7.1 Zone Prospect Avenue
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
08/21/2006 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 1
BY:
Dean Andrew
BY:
ITEM: Ordinance No. 06-10346
Application #Z06-9, filed by Mark Frazier, requesting a change in zoning district classification from R
(Single-Family Residential) district to 1-2 (Light Industrial) district to allow plumbing equipment storage.
The subject property is a tract of land located on the south side of Prospect Avenue 1165 ft. east of
Ohio Street and is addressed as 1328 Prospect Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
Frazier Brothers Plumbing & Contracting, Inc. appeared before the Planning Commission in January
of 1999 and requested the rezoning of 1408 Prospect, a property they had recently purchased for their
plumbing contracting business. At that time, 1408 Prospect was zoned R and was the location of a
one-bedroom, single family home and a 36'x 42' storage building. They planned to utilize the house
as an office and the detached garage for the storage of vehicles and equipment. The Frazier's
requested 1-2 zoning for this proposed use because it was consistent with zoning in the area, was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would permit their type of business use on the lot. They
also believed that the small size of the existing residence was not conducive to continued residential
use. The Planning staff, the Planning Commission and the City Commission all concurred with the
applicant and their request to rezone 1408 Prospect from R to 1-2 was approved on March 1, 1999.
Following the conversion of 1408 Prospect, Frazier Brothers Plumbing and Contracting, Inc. acquired
and applied for rezoning of the property directly west of 1408 Prospect in November of 2001. At the
time the property directly west of 1408 Prospect Avenue was zoned R (Single-Family Residential) and
they requested the zoning be changed to 1-2 (Light Industrial). The Frazier's had purchased this
property with the intent of expanding their existing plumbing business. When the property went before
the Planning Commission, it contained a two-story dwelling, two-car garage, and a stone outbuilding
south of the dwelling. Frazier Brothers stated their intentions to demolish the house and outbuilding
and use the garage and property for expansion of the business including storage of vehicles and
equipment. However, under the R zoning classification in place on the property at that time, that type
of business operation was not allowed. This was the reason for their request to rezone the property
from R to 1-2 in 2001.
The applicant contended that their existing plumbing contractor's office and shop was an asset to the
neighborhood and that their proposed expansion conformed to trends in the neighborhood. The
applicant also believed that the existing condition of the home was not conducive to residential use.
During a site visit to the property, staff did find that the interior of the home was in poor condition, and
agreed with the applicant that the property was not a good candidate for renovation or rehabilitation.
The Planning staff, the Planning Commission and the City Commission all concurred with the
applicants and their request to rezone the property directly west of 1408 Prospect from R to 1-2 was
approved on December 3,2001.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
08/21/2006 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO. 1
Page 2
Nature of Current Request
BY:
Dean Andrew
BY:
Frazier Brothers Plumbing recently appeared before the Planning Commission with another request to
rezone a parcel from R to 1-2. This parcel is directly west of their existing business and is addressed
as 1328 Prospect Avenue. The applicant recently purchased this property with the intent of further
expanding their plumbing business. At the time of purchase, the property contained a residential
dwelling and a garage. Since purchasing the property, the applicant has demolished the residential
dwelling leaving the garage and remaining property for expansion of the business. Currently, the
applicant plans on using the existing garage and land for storage of vehicles and equipment.
However, the present R zoning classification would not allow this type of business operation on the
property. Therefore this rezoning application has been filed.
Intent and Purpose of 1-2 District
The 1-2 district is designed to permit industrial activities of a limited nature. This includes uses that in
many cases are compatible with adjacent use districts, however, they can be incompatible with
residential uses. The Salina Zoning Ordinance addresses the impact of industrial districts adjacent to
residential districts and requires that outdoor storage in side or rear yards be screened from
residential property and public streets by screening no less than six (6) feet in height. In addition, if a
lot in an 1-2 district adjoins a residential district, screening shall be provided on that lot line sufficient to
protect, on a year-round basis, the privacy of the adjoining residential use. Therefore, if the owner
builds on this lot, the site will need to be screened from the adjacent residential property on the west.
Suitabilitv of the Site for Development Under Existinq Zoninq
This factor deals with whether there are substantial reasons why the subject property cannot be used
in accordance with the existing R zoning.
