7.3 Rplt Rezone Highland Meadow CITY OF SALINA
· ~ REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
AGENSA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPAR'~ ~u APPROVED FOR
NO. 7 AGENDA:
iTEM PLANNING & DEVELOPME~
NO. 3 and 3a
BY: Roy Dudark BY
Item
Preliminary-PDD Application #PDD95-2, filed by Frank Norton,
requesting preliminary development plan/plat approval and a change
in zoning district classification from Saline County AG
(Agricultural) to PDD (Planned Development district) for property
located on the south side of Magnolia Road, east of the Smoky Hill
River. The underlying zoning requested by the applicant is R
(Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Multi-Family Residential).
Background
On January 17, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on a request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to
accommodate possible development along the newly constructed East
Dry Creek Sewer Interceptor and Magnolia/Markley Road Water Line.
The issues raised by expanding the city's growth area east of the
current city limits were examined in two staff reports submitted to
the Planning Commission for review and study.
The first report, presented on December 6, 1994, focused on the
current growth strategy, the availability of various public
facilities and services (paved roads, water and sewer lines, police
and fire protection, schools, parks, etc.), and the City's
annexation policy. The second report, presented on January 17,
1995, dealt with the fringe development policies and experiences of
other Kansas cities and the concerns of the Fire Department and
Department of Engineering and Utilities.
At the conclusion of the January 17, 1995, hearing the Planning
Commission recommended approval of two changes to the Comprehensive
Plan that directly relate to this application. First, the Growth
and Development Strategy (p. 170) was amended as follows:
Delete - Secondary service areas may receive urban development
only when the primary service area has been substantially
completed.
Ord. No.: 95-9691, First Reading
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
, CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P.M.
~' 51~!95
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPAR~'~¢- ' APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~
NO.
Roy Dudark
Paqe 2 BY: BY:
Add - Secondary service areas should not ordinarily receive urban
development until primary service areas have been
substantially completed. However, development may be allowed
in the secondary area provided~ 1) adequate public facilities
and services are provided~ 2) the area is annexed into the
city} 3) capital costs for city facilities are recovered on an
equitable basis; 4) appropriate building restrictions are
imposed to protect public health and safety~ and 5) no
~ = financial assistance is provided by the city for completion of
public improvements such as streets or utilities.
;,~'...'~Secondly, the Salina Service Areas Map (Fig. 18, p. 172) was amended
. ' to show an area south of Magnolia west of Markley Road extended
changed from a Rural designation to Secondary Growth Area.
The City Commission concurred with these plan changes and approved
these two comprehensive plan amendments on February 13, 1995.
Nature of Current Request
The applicant has requested rezoning of vacant, AG (Agricultural)
zoned land in the county to PDD with R (Single-Family Residential)
District and R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) District as the
= underlying district for the purpose of developing a subdivision with
mixed residential uses. The zoning request area has 1,250' of
frontage along Magnolia Road with the remainder of the frontage left
~ unplatted and covers the northwest 85 acres of a contiguous 260 acre
tract stretching from the Smoky Hill River channel to Holmes Road
south of Magnolia. The subject site is physically separated from
any existing residential development by agricultural land and rural
home sites. Approximately 43 building lots for single-family
dwellings and 18 duplex/townhome lots are proposed in the first
phase development.
The subject property is located in unincorporated Saline County and
a companion annexation request has also been submitted. The
rezoning request should be considered first.
Of the 85 plus acres, approximately 73 acres comprising 67 lots plus
common area are proposed for R (Single-Family) zoning with a minimum
lot size of 8,500 sq. ft. This single-family housing area is
primarily in the northern and eastern portion of Phase I and also
along the west side where the existing stable road and stable
facility is located. A separate block (Block 5) comprising 12 acres
- CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P,M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 3 BY: BY:
is proposed for R-2 (Multi-family) zoning for townhomes.
Access to Phase I from the north would be from a single private
opening on Magnolia Road. No other access is proposed as part of
Phase I.
Suitability of Site for Development
~*" The' aPPlicant contends that his property is uniquely Suited` fOr
~' residential development, that his planned community will Offer
lifestyle and economic attributes that are currently unavailable and
~*i:~.. that the current zoning serves to inhibit development of the site.
The subject site is a piece of ground with a great deal of slope and
elevation change that rises from west to east. The lowest points
are about 1,230' ft. above sea level in the NW and SW corners of the
tract along the Smoky Hill River. The land rises to 1,290' ft. in
the eastern portion of Phase I which means that the natural surface
water drainage pattern is east to west toward the river channel.
