of 2 acres for manufactured
home parks.
2. An exception to the minimum lot width requirement of 40 ft. to allow up to 9 single wide
units to be placed on 38.8 ft. wide lots.
3. A rear yard setback variance of 5 ft. from 25 ft. to 20 ft.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
9/11/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM DEAN ANDREW
NO.
Page 3 BY: BY:
4. An exception to the requirement that all manufactured home lots obtain exclusive access
from internal private streets, with no direct driveway access to external public streets.
5. An exception to the requirement that new parks provide 500 sq. ft. of recreational space
or open space per manufactured home space.
Additional Zoning Requirements
In new parks properly ventilated and constructed storm shelters must be provided in a
central or other convenient location with 18 sq. ft. of shelter space for each manufactured
home space. In this case an 18 ft. x 9 ft. (162 sq. ft.) would need to be provided by the
applicant. Storm shelters must be built in accordance with the building codes adopted by
the City.
All manufactured homes placed in new, expanded or existing manufactured home parks
after January 1, 1992, shall have been manufactured after June 15, 1976 and shall bear
a label certifying that it was built in compliance with the Federal Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401); provided however, that mobile
homes built prior to June 15, 1976, and not bearing a HUD code label shall be permitted to
be placed within an existing manufactured home park if the unit has been inspected by the
building official and bears a certificate stating that the unit meets or exceeds HUD code
standards or any minimum housing code standards adopted by the city.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public headng on this application on August 1,2000.
At that hearing the applicant presented a preliminary development plan showing 9
manufactured home spaces. The plan he presented for the property was that as older units
are removed from the park newer units would be brought in and placed on the site in
accordance with the new plan. At the August 1st hearing questions were raised about the
length of units that could fit on this site, the front yard setback of existing homes on No. 2nd
Street and whether the applicant had plans for a storm shelter to serve residents of this park.
The Planning Commission then voted 5-0 to table consideration of this application to August
15 to allow these items to be addressed.
The Planning Commission reopened the public hearing on this request at their August 15
meeting. Following presentation of the staff report, comments from the applicant and
discussion and questions, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of this PDD
application subject to the following conditions:
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
9/11/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM DEAN ANDREW
NO.
Page 4 BY: BY:
1. Development of this manufactured home park shall substantially conform the
approved park plan which is on file in the Zoning Administrator's office and herein
incorporated by reference.
2. Development of the park shall comply with Sections 42-222 thru 42-226
(Manufactured Home Parks) and Sections 22-16 thru 22-38 (Mobile Homes and
Trailers) of the Salina Code except for the following approved exceptions:
a) The minimum park area shall be one (1) acre.
b) The minimum lot width shall be 38.83 ft.
c) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 20 ft.
d) Direct driveway access from individual manufactured homes to North Second
Street shall be allowed.
e) No common recreational space or open space shall be required.
3. Housing units must have a minimum width of fourteen (14) feet and a maximum
length of eighty (80) ft.
4. All housing units shall have a pitched roof. Metallic roofing surfaces must be coated
with a nonreflective and nonmetallic material. Use of corrugated metal or plastic
panels shall not be permitted.
5. All housing units shall be tied down and blocked as designated by K.S.A. 75-1226
thru 75-1232.
6. All housing units shall be skirted with a solid and wind resistant material designed for
exterior use. Skirting shall be securely attached and shall enclose the total open
area under the manufactured home.
7. The unit must be permanently connected to all utilities in conformance with applicable
city codes.
8. Each lot shall have a separate entrance from a paved public street and two off-street
parking spaces.
9. The tongue (hitch) of a manufactured home must be removed if it is bolted on, but
may be left intact if it is permanently attached to the manufactured home, provided
that the tongue (hitch) is enclosed with a suitable, attractive enclosure and is
landscaped.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
9/11/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM DEAN ANDREW
NO.
Page 5 BY: BY:
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 period for this
application expired on August 29, 2000 and no protest petition has been received. Second
reading would be scheduled for September 25, 2000.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, it
may; 1) overturn the Planning Commission and deny this request provided there are four
(4) votes in support of such action; or 2) return the application to the Planning Commission
for reconsideration citing the basis of its disagreement with the recommendation.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Existing park layout
Proposed manufactured home park plan
Excerpt of PC Minutes 8/1/00 & 8/15/00
Ordinance No. 00- 9999
cc: Bert Wilson
Publication Date .g,',J~l~y 7,~;:' 2000 Application No. #PDD00-]
Hearing Date A.~,f.qt ] _. 2000 Date Filed .Tune 3,1, 2000
Development Plans Attached Yes Filing Fee $375,00
Ownership Certificate ReCeived KG Receipt No.
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT {P,D,D.)