The subject site is part of a platted tract in the Thomas White Farm subdivision. The site has 75 feet
of street frontage along Prospect Avenue and is located between a residentially zoned property to the
west and an industrially zoned property to the east. Directly north and south of the subject property is
industrial zoned land. The applicant believes that the location of the subject site is unsuitable for
residential use and that this area on East Prospect is no longer desirable for new home construction.
To reinforce the applicant's notion that residential dwelling units are no longer a desired land use,
there have been no new dwelling units constructed in this area in the last 17 years. In addition, the
area has been transitioning from residential to industrial uses since 1976. The applicant has already
demolished the residential dwelling, leaving the garage and a fence as the only structures remaining.
Character of the Neiqhborhood
This factor deals with whether the requested 1-2 zoning would be compatible with the zoning and uses
of nearby property.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
08/21/2006 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 3
This area east of Ohio contains commercial, industrial and residential uses. The north and south
sides of East Prospect contain a mix of Rand 1-2 zoning consisting of single-family homes intermixed
with several contractors' shops, a mini-storage warehouse and an auto body shop. The south side of
East Prospect, where the applicant's lot is located, is zoned predominantly residential but shows four
lots zoned industrial. Approval of the applicant's request would make a total of five industrially zoned
lots. The lot west of the subject property is zoned residential. The lot directly to the north is also
zoned industrial. The lot to the east of the subject property is owned by applicant, zoned industrial
and is used as part of his plumbing contractor's business.
BY:
Dean Andrew
BY:
The combination of several large vacant lots, mixture of uses, unpaved streets and proximity to Ohio
Street tends to make this area attractive to small businesses such as contractors' offices and storage
facilities. Most of the homes within the area are modest and well maintained. Some, however, are in
substandard condition. The presence of the small businesses in this area does not appear to
constitute a significant adverse impact on the residential uses in this neighborhood.
Public Utilities and Services
This factor deals with whether the proposed rezoning will create traffic congestion, overtax public
utilities, cause drainage problems, overload public schools, jeopardize fire or police protection or
otherwise detrimentally affect public improvements necessary to adequately serve the development.
1. Water - There is a 6 inch water main under Prospect which serves this area and is adequate to
serve the proposed use.
2. Sanitary Sewer - The subject site is served by an 8 inch plastic sewer line located along
Prospect which is adequate to serve the proposed development.
3. Storm Drainage - There are no storm sewers in this area and no ditches along Prospect. This
area is very flat and the drainage is poor. What positive drainage there is, moves toward the
rear of the lots on the south side of Prospect. The closest storm sewer inlets are located in
Ohio Street.
4. Access - Prospect Street has only 35 feet of right-of-way in this area which does not meet city
standards. The city's Subdivision Regulations require 60 feet. Also, the paving on Prospect
Street ends 450 feet east of Ohio and it becomes a narrow gravel street. Farther to the east, in
front of this site, Prospect narrows and becomes a private street with no city right-of-way.
Although the condition of the road surface is not good, Prospect is considered to be an
"improved" public street for building permit purposes and is publicly maintained by City crews.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
This factor deals with whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the goals, objectives and
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
08/21/2006 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 4
policies of the plan and whether the proposed rezoning would require an amendment to the plan and
whether an amendment could be reasonable justified.
BY:
Dean Andrew
BY:
1. Land Use Map - The Comprehensive Plan shows this site as being appropriate for industrial
use. Rezoning to 1-2 Light Industrial would be consistent with this industrial designation and
would not require an amendment to the future land use plan prior to approval of this change.
2. Land Use Plan - In addition to the land use map, the following Commercial Development
policies should be used to guide land use decisions:
3. Commercial areas should not be allowed to adversely impact adjacent residential areas.
Screening and buffering should be provided, including landscaped setbacks, earth berms and
open space. Commercial operations, including traffic and parking, should not be allowed to
affect neighborhood quality. Noise, safety, and overall maintenance of commercial properties
should also be carefully controlled.
Staff Analysis
This is a unique area in that the zoning is a mix of residential and industrial, yet the Comprehensive
Plan calls for the ultimate future land use in this area to be industrial. The small businesses and light
industrial uses in this area do not appear to be having an adverse effect on the adjacent residential
uses. Staff believes that approval of this request would allow a vacant, unutilized residential lot to be
put into productive use but still provide protection for adjoining homes by implementing screening and
buffering techniques. In addition, the proposed change to a business use is consistent with the trend
in this area. However, even with 1-2 zoning, the business operator is required to provide screening
along lot lines abutting residential uses and to park vehicles on an all weather dust free surface.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this application on August 1, 2006.