The substantial change in elevation creates positive drainage but
the slope will also create some fairly high runoff velocities if
surface runoff is concentrated in ditches. The elevation change
also means that the area can readily be served by gravity sewer
lines ~as long as a collection point or pump station is located in
the NW corner.
The slopes on this property are not so severe as to make any portion
unbuildable. Some of the more wooded slopes have been designated as
Common Area and will be left as open space. It appears that the
applicant has designed a street system and lot layout that conforms
with and utilizes the existing topography, meaning that no massive
grading or regrading is proposed.
Unlike the proposed Valley View Estates Addition which was
contiguous to the city limits and existing residential development
but not to City utility systems (sanitary sewer), this proposed
subdivision is adjacent to City utilities (sewer & water) but not to
existing urban development. This site is approximately 3/4 of a
mile from the existing city limits and is located within the city's
Secondary Growth Area. Based on its desirable physical
characteristics (the sloping terrain and view of the valley to the
west), its proximity to Magnolia Road (a paved arterial street) and
its proximity to the City's new sewer interceptor and Markley Tower
- CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
5/22/95 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: DRIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 4 BY: BY:
water line, this site is suitable for residential zoning and
development. However, its distance from existing public facilities
such as fire stations and elementary schools and its distance from
the existing city limits and urban service area may make urban scale
development of this site premature. Staff would agree that the
subject property is suitable for some form of residential
development, the issue is largely one of timing.
CharaCter of the Neighborhood
T.he~ proposed residential community does not abut any existing
residential subdivision. The surrounding property is located in
unincorporated Saline County, is zoned Agricultural and is largely
undeveloped except for some scattered rural home-sites. ~Therefore,
it is difficult for staff to say that urban density construction of
single-family homes and townhomes would be compatible with the
zoning and uses of nearby property. While this may not be true
"spot zoning", this rezoning request would create an isolated zoning
district unrelated to adjacent AG districts.
On the other hand, it is not clear that the proposed rezoning would
adversely affect neighboring property or be detrimental to the
living conditions, value or potential development of adjacent
properties. The. relatively large lot sizes and substantial amounts
of open space make the overall development density fairly low (1.2
units/acre) with the townhome units included.
The proposed townhome area (Block 5) is internal to the subdivision
and not on the periphery adjacent to Magnolia. The location and
layout of the townhome area is a Judgement and market decision for
the developer to make since lot buyers will know ahead of time which
area has been set aside for townhome development. Since this is a
PDD request, the City does have the discretion to establish
development restrictions as to the size, design and architectural
appearance of any two-family dwellings constructed in this area if
that is a concern of the City Commission.
Street Access and Design
The only access to this property in Phase I of development would be
a private street (St. Andrews) that would serve as a collector and
connect with Magnolia about halfway between the river channel and
Markley. There will be a divided entryway at the intersection and
this ~ection of St. Andrews will be wider than a standard
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P,M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPMEWE
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 5 BY: BY:
residential street. Internal residential streets would also be
private with 24' asphalt paving and 2' shoulders leaving 16' on
either side of the roadway for proposed sidebar ditches. All
internal streets would be owned and maintained by a Homeowner's
Association.
St. Andrews would serve as a collector and two residential streets
('An~US~i;and Dundee) would provide access into the initial single-''
famil¥~and townhome neighborhoods. A series of cul-de-saCS: would
provide access to individual building lots. The proposed right-of-
way width for St. Andrews is 100 ft. with two (2) 20 ft. paved
travel ways separated by a median. The proposed right-of-way for
local residential streets is 60 ft. with 24 ft. of paving and the
proposed cul-de-sacs would have 50 ft. of right-of-way with 120 ft.
of rl.ghtrof-way for the cul-de-sac turnaround. Because all;proposed
streets are private the "right-of-way" would actually be common area
owned by the Homeowner's Association.
The proposed right-of-way widths meet City street standards but the
proposed street surfacing and roadside ditch design would not meet
i City standards. Because this is a "private" development, the
developer has broad discretion in his street design so long as
streets are paved and are at least 20 ft. in width.
There will be no direct access to the proposed recreation facilities
along the river from Magnolia. Access will be from internal
subdivision streets and a series of 40' wide pedestrian pathways or
corridors located in the rear of lots along the eastern and southern
edge of the platted area. These pathways are designated as common
area. Because of the proposed pathways the developer is apparently
Seeking a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for new subdivisions.
The street cross-sections provided by the applicant do not show
sufficient space for sidewalks within the proposed street right-of-
way.
Staff would like to see restricted access markings along Magnolia
Rd. except for the St. Andrews opening. The applicant's plan for
providing access to the unplatted tract east of St. Andrews is not
clear.at this time.