1. Applicant's Name Bert'.T. Wilson "
2. Applicant°sAddress 311 2700 Ave. Solomon,· KS 67480 .'
3. 'Telephone (Business) (Home) (7'85) 655-3341'
4. Project~ame ~oodland Mobile Home Park PDD
5. Owner's Name Bert .T. Wilson
6. Owner's Address
7. Legal Description of Property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Lot(s) 7, 9, ll, 13, 15, 17 and 19 inBIockNo. 7
in Woodland Addition Subdivision
8. Approximate Street Address 704 - 720 N. 9nd Street
9. AreaofProperty(sq. ft, and/oracres) 350' x 125' 43,750 sq. ft;
10. PresentZoning R-2 Use Nonconforming moB~Lle home Park
11. Proposed Zoning ~:~]~ (lv~-P) Use Manufactured ~iome park
12, Is the P,D.D, to be utilized in conjunction with another zone or independently?
In conjunction .with MH-P
13. Are there any covenants of record which affect the proposed development (attach copy)? No
14. List reasons for this request (attach additional sheets if necessary) To allow older mobile homes to be removed
from these lots and newer model single wides to be brought in in their place
15. Anticipated time period for substantial completion 2. - ~3 :Fears
16. Total ground area occupied by bUildings (sq. ft.)
17. Describe any nqn-residential uses proposed None
18. Number o{ housing units proposed: Single family. 9 Multi-family.
19. Relationship between this application and the Land Use Plan
Applicant(s) ~ Owner(s)
Signature ¢/ Signature
!f the applicant is to be represented by legal counsel or 'a~ authorized agent, please complete the foil(~wing in order that correspondence and communi-
cations pertaining.to this application may be forwarded to the authorized'individual.
Name of Representative
Address Zip Code
3:elephone'l Business) , Area Code
White - Plan~ing .. Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant
/-,,v APPLICATION #PDD00,1
FILED BY BERT WILSON
C-6 _ ~ C-5
C_5 ,,. R-.':~ _
D,,~b- '._
~ WOO ,,~.g' ~. WOODLAND
' \' i'"'"'
! REQUEST AREA
'1 '
'
-
linch,= Feet // g~-2
(Basis of Bearing) N 00'00'00' E Assumed 551.58' (M) 550.00' (P)
~ Second Street -
oo~o'18" E (C~) N
',atted Bearing No Platted Bearing ,, I ~50.00', ~P> , ~ '~
l'c~ ~.~0' '(P)' ~.~3' ~ ~.~'~ 38,~' ; ~.~, ' i ~.~3' '~ ~.~3' ~ ~:83' ¢ ~ x . , ...........
~-~..., ., __ , . , -.. .,.
m ,~ ~ ~ & 25' City Zoned I Buiding Setbo ~ ~ . I ~ m -
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13.4'
D'~ 25' City Z~ I
~ I, I I I
~c~) ~;0o' (P) ~.a~' , .L. ~,~' ~' ~.~' I ~' ;, ,I se.e3' ~8.8~' ~.83'I
~tt~ ~eoring S 00'10'57" E (CM) No Plotted Bearing D~9.44' (OM) 550.00' (P) S o0~o'57" E (~)No,
10' Pla~ed Alley ~ ~ g
~' APPLIC~T~ ~PDD00-1
.~ .. z I~IOODI.AND NOBILI~ HOMK P~ PDD
. 0
' ::' :~:~ N89'49'23"E (CM) No Platted Bearing
15' City Zoned
1
' 3g.62'
Hnit 0
· .....; ~ S 8g'4g'25" W (CM) No Platted Beerlng
Salina Planning Commission
August 1, 2000
Page 4
size and bulk.
SECOND: , seconded the
VOTE: Motion
~)son asked see Mr. Andrew that Mr. Callabresi relocates
equipment to a more sL )n?
Mr. Andrew stated yes.
Mr. Ponton stated I think he is like me, you get a one time, it
won't be there long, there will be a junk guy out there a
they won't come unless you have enough stuff to make it worth
come and pick it up.
#3. Application #PDD00-1, filed by Bert Wilson, requesting a change in zomng
district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District to PDD (MHP)
(Planned Development District) on property legally described as Lots 7, 9, 11,
13, 15, 17 and 19, Block 7 of the Woodland Addition (aka 704-720 N. 2nd
Street).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report that was sent to the Planning Commission and
applicant.
Mr. Thompson asked are the current units owned by Mr. Wilson as well as the
land?
Mr. Andrew stated Mr. Wilson owns the land and he could probably better
address if he owns any of the units and he is renting them himself. But he does
own the land and his plan is not to sell lots but to own the property and lease
spaces to people to place their units.
Mr. Wilson stated I own three of the units, the rest are owned by other people.