Following presentation of the staff report and comments form the applicant, the Planning Commission
voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the applicant's request for 1-2 zoning.
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 14, 2006 and no protest petition was filed. Second reading would be scheduled for August
21, 2006 if this zoning change is approved.
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.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
08/21/2006 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO: 7 AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO. 1 BY: Dean Andrew BY:
Page 5
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Excerpt of PC Minutes 8/01/06
Ordinance No. 06-10346
cc: Mark Frazier
CIlIaf Publication Date July 11, 2006 Application IIz06-9
~ No.
Hearing Date August 1, 2006 Date Filed June 22, 2006
5c1IInc1
Vicinity Map Attached KG Filing Fee
PI.mnlng &'
CommunlhJ Ownership Certificate KG Receipt No.
Develonment
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE DISTRICT ZONING.MAP
1. Applicant'sName Fi6~ Zr:.;::: K. ~OT(-tf=..te.S PJ....LljI1'l(3~jJG q..- Cb"dT
2. Applicant's Address / 'f 08 PR-o S PI=: {.~r
3. Telephone (daytime) "7 Y\'.5. 45;;< - 0'707 E-mail
4. OWner'sAddress I'ID c;r fICOSP~cl - /~O tJt//~K!..H~I.L
5. Legal Description of Property to be rezoned (attach additional sheet if necessary) 5 e: ~ A,.. T A c. H E 1)
6. Approximate Street Address
13.:1.8 PROSPECT
7. Area of Property (sq. ft. and/or acres)
8. Present Zoning
{Z..
'FP-
Use :OWELLlNG
Use f'L JY"l~r:.rJG ;; (J1./j;f'~JLy(..rr srorG4c, t=..
9. Requested Zoning
10. Are there any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development? YES D (attach copy) NO [gJ
11. List reasons for this request (attach additional sheets if necessary): '-rH;:s ~#?cPr-:6V I'l'\{fj;Yl'/S
ffl fj (~LJI:\ rtJ6~S' f1R weer-! THI1T T 5 2./JJV cO :t:-c2.
12. Provide additional information showing the effect the request will have on present and future traffic flow, schools, utilities,
emergency services, surrounding properties, etc. (Attach additional sheets if necessary):-TR..ff F Fu' vJ:;:'LL-
IlJDTJiV cR..tE.//5€. 11l1),] LJ-4-LL CLI'L-t/1"J {/f? HI<-tZ:.A l:;ICcc.J,1/0
~ (C.OI.1;1J 0 ZvJG P(<cP~e.TC-lcg
13. Explain how off-street par1<ing will be provided for this requested use: -ri1ti:;e E t..1JU( /2.. IS. I1.l (.7
PIY!-((L"J~ /))U 77-li:-<:. :?#<'CPiZ-tt!/.(
14. List exhibits or plans submitted: /liOn! f7
Applicant(s) .--/7} I! -d_
Signature -I' ' ( /1.11:.. - C!/~.!~
OWner(s)
Signature
.-/J!d ~ '
, ~
Date: (P - dl,;J.. - 00
Date:
t -s2:J-- (J(,
If the applicant Is to be represented by legal counselor an authorized agent, please complete the following In order that
correspondence and communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized Individual.
Name of representative:
Complete Mailing Address, Including zip code
Telephone (Business):
E-mail address:
PLF - 051, Application Amendment to District Zoning Map, Rev. 10-2005
~
I
!
I
L
R
~ '.
1-2
Re uest Are
1-2
Application #Z06-9
Fi led by Mark Frazier
R
I
u
-3
1 Inch = 200 Feet
~
. .
. .
... ..........
Planning Commission Minutes
August 1, 2006
Page 10
Mr. Andrew stated generally not if you do something like a three-sided pole
bam or something that stores vehicles or trailers in it. They are movable and
removable and generally the requirement would be if you built a true mini-
storage building it would have to be elevated to a certain height. If you built
a building that was essentially a three-sided pole barn to park RV's or trailers
undercover, you do not need to elevate that.
Mrs. Yamevich asked what is planned to go in this area, the little storage
units or the RV parking?
Mr. Augustine stated currently our plan is to do outside storage and covered
RV parking and what Dean just mentioned to you, probably a three-sided
pole bam with the ability for the water to flow through or remove the vehicles
if necessary.