Lot Design
All lots and blocks have been numbered on the drawing. All blocks
are separated from each other by streets.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P.M.
5133/95
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMenT: APPROVED FOR
NO, AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~
NO. Roy Dudark
Paoe 6 BY: BY:
Ail lots shown would have adequate frontage on and access to a
private street. It appears that the width, depth and area
dimensions of all lots shown on the plat would far exceed the
minimum standards of the R and R-2 districts. It does not appear
that there would be any foreseeable difficulties, for reasons of
topography or other conditions, in obtaining building permits to
build on any of the proposed lots.
The~aPPlicant has left 900 ft. of frontage along Magnolia from St,
Andrews to Markley unplatted. It is not clear from the plat 0r his
master.plan what his future plans are for this tractl. It is
currently zoned and would remain zoned Saline County AG.
Public Utilities and Services
1. Water and Fire Protection -.The new Markley Tower supply line
runs along the south side of Magnolia adjacent to this tract.
Given the size of this line (16") and the elevation of the
Markley Tower (1467') there is adequate water volume and
pressure to meet the domestic and fire flow needs of
residential development adjacent to Magnolia. However,
according to the Department of Engineering and Utilities'
calculations, due to the length of line (3/8 to 1/2 mile from
Magnolia) and the fact that there is only a single source of
flow, the southern portion of the proposed 85 acre development
area may not have the required 1,000 gpm for fire protection.
This reduction in pressure is a result of friction loss based
on line size (6" standard), length of run (1/2 mile) and the
lack of a second source of flow (no looping).
This problem can possibly be addressed by looping (installing
a second feed into the development) or adjusting line sizes
(6" to 8") or a combination of the two, but any proposed
solution must be one the City's water utility is willing to
accept maintenance of and responsibility for and must fit in
with the master utility plan for the entire 260 acre tract.
The applicant and his design engineer have met with the
Department of Engineering and Utilities and are in the process
of running computer simulations of water line flows throughout
the proposed subdivision. Based on their review of these
simulated runs, the Engineering Department has recommended
that development be allowed to occur up to the applicant's
proposed Phase I boundary.
' CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P.M.
~/~?/q~
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPME~
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 7 BY: BY:
2. Sanitary Sewer - The City's new sewer interceptor runs along
the north side of Magnolia opposite this tract. The
Engineering Department believes it is feasible for this
development to tie into the interceptor line through a pump
station and force main. If a pump station is constructed in
the NW corner of the subdivision near Magnolia then~ the
individual lateral lines could gravity flow from east to west
'~ .into the pump station. The effluent would then be ~pumped
under pressure into the 24" interceptor which is a if°rce main
in that location. Ail sewer laterals would be public lines.
The Engineering Department would like to see the pump station
, located and designed to accommodate future development north
of Magnolia both east and west of Markley. The City's
Wastewater Utility would participate in financing any
oversizing of the pump station and recover the costs as other
areas develop and tie into the pump station.
3. Storm Drainage - The City's stormwater management regulations
require the developers to design a stormwater drainage system
to either accommodate or detain the additional runoff caused
by development of the site (the difference between existing
and developed conditions).
Details of the applicant's stormwater drainage system will be
addressed in the plat review process. A stormwater drainage
plan and construction plans for any proposed surface ditches,
storm sewers or detention ponds must be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. Fire Protection - Fire response from Station #4, located at
Marymount and Crawford and Station #3, located on Belmont
Blvd., is about 5 minutes to the entrance of the subdivision.
Although the Fire Chief is somewhat concerned about having
only one way in and out and that this area is on the outside
fringes of their desired response time of § minutes, he does
not feel that providing emergency response to the building
lots in Phase I will be a serious problem.
5. Police Protection - Provided by the Salina Police Department
once the property is annexed.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P,M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTME~T~- APPROVED FOR
NO, AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPME~'
NO.
Roy Dudark
Paae ~ BY: BY:
5. Police Protection - Provided by the Salina Police Department
once the property is annexed.
6. Traffic - Based on a trip generation rate of 8 vehicle trips
per day per household, staff estimates that a total of 824
vehicle trips per day would be generated if the entire
preliminary plat area were fully developed and 632 vehicle
~.rips per day if the area within the proposed Phase I boundary
were fully developed, all entering or leaving the area throUgh
one access point, the St. Andrews - Magnolia intersection.
.~Staff believes the 61 building lots proposed in Phase I
reaches or even exceeds the maximum threshold of building
sites that can safely and efficiently be serve by one access
point. Phase I of this proposed development is essentially
one long cul-de-sac and any development beyond Phase I should
require a second connection to Magnolia Rd.