Mr. Morse asked if the lot depth minimum standards are 100 ft. and under the
proposed plan they are 125 ft. The setbacks are 25 ft. under required on the
front, 25 ft. on rear with an 85 ft. mobile home you can't do a minimum lot and
meet standards.
Mr. Andrew stated essentially if you take the 85 ft. plus 20 ft. and 20 ft. you
have used up the lot. The difference is here if this ware in say Cedar Creek or
Mr. Nordboe's park where they have internal private streets, the setback from
the street is only 20 ft. The reason it is 25 ft. here is because the ordinance
says that the minimum shall be 25 ft. from any public street and that usually
implies that you would have a unit that would back up to a public street and
maybe there would be some kind of screening or fencing or something along
the back, but in this case we called that out as an exception but it is not unusual
in our other parks to have the front of the unit within 20 ft. of the street so that
part in itself is not that unusual but the thing that is a little different is that 2nd
Street is a public street not a private street and in our newer parks the streets
are private and owned by the park owner.
Mr. Haas asked regarding the lots to the north and to the south and then to the
east that I am looking at of this area, what is located on those lots?
Mr. Andrew stated it is a pretty mixed area on the south of Forest is actually
zoned industrial, it is a pretty industrial area. Across the street you have some
vacant lots mixed in with some single family homes. There is a single-family
home here and there are homes up here but across the street on 2nc Street it
is pretty spotty with homes and vacant lots. The same thing in and behind on
Front you have homes and vacant lots. It is an R-2 area but is not as solidly
residential as some of the other areas of North Salina where you have homes
on every lot. There is some vacant property in there as well.
Salina Planning Commission
August 1, 2000
Page 5
Mr. Webb asked and the single-family homes have the 25 ft. setback is that
correct?
Mr. Andrew stated for the most part yes that is what would apply. They just
haven't had a lot of activity in this particular area north of Pacific we have seen
people going in and purchasing lots and putting in new double wide
manufactured homes or modular homes on some of those vacant lots but we
haven't seen any activity south of Pacific in this area.
Mr. Thompson asked are there any other questions of staff?. Hearing none we
will ask Mr. Wilson to address us.
Bert Wilson 311 2700 Ave. Solomon. All I have to say is I would like to upgrade
it. I didn't know that it wasn't zoned as a mobile home park from the time I
bought it. I bought it in 1979. And I thought it was regular mobile home park
at that time. And the homes are getting older and I would like to move them out
and put new ones in. I have one tenant that would like to put a new one in now,
she is living there and she can't do that because if she moves her mobile home
out we can't put another one back in unless we get it rezoned. There is another
option where you could put a foundation in but then you wouldn't be, you would
be having mobile home and then another residential area there kind of mixed.
So we would like to keep it as itwas if we could only straighten it out, and move
them like they have proposed there.
Mr. Umphrey asked how likely are you to have an 85 ff. mobile home located
there?
Mr. Wilson stated I don't know. The one that they want to buy is 80 f. I don't
know what the regulations are. Is 85 ft. normal now?
Mr. Umphrey stated I don't have any idea, I am concerned about the setbacks
for the rear yard and the front yard. That is the reason for my question.
Mr. Wilson asked we could be in compliance with 80 ft. is that right?
Mr. Umphrey stated no on 75 ft.
Mr. Morse you could comply on front or rear with 80 ft.
Mr. Andrew stated again on the 80 ft. the difference being with a 20 ft. setback
if someone were to put a stick built home on that block they would have a 25 ft.
setback as opposed to 20 ft. would be the main difference, but we have seen
out say in Cedar Creek, they do have a 14' x 84' and a 16' x 85' model where
out in Cedar Creek we are seeing more in the 76' and 80' as our longest
dimension. Then again we pointed out because this is a planned development
district that the Planning Commission has the discretion to put those types of
limits into the recommendation that it be limited to units no longer than 76' or 80'
or anything that you think is reasonable but the primary purpose of the hearing
today is to get the sense of the Planning Commission's feel for what is
appropriate for this area and then probably table the application to allow us to
work with the applicant to develop a plan that reflects what you feel is
appropriate and then bring that back for final consideration, but the bigger
question today is whether this zoning change that is being considered is
appropriate. To consider and then from there work more towards the details.
· Mr. Morse asked One of the parts of the staff report addressed an area normally
.. required for recreation and storm shelter, my question is more about storm
shelter, how would you feel about a requirement that you had to provide some
type of storm shelter in the area?
Mr. Wilson stated I could put one in there if you wanted me to. There was one
started .there at one time and it is just the roof and the sides and it is
underground, but one could be put in that place and that taken out, if the
Commission desired to have it that way.
Salina Planning Commission
August 1, 2000
Page 6
Mr. Umphrey asked would that be on a lot where there would be a mobile home
has well?