Mr. Simpson asked any other questions? Thank you. Does anyone else
wish to address this application? Seeing none, then we'll bring it back to the
Commission.
MOTION: Mrs. Soderberg stated I move for the approval of 1-2 zoning for Application
#Z06-11 as requested.
SECOND: Mrs. Yamevich
Mr. Simpson stated it's been moved and seconded. Any other questions or
comments? Those in favor say aye. Opposed?
VOTE:
Motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Simpson stated I believe Mr. Frazier is now here so we'll go back to Item
#2.
Item #2.
Application #Z06-9, filed by Mark Frazier, requesting a change in zoning
district classification from R (Single-Family Residential) district to 1-2 (Light
Industrial) district to allow plumbing equipment storage. The subject property
is a tract of land located on the south side of Prospect Avenue 1165 ft. east
of Ohio Street and is addressed as 1328 Prospect Avenue.
Mr. Herrs presented the staff report as contained in the case file.
Mr. Mikesell asked is there anyone living in that little blue house just to the
west of that property?
Mr. Herrs stated actually we have some pictures of the area that I can show
you here and it moves from, this is the current property and the next
properties that we're going to show you will be moving east, and then we'll
show the north side and then come back around from the west. But this is
the subject property as you see here. There once was a structure here that
was torn down. The applicant kept the garage and is proposing to use it as
storage for equipment and".vehlcles that -are needed-and apply to their.
business. Another angle here you can see where there was a demolition
that took place and the fence is still standing as a buffer between the current
residential property, and this over here is a residential property that we'll see
towards the end of our slide show. Here we see trees along with that fence
there that acts as a buffer. This here is the current property that the Frazier
Brothers own that is directly to the east and was the one that in 2001 was
rezoned to 1-2 from residential. As you can see here, this is another picture
of it, it's a wide property so we took two pictures. You can see the storage of
some of their equipment and vehicles. Here is a wider angle that shows a
Planning Commission Minutes
August 1 , 2006
Page 11
shed in addition to the vehicles that are on that property that is directly to the
west. This was their original property that was rezoned from R to 1-2 in 1999
and this here is their office which was a residential unit that was converted to
their office and a storage facility in the back with vehicles and parking here.
This property here is a property that is directly to the east of the original
property which puts it three properties over to the east of the proposed
property. This again as we move a property east, is a residential dwelling.
Another angle of this where they have their garage and the house you can
see that the house in here is well kept and we have some landscaping, a
lawn.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked what's in the back? Back there?
Mr. Herrs stated it's my assumption that is a garage but I can't tell you
exactly.
Mr. Andrew stated it used to be some kind of shop back there, an upholstery
shop or something, but it was pre-existing, grandfathered situation but there
was an upholstery shop in that back building at one time. I can't speak to
whether it's still there but there was something in the back there that was like
that.
Mr. Herrs stated this here moving east some more is another residential unit.
This would be to the northeast across the road from the last picture we just
saw and this would be another industrial area. So here we start moving into
some of the more industrial land uses here. Going west from the property
there is some vacant land or open space with some storage and stuff back
here to the north, another parcel of property that is vacant. Here is directly
north of the proposed zoning change and here we have an industrial use
storage facility that is located across the street. Then directly west of the last
property we just saw is this storage facility that is to the northwest of the
proposed zoning change. This is on the south side of Prospect to the west of
the proposed zoning change. This is two houses to the west so to the west
of the proposed zoning change there are two consecutive residential units
and this is one of them. Here is an angle of the other one. This is the front
angle. This here is the fence that we saw in the trees that exists along the
western edge of the proposed zoning change. Once again we are back to
the front.
Mr. Simpson asked okay any other questions?
Mrs. Yarnevich asked the fence and trees don't come out all the way to the
street, so if you zone it over all the way, won't we need to buffer all the way
back out into the street? Am I mistaken in that?
Mr. Andrew stated no there would be a need for a solid wood screen where 1-
2 abuts any residence.
Mr. Herrs asked are you talking all the way to the street from here?
Mrs. Yarnevich stated right.
Mrs. Soderberg asked and that's present then on the east side?
Mr. Herrs stated this direction would be, we are actually looking south.
Mrs. Sodreberg asked no on the first the original rezoning between that and
the residential is there a complete buffer there? If you move it a few
pictures.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 1 , 2006
Page 12
Mr. Herrs stated right here this is the adjacent property to the east if that's
what you're talking about.
