Loading...
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 . .