Mr. Wilson stated yes it would.
Mr. Umphrey asked but there is plenty of room for it?
Mr. Wilson stated yes.
Mr, Umphrey stated I notice in this drawing if it is anywhere near to scale that
most of the existing homes are in a kind of random pattern but much closer to
the front setback Second Street than the 25 ft. or the 20 ft. that you have
proposed there and they are pretty close to the street as they now sit.
Mr. Wilson stated I think they are closer, I am not sure, I don't have that
measurement to say how far they are sitting back.
Mr. Andrew stated those are based on a survey so those dimensions that Mr.
Umphrey is referring to are.
Mr. Umphrey stated one thirteen and three quarter feet, one twelve point two
one and so they are pretty close.
Mr. Andrew stated yes and essentially the tenants are using the street right-of-
way for parking as opposed to getting up off of the street.
Mr. Webb stated it appears that the existing plan you have eight units. And
what you are proposing is to have nine on the same amount of property.
Mr. Wilson stated there were originally nine there, we took one out this last
October, I think it was but there has been 9 there since 1977.
Mr. Umphrey asked so because of this grandfathedng you are looking for some
sort of a mechanisium to have an ongoing program with this property, isn't that
right?
Mr. Wilson stated yes.
Mr. Morse asked are you ready for a motion?
Mr. Thompson stated lets see if we have some comments from other people.
Mr. Webb stated one question I have of Dean, with an underground storm
shelter, in a park such as this are there requirements as to square footage
depending on the population of a planned development district?
Mr. Andrew stated the ordinance is based on providing so many square feet
based on the number of units.
Mr. Webb stated so a typical family Of 2.3 people per household or something
like that and then you do the math.
Mr. Andrew stated obviously for one whether it is 8 or 9 or whatever number of
units we might end up with it would obviously be smaller than say something
that you would see in a park that had 50 units or something like that, so it can
be sized smaller but it is going to be based ultimately on the number of units
that get approved for this site.
Mr. Umphrey asked Mr. Wilson, just to make sure there are plenty of adequate
sewer lines, water lines etc. that sort of thing to provide services for these?
Mr. Wilson stated yes there are 9 services there right now.
Mr. Thompson stated I understand that is all on one meter as far as water is
Salina Planning Commission
August1,2000
Page 7
concerned.
Mr. Wilson stated it is on two meters. Because I pay the water bill. It is running
double what it was a year ago. It is not too much of a money making
preposition, but it is there.
Mr. Thompson asked would anybody from the community care to speak on this
application?
Ted Zurger, 159 S. Simpson Road. My involvement in this is if you would the
picture back up, the three vacant lots there on 701,703 and 705, that shows the
lots acress the street are vacant staring at Forest and going north those are
vacant lots. Within the last couple of years I purchased those lots for the
purpose of starting a community gardening project there. Perhaps you
remember in the Salina Journal a while back there was a thing about this and
I am committed to that for these lots. I can't speak the zoning regulations or
anything like that, but I just would like to make a statement kind of on behalf of
some of the people in the community and I'm frankly surprised that more of
them are not here, uh this is a community, this is a neighborhood and what
happens if these people are in a bind, they cannot upgrade their housing and
some of these mobile homes are in bad condition and they need to be
upgraded, but it is impossible, as I understand it currently for the people there
to upgrade their housing and the only way that they can upgrade their housing
is to move from the community and the woman whom Bert spoke of earlier was
told that if she wanted to buy a new mobile home, she would put in a new
mobile home park, well her response is baloney this is my neighborhood, this
is where I live, I have lived here for 20 some years and this is where I want to
be so anything that can be done that allows people to upgrade their housing,
and to preserve the neighborhood I think is good for that area and good for
Salina. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson asked does anyone else wish to address the Commission?
Hearing none I will bring it back to the commission. I certainly appreciate those
remarks and it certainly is a dilemma when you think about that we have a
regulation which says that they are grendfathered in but once they become so
worn out that they are no longer useful they either have to be eliminated or you
continue to let people live in that kind of condition, and that seems to be a little
bit awkward in terms of our philosophy of trying to upgrade neighborhoods and
cause a better living situation.
Mr. Morse asked Mr. Wilson if there were held off and give you time to work with
Planning Commission staff could you be ready by August 15 or September 5.
Mr. Wilson asked what would I need?
Mr. Morse stated you would need to work with them and resolve whatever
issues were brought up, for example the recreation area or the setbacks.
Mr. Wilson stated I could be ready by the 15 of August if it isn't a bind on staff.