7. Schools - Students in this proposed development would attend
the following schools: Coronado School - Grades K-6; South
Middle School - Grade 7-8; Salina South High School - Grades
9-12. U.S.D. #305 has not indicated to city staff that this
development will create any crowding problems at the above
mentioned schools. *Staff would note that this is an outlying
area where USD #305 is required to provide bus service if
requested. If bus pickup is requested or required then
students will be bussed to Hawthorne-Grades K-6; Roosevelt-
Lincoln - Grades 7-8 and Salina Central - Grades 9-12.
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
1. Land Use Map - The City's Land Use Plan shows this area as
being appropriate for low-density residential development.
Theco~bined residential density of the development (103 units
on 85.3 acres) computes to 1.2 units per acre which is
substantially less than the low density residential
classification of 4.0 units per acre.
2. Land Use Plan - The following development policies in the plan
document should be used to guide development within
residential areas:
R4 Future residential growth should embrace the traditional
"neighborhood unit" concept, updated to reflect current needs
and desires. Neighborhoods should be self-contained areas
' CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P,M.
~/22/q~
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO, AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENE
ITEM
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 9
BY: BY:
designed primarily for residential use. Through-traffic
should be rerouted around the neighborhood, with a limited
number of collector streets penetrating it. Neighborhoods
should have access to a small convenience shopping area,
accessible by foot or bicycle. Each neighborhood should be
adequately served by an elementary school. Safe pedestrian
walkway systems should connect homes with schools and Other
neighborhood facilities. Where possible, multi-family housing
Ishould be located on the edge of residential neighborhoods and
near other major traffic generators.
R5 New housing areas should be serve by a safe and convenient
circUlation system with streets and roadways relating to and
connecting with existing streets in adjacent areas.~ However,
residential traffic should be separated from non-residential
.traffic wherever possible. New residential streets should
generally follow the contour of the land and seek to highlight
the natural features of the area. Access to residential
properties should be limited to local streets wherever
possible.
R7 Any significant new residential development should include a
small new park site to serve new residents.
R8 Major new residential developments should be developed as
planned unit developments (PUD) or as planned development
districts (PDD). PUDs or PDDs give the City maximum control
over residential area design and development, and also gives
the potential developers flexibility and incentives for
creative and high-quality projects.
R10 New medium and high-density areas should be developed as
overall, planned residential environments. Within larger
development areas, a range of housing types should be
encouraged, with each area sharing a common character and
unified environment.
R12 Landscaping or other buffering techniques should be used to
screen residential areas from adjacent non-residential uses.
R14 . No new residential development should be permitted until
adequate water and sanitary sewer service are provided. Every
effort should be made to discourage growth in locations where
provision of these services are not available or planned as
part of the City's future urban service growth areas.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 10 BY: BY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
The City Planning Commission Conducted a public hearing on this
application on April 18, 1995. Following presentation of the s~taff
report, comments from the applicant and questions by the CommissiOn,
t,he~.Cemmission voted 7-0 to table the application for 2 weeks ~to
~[ibwi~Uestions about water volUmes and fire flows to be resolved.
The, public hearing was reconvened on May 2, 1995, and at the
. conClUsion of that hearing the Planning Commission first voted 5-0
to recommend approval of an amendment to the Salina Services Area
Map to expand the city's Secondary Service Area to the southern
boundary of the applicant's proposed Phase I (an 1/8 of a mile
extensiOn from the current service area boundary). The Commission
then voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the applicant's rezoning
request and the preliminary development plan/plat for this proposed
development subject to the following conditions and corrections=
Development of the Highland Meadows Hamlet PDD shall be subject to
the following conditions and limitations=
1.~ Development limitations shall be as follows=
a) Lots 1-18, Block 5, shall be limited to the uses
permitted and the lot size and bulk regulations specified
in the R-2 Multi-Family Residential District.
Development shall be limited to 18 single-family attached
dwellings containing not more than 2 units per building.
b) Ail other lots shall be subject to the permitted uses,
lot size and bulk regulations specified in the R Single-
Family Residential District.
2. A final plat shall be submitted and approved prior to final
approval of the preliminary planned development district.
3. The City Engineer shall approve plans and specifications for
storm water collection, water and sanitarysewer systems prior
to consideration of a final plat for the development.
4. The developer shall install or sufficient financial guarantees
shall be in place to provide for the installation of all of
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
~ 4:00 P.M.