Mrs. Soderberg asked where there are offices right now and then that house
where we thought was an upholstery shop in the back, is there a buffer
there?
Mr. Herrs stated I see what you're saying.
Mrs. Soderberg stated I think we need to move about three slides or
something.
Mr. Herrs stated just try that one and we'll see where we are.
Mrs. Soderberg stated I guess it would be on the other side of that.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked is that fence the one we just saw? No?
Mr.Herrs stated that I believe, go to slide 8 John if you would, okay 7, where
there's trees, I can't tell you for sure.
Mrs. Soderberg asked but there should be?
Mrs. Yarnevich asked that's the house that's directly next to the part they
want to rezone, this one right here?
Mr. Herrs stated no this is the original. Let's go to the map if we could. This
is the proposed zoning change. This was the original, this is where the office
currently resides. So what we were looking at is if there was a buffer
between this residential unit here and the office here, this here has a garage
but is mainly vacant open space but there is a storage shed there and that's
where they store some of their vehicles and equipment.
Mr. Simpson asked okay any other questions? Would the applicant care to
address the Commission?
Mrs. Soderberg stated I have a question for him.
Mr. Simpson said yes if you would please, please give us your name and
address.
Mike Frazier, 140 Overhill Road.
Mrs. Soderberg asked is there a buffer between your office building and the
residence to the east?
Mr. Frazier stated there is a row of elm trees all along there.
Mrs. Soderberg asked to the street then? .
Mr. Frazier stated yes from, well they probably have a picture of it there,
pretty close I would say within 5-10 feet of the street and then on back to the
south there is a row hedge.
Mrs. Sodeberg asked and does that fulfill the requirements Dean for buffer?
Mr. Andrew stated it's supposed to be a solid screen. Generally a treeline
unless it's densely planted end to end would not satisfy that. Although we
Planning Commission Minutes
August 1, 2006
Page 13
have not received any complaints from the owner to the east, they would
probably prefer the tree line to having a fence.
Mr. Frazier stated the neighbor to the west of the property that we're trying to
rezone was pretty happy that we took down the house that was there.
Mrs. Soderberg asked but how do you propose to, what do you propose to
put in there?
Mr. Frazier stated I would propose that if we're required to we'd put that
fence all the way out. But I'm just wondering we're kind of in a unique area
back there. If you go up and down the street there every other property, this
would have to be done too. If you go back to looking at which ones are 1-2
and which ones are residential, I mean if we were required to put up the
fence we would be glad to do that.
Mrs. Soderberg stated I think you're required to put up a fence.
Mr. Ritter asked would we do that all the way down the street then, would
everybody do that?
Mrs. Soderberg stated well they should have.
Mr. Ritter stated but if that neighbor would complain what then?
Mr. Frazier stated oh we'd be glad to, sure.
Mr. Simpson asked okay any other questions for Mr. Frazier? Thank you.
Would anyone else care to address this application? Seeing none then we'll
bring it back to the Commission for discussion and action.
MOTION: Mr. Mikesell stated I make a motion that we approve Application #Z06-9 as
requested.
SECOND: Mrs. Yarnevich
Mr. Simpson stated it's been moved and seconded. Any other questions or
comments? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you.
VOTE:
Motion carried 7-0.
Item #5.
Application #Z06-12, filed by the Foley Equipment Company and H-M
Olathe, LLC, requesting a change in zoning district classification from C-7
(Highway Commercial) district to 1-2 (Light Industrial) district. The subject
property is located at the southwest corner of Ohio Street and 1-70 and
includes Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 in the Replat of the Foley Addition to the City
of Salina, Saline County, Kansas.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file.
Mr. Simpson asked any questions of Dean or members of the staff?
Mrs. Yarnevich asked so we could approve the 1-2 and then put in the North
Ohio Overlay District or we have to do that first?
Mr. Andrew stated well I'm saying that you could approve the 1-2 today with
the assurances of staff that we would come forward with that. We are
discussing that with the City Commission on Monday, but the direction we
got from you is that you were interested in pursuing that and we think that's
Application #Z06-9
Filed by Mark Frazier
R
DAV
Request Are
1-2
R
R
1 Inch = 200 Feet
~
.: .....:~-
\i.I....' :.......
..
..
-WEY:. ..-:.......
-.. ~
.r
.
.