Mr. Andrew stated I think it can be done, it is just will be to get some direction
from you as to the number of units or lots that you see are appropriate and how
wide they should be if the Commission is comfortable with the proposal that is
laid out for putting nine units in there, it will be a relatively minor number of
changes to bring it back to you to have a plan for you to consider if you think
that nine spaces is t°o dense or too tight and you think it should be eight or
another number then that will require a little more work with the applicant's
surveyor. But I think the 15th is doable, depending on how you feel especially
this is his concept. And if you are comfortable with that giving a little bit of fine
tuning.
Mr. Thompson stated it seems to me that if we are going to cause there to be
a storm shelter that if we were to remain with the eight and I assume the one
that was taken out was somewhere between lot 11 and 13, that would be an
-' Salina Planning Commission
August 1, 2000
Page 8
ideal location for that storm shelter in terms of easiest access by all residents
getting back to it. That wOuld only allow 8 though if that were to occur.
Mr. Umphrey stated well my recommendation would be to try to go ahead and
fine tune it in to use all nine spots since Mr, Wilson has indicated it is not a
particular lucrative project and most of the people that are there want to remain
there but would like to update so in order to get around this grandfather
dilemma I WOuld be in favor of going ahead with the nine unit proposal and also
adding the storm shelter somewhere Within reasonable proximity to all of the
sites and I think you should decide on whether you would like to go with the
correct setback on either the front or the rear yard perhaps not both the front
and rear but at least one or the other so my recommendation on that would be
to line up the front of the houses with whatever else is on the block. I built some
houses down there and I know on 5th Street several of the houses are actually
setting back just about 20 ft. or so from the property line and' they are not at 25
ft. and the whole block looks better if you line up the entire block in a sensible
manner rather than jogging back and forth.
Mr. Webb asked basically Cork you are saying do the 25 ff. setback in the front
having 80 ft. mobile home and do a 20 ft. in the rear?
Mr. Umphrey stated yes unless the other houses, if there be any are say only
22 ft. back or whatever they are, they should line up along the front.
Mr. Morse asked this would be the average of the lots, the average of the
setbacks on that side of the street?
Mr. Webb asked on the existing single family houses?
Mr. Umphrey stated we encountered that on 5th and that is what the Planning
Department upstairs suggested that we do and we did and it looks better.
Mr. Morse stated I think that is a good idea. Personally I would prefer to see it
remain at 8 mobile homes with the recreation area and I guess I agree with
Cork on that, that probably average of the stick builts on that side of the street
would be a good setback and then probably some maximum length on the
mobile homes so that we didn't run into excessive rear yard problems or rear
yard variances.
Mr. Wilson stated there is a real nice park just a block at the corner and 1/2
block west.
Mr. Morse stated and then again I was not thinking and did not mention the
recreation area, I am more concerned about the storm shelter than providing
recreation.
Mr. Haas stated if we did shrink it to 8 lots that wouldn't alleviate the front and
rear yard setback problems, it would alleviate the lot with problems that is the
only thing that we would be doing.
Mr. Andrew stated you could allocate more footage per lot and probably end up
with, as Mr. Thompson suggested some sort of common area or something in
the middle for a shelter as opposed to putting a home there.
Mr. Thompson asked I wonder too if we might be able to assist Mr. Wilson in
finding out how much it would cost to provide individual meters for each of the
.~ units, it seems to me that I don't see how you are making any money at all if
you are paying the water bill.
Mr. Wilson asked there is another concern that I have, if I have to line up all
those, I don't know how you are going to do that with your ordinance because
you can't move them 2 or 3 ft.
Mr. Umphrey stated we are talking about as you replace them they have to be
Salina Planning Commission
August 1, 2000
Page 9
put in a more orderly fashion. Those that are there would be able to remain
there.
Mr. Thompson stated as you replace them we are talking about 22 f.
Mr. Andrew stated what we are talking about is obviously anything that is there
today is existing and grandfathered and what we are talking about is gradually
over time bringing this in with current standards.
Mr. Umphrey stated if one is sitting there now at 12.2 f. back from the front
property line we don't want to put a new one in there at that same spot, we
would rather have it in an orderly place.
Mr. Wilson stated I understand, but I was just concerned as to whether you
know I was supposed to line them all up right away or what to do.
Mr. Thompson stated I think a motion is in order to table this until the 15th of
August.
MOTION: Mr. Umphrey moved to table this application to August 15, 2000.
SECOND: Mr. Webb seconded the motion.
Mr. Morse asked are we going to then in that motion provide some specific
guidance, we are a little split on what we are telling staff to do here.
Mr. Andrew stated I think that we would like a little guidance on how you feel
about the total number of units, the lot width, obviously I have in my notes here
to make provisions for a storm shelter but if the motion could include some of
the comments that have been made about the storm shelter, the setback you
would like to see on the front, the maximum unit length and perhaps the total
number of units, whether it is 8 or 9 that would help us with the applicant.
Mr. Umphrey stated well I left that part a little bit vague in hope that Mr. Wilson
could convince you that 9 would be alright but if we are going to nail each and
every detail then we might as well vote on the entire issue today, and not delay
it.
Mr. Thompson stated yea I thought the reason that we were delaying it was so
that you two could get together and work those things out.
Mr. Umphrey stated we are giving him some time to do some negotiating and
if that is not going to happen and if we are going to make all the decisions lets
just make them.
Mr. Andrew stated well if he can come back with a plan then with 9 units and a
storm shelter then we will do that.
Mr. Thompson stated or if he can come back with 8 units and a storm shelter,
but that is something that I would hope that you could kind of work out together
and see in terms of placement. I would think that either you are going to have
to allow enough room for the storm shelter to be placed adequately and that
kind of thing so without knowing what all that is, I think it would be best to
discuss that.
· Mr. Umphrey stated I think that reasonableness has to enter into it, we don't
want the storm shelter located on the far comer of an end lot and so I
mentioned that it needed to be reasonably accessible to everyone. I think that
staff and Mr. Wilson can work out those detail with satisfaction.
Mr. Morse asked if staff feels they can do that?
Mr. Andrew stated we can do that.
.' Salina Planning Commission
August 1, 2000
Page 10
VOTE: Motion carded 5-0.
g4. Request to change official street name of a public street in the River Trail
Addition from Karla Court to Grant Court.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report that was sent to the Planning Commission and
applicant.
Mr. O'Leary stated this is a fairly active area, I don't know if you
there but Eaglecrest was built last year and several homes under
They have opted to go on a private contract to now extend
this Karla Court and construct Karla Court which is underway speak.
They are privately contracting for those improvements and if' ~ out there
today you probably saw the construction of water and systems
underway, the street construction will follow, so yes Karla irt is intended to
built and ready for home construction yet this year in
Mr. Andrew stated I don't believe that we services or anything
that we have addressed off of Karla C inconvenience anybody
to change the name that we are aware of so if ~ ~ the change now there
shouldn't be anybody inconvenienced is to go ahead
with the street name change.
Mr. Thompson asked are there uestions of staff? Headng none are
there interested citizen that care to Hearing none I would entertain
a motion for the Commission.
MOTION: Morse moved #M00-1 and change the name to Grant
rt.
SECOND: Mr.
VOTE: Motion
#5. Other Matte~
Mr. And don't have any other matters for you today, we will meet
on , Mr. Wilson's item carded over and a revised plan back
for We will have on the Golden Eagle Estates request for
north mt subdivision. I think that what we will be looking
is a hearing on the and annexation aspects of that and perhaps a
continuance on the plat. some technical issues we still working on
with them, but it will jnity for property owner's in the surrounding
area to give some feedback on response to the proposed development
and layout. We also have a use permit for a multi-family dwelling
on Foxtail that is zoned R-2 which to two units per dwelling, we have
somebody that wants to do a td-plex slightly larger lot so that will be
brought in for your consideration. I think is all we have at this time.
There being no other business the meeting adjourned at p.m.
Dean Andrew, Secretary
ATTEST:~
DA/kf
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
AUGUST 15, 2000 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hass, Hedges, McDowell, Perney, Thompson, Umphrey and
Webb
MEMBERS ABSENT: Morse
DEPARTMENT STAFF: Andrew, Fisher and O'Leary
#1. The minutes of August 1, 2000 were approved as presented.
Application #PDD00-1, filed by Bert Wilson, requesting a change in zoning
district classification from R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District to PDD (MHP)
(Planned Development District) on property legally described as Lots 7, 9, 11,
13, 15, 17 and 19, Block 7 of the Woodland Addition (aka 704-720 N. 2nd
Street). Continued from August 1, 2000.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report that was sent to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Peterson stated what I have for you and Mr. Wilson are the new National
Performance Criteria for tornado shelters. I won't attempt to go over them in
detail with each of you today but since each of you have a copy if you end up
with any questions after you have looked through them I would be happy to try
to answer those, but hitting the highlights of this. FEMA has worked out a
cooperative agreement with Texas Tech University which has a Wind
Engineering Research Center and they have developed and designed tornado
shelters for use primarily inside of other structures, but some of the designs will
work as a stand alone basis. I would point out, there are a couple of things
that are interesting, if you make a request to this group, they will actually send
you plans. I was at a FEMA training not too long ago and the gentleman
whose architectural company designed the safe rooms and safe structures for
tornado hazards was indicating that they are willing to provide free of charge
the necessary plans to build a building abOve ground. Now the basic criteda
here would work for what Mr. Wilson has in mind, the one thing that we would
have to add to it when we put it below ground would be the additional strength
perhaps that is necessary for the weight of earth and hydrostatic pressure
regardless if we do it below ground, we would probably end up in a situation
where we will need a local engineer and or architect involved in adapting these
performance criteria to design that building. If Mr. Wilson can use the same
amount of space if you will in an above ground building, relatively small, then
he could use the plans that Texas Tech has already designed to do that but
either way I think that we can come up with a good solution. I would point out
that wind strength for the above ground ended up very high on page three you
will note that they go through the performance cdteda. It is a bit shocking to
me the amount of wind speed that you have to be prepared to deal with in
tomadaic situations. The pressures for the components, what it talks about is
the 250 mph 3 second gust peak type design, so we are talking about a pretty
significant design for wind loading but it is laid out, works very well, seems to
as you can from the very first picture on the front of this, there was a
subdivision in Wichita, Kansas where they built these, they can also show
pictures over the internet if you would care to go to this web site, you will see
areas where the tomado's have taken the houses out of subdivisions in
Oklahoma City but you will see the safe rooms left behind, so they have proven
both through impedcal testing as well as research testing that they are
workable and that they are good solution. And essentially what they are is
concrete block pdmadly is how they are done, not an unusual concrete block
application other than filling the block as you go, additional steel I do believe
and then they have used both a plywood type ceiling and they have used a
concrete deck type ceiling, both are laid out in the design. So we can work
with about any type of underground space or above ground space I believe
. Salina Planning Commission
August 15, 2000
Page 2
using these criteria and I would be glad to help Mr. Wilson with that at the time
that he is prepared to do that. I don't know that we could find a good way to
use the structure he already has because it is pretty much an earth and berm
type with concrete slab on top, but as far as if you do want a storm shelter
reconstructed I know that we can come up with plans to do that. Does anyone
have any questions?
Mr. Umphrey asked the one that is there you don't think you would be able to
use it?
Mr. Peterson stated I don't believe that it would meet this performance criteria.
I think another issue would be sizing. When you look in here, their sizing
criteda is a bit different than what we use locally, we use 12 sq. ft. per trailer
right now as a minimum based on an average occupancy of two plus just a little
bit, 2.2 or 2.1. I think that they are showing similar to that but not exactly, so
by the time we get done calculating square footages and then the fact that this
unit doesn't have an end on either end, I mean it is open on both ends the last
time that I saw it so I am assuming that we would need to a considerable
amount of work to make it fit, putting in walls on all four sides.
Mr. Umphrey asked approximately what size is the existing shelter?
Mr. Peterson stated I would be stdctly guessing, Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Andrew stated up on the plan it is about 7' x 10' today.
Mr. Peterson stated about 70 sq. ft.
Mr. Umphrey stated ok that is all I need just an approximate.
Mr. Peterson stated so based on our local units, we would be somewhere in
the range of 6 or 7 mobile homes or manufactured homes would be suitable
for that.
Mr. Webb asked does our local cdteria meet this criteda that you just handed
out?
Mr. Peterson stated yes it does, what we do, as far as the people square
footage, we are a little bit different than what they suggest but as far as
performance criteria that is done on an individual basis with architects and
engineers as those are designed and yes they meet the performance criteria.
Mr. Webb asked but this part of the Salina Building Code now?.
Mr. Peterson stated yes it is and also our manufactured home court ordinance
is where the requirement for the storm shelter comes from. FEMA has said
that they are really anxious for people to get this information, it is available both
through our office and the intemet to anybody that is interested in it and I would
be glad to give anybody that needs it the internet address if they went to look
at it or we can provide copies through the office.
Mr. Thompson asked is there any other information from staff?
Mr. Andrew stated we have cladfied that we are recommending a 25 ft. front
yard setback and I think this is kind of a highbred between a new park and
establishing a new park and something that is existing it is really your discretion
whether you think the storm shelter should be required and if that existing
earthen structure is not really uSeable then he may want to relocate where that
is because it is pretty close to the rear of what would be a building site. There
might be some more open ground between unit four and five that might be
more appropriate for that but I think we ought to hear from the applicant on
what his ideas are.
Salina Planning Commission
August 15, 2000
Page 3
Mr. Thompson asked do I understand you correctly that it is up to our
discretion whether we have a storm shelter?.
Mr. Andrew stated yes because we have treated this like it is a new park, but
it has been a licensed mobile home park for a number of years, it just didn't
have the property zoning so I think it is your discretion whether you want to
treat this like it is a new park and require the storm shelter. If this were vacant
raw ground and there was nothing there today there is no doubt that a storm
shelter would have to be provided. We think it is a good idea, but it is
something that is at your discretion.
Bert Wilson, 311 2700 Ave. Solomon, Kansas. I said that if you were willing
to go along with rezoning that, that I would be willing to put in a new storm
shelter. I don't recommend the one that is there. It would just take to much to
make it decent I think, I think it should just be taken out .and a new one put it.
You said that you could make it out of cement block?
Mr. Peterson stated yes sir.
Mr. Wilson stated and I didn't know, I have been getting some estimates, is
there a recommendation as to how high out of the ground that you can come
or do they just go from ground level clear up to regular like this shows?
Mr. Peterson stated the copy that you have shows them built as part of the
inside of a house, but obviously when they were tested they were tested
completely above ground, so with the right style of wall construction, roof,
ceiling and door, you could build everything above grade if you wanted to not
a problem at all. I do think that there is probably a pretty significant thickened
slab underneath this area to resist uplift. But that would be the only thing that
would be somewhat unique, doing a stand alone because you wouldn't have
the entire slab of the house to help you resist the uplift pressure, the vacuum
if you will created by the tomado.
Mr. Wilson stated I didn't realize you could build one that strong.
Mr. Peterson stated they have them tested both intentionally and
unintentionally and they have worked real well and as I say the folks with
Texas Tech will even send you plans free of charge and that information is in
here Mr. Wilson, but if you need some assistance with that I do have the name
of the architect.
Mr. Wilson stated it is in here the direct spec on the roofs and sidewalls?
Mr. Peterson stated where to get them, where to request them and they do
send them, I think the only thing that you have to provide is an envelop large
enough to put them in.
Mr. Wilson stated I had always been afraid of storm shelters because kids
playing in the thing and locking themselves in there, I don't know how that can
be eliminated. You give keys to everybody but then the kids will get a hold of
those keys somehow and that was my concern and I don't know how to
eliminate that.
Mr. Peterson stated and I don't know that anyone does Mr. Wilson. You have
hit upon the very issue that tends to make people who own mobile home parks
less than thrilled about providing the storm shelters because they do become
an unintended community room especially for children that are latch key kids
or kids that are not pretty much constant supervision, I think some of the folks
in this room who knew me when I was in high school would have told you that
I was probably one of those latch key kids that didn't have enough supervision.
My folks did a good job it was just that I was kind of onerary.
Mr. Wilson asked does a storm shelter require a door?.
Salina Planning Commission
August 15, 2000
Page 4
Mr. Peterson stated yes it doe~. It doesn't' have to lock, but you do need a
door.
Mr. Wilson stated the only other thing that I had to say was I thought it would
look better if they were all lined up even with the house on the end of the block
but that won't go with your criteria, I can live with what you have put down
there. Do you have any other questions?
Mr. Umphrey stated Bert you have had a chance to go over these 9 staff
recommendations, do you have any comments about any of them, especially
number eight where each lot shall have a separate entrance from the street will
you have to acquire additional ddveway entrances and curb cuts and so forth?
Mr. Wilson stated it will require that but I am willing to do that.
Mr. Thompson asked are there further question of Mr. Wilson? Headng none
would anyone from the community care to address the Commission? Seeing
none I will bdng it back to the Commission for action.
MOTION: Mr. Umphrey moved to approve Application #PDD00-1 subject to the nine
stated recommendations on page four and five of the staff report.
SECOND: Mr. Pemey seconded the motion.
VOTE: Motion carried 7-0.
#3. Application ~U00-5, filed by Gene Priem, requesting a Conditional Use Permit
to allow the construction of a triplex in an R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District.
The subject property is legally described as Lot 10, Block 2 in the Valley View
Estates Addition (aka 1972 Foxtail Drive).
Mr. Andrew stated you should all have a copy of the letter that we actually just
today from Eric and Para Rasmasan and they are owners of a town
directly to the north of the request area and they have reported to usand
we that they did not receive a letter notifying them of today's
they are not in favor of the application and if we were to
go ahead and take action today as an adverse party they
could nvalidate what you have done because they did
notice, is to have us go back, double check
list, send out the there is are a required 20 day
before the hearing so would be to continue ! to
September the 19th and Id go back and give all letter of
notice and bring this back to the 19th.
Mr. Thompson stated it is m~ lg already notified all
parties concerned that that probably
Mr. Andrew stated dght and that is why ~ave any applicants here
today, we told them there won't be on it and there is no
reason for you to come.
Mr. McDowell asked the action is to table?
Mr. Andrew stated table and allow us to renotify the affected
MOTION: Mr. McDowell table Application ~CU00-5 until the 19th of
SECOND: Mr. motiOn.
VOTE: 7-0.
#4. Application #Z00-7, filed by Golden Eagle Estates, Inc., requesting a change
in zoning district classification from Saline County AG (Agricultural) to R
(Single-Family Residential), R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Multi-