512~/q5
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTmenT: APPROVED FOR
ii NO. AGENDA:
i~iTEM ~LANNING & DEVELOPMENT
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 11 BY: BY:
~ the following facilities and improvements: streets, ditches,
water systems, sanitary sewer facilities and pedestrian-ways
prior to consideration of a final plat for the development.
5. The City Engineer shall certify that adequate water supply
exists to meet minimum fire-flow requirements for all proposed
building lots or the owner shall comply with applicable
exemption criteria prior to issuance of any building permit.
6. No development shall occur in Phase II of the ~ubdivision
until a second entrance on Magnolia Road is opened and a
second connection to the Magnolia/Markley Road water line is
' installed.
7. The applicant shall submit legal assurances to! ~the City
consenting to the establishment of a special assessment
district and obligating the abutting land within the proposed
development for one-half of the total cost to reconstruct two
lanes on Magnolia Road to city residential street standards.
Said assurance shall be valid for a 10 year period and legally
binding on existing and future owners of land within the
development. This covenant shall be recorded with the final
plat.
8. A note shall be added to the preliminary development plan as
follows: "Maintenance of streets, the common area and other
open space areas delineated on the development plan will be
the responsibility of the Highland Meadows Hamlet Homeowner's
Association.
9. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary development
plan containing all corrections noted by staff prior to
consideration by the City Commission.
Conditions #8 and #9 have been met by the applicant and the
remainder will be addressed at the final plat stage.
The Planning Commission offered the following reasons in support of
their recommendation:
1) The proposed rezoning and preliminary plat are consistent with
the character of the neighborhood, 2) the site is suitable for
development of the area proposed, 3) the city had adequate public
facilities and services to support the proposed zoning and
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
4:00 P,M.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
ITEM PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN~
NO. Roy Dudark
Page 12 BY: BY:
development and 4) the conformance of the proposed rezoning with our
Comprehensive Plan with the extension of the Secondary Service
boundary that we have already approved.
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the
~. .Plan~i~g Commission, the attached ordinance should be approved~on
f~ti~eading. The protest deadline expired on May 16,11:995, and
nothing was filed. Second reading would be held :in abeyancelUntil
a final plat of the subject property is approved.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation, it may: 1)
overturn the Planning Commission and deny the request provided four
.(4), votes are in support of such action; or 2) return the
application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration citing
the basis for disapproval.
Encl: Application
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Development Plan
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of 4/18/95, 5/2/95
Ordinance #95 -
cc: Frank Norton
He~aring Date ~,~_i~L__~, _19_9_5 ............................. Date Filed Febtuar7 24, 1995
Development Plans Attached ........ ~ ...................... Filing Fee ~;375 o00
Ownership Certificate Received .... '~,,.~ ............... ReceiotNo. H -'~qO,~.g pJ~ .'~')- L¢-qc~
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P.D.D.)
1 Applicant's Name 'F.~.a.I~_ C-~rles Norton, St'__
2. Applicant's Address 2524 E. Haqnolia Road, Salina, KS 67401
3. Telephone (Business)___(__91__3_)___8_~7-36aR (Home) ((::)1 ~) R~-~)]65
4. Project Name Highland Meadows Hamlet
5. Owner's Name Frank Charles Norton, Sr.
6. Owner'S Address 2524 E~. Magnolia Rd Salina, KS 67401
7. Legal Description of Property to be rezoned (attach additional sheets if necessary)
~u~X_..N_W~4 lying East of .the River and ~4~,o~0&. Channel of the River in
~_ Section 32, Township 14 Range 2 West of the 6th PM, Saline Subdivision
County, Kansas
8. Approximate Street Address
9. Area of Property (sq'. ft. and/oracres) ~ ~;I,~ /0/'~, 2.,~ ,~C~_ f"~'~ ~q
10. Present Zoning_ Saline 'County "AG Use Agricultural
11. Proposed Zoning_POD ( R and R-2) use Sinqle-Family homes and townhomes
12. Is the P.D.D. to be utilized in conjunction with another zone or independently?
.......... I/l._~_QQ3un_c_~ion~_with R and R-2
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 [).rov'i~ d~vglopable land with life
style and economic.attributes which are not currently available.
15. Anticipated time Per!od for substadtial completion 5 yea r $
16. Total ground area occupied by buildings (sq. fL:) 0
17. Describe any non-residential bses proposed Some future local business use.
18. Number of housing units proposed: Single family. 8 3 Multi-family 1 8
19. Relationship between this application and the Land Use Plan Secondary Service Area
Frank Charles Norton, Sr. Frank Charles Norton, Sr.
,If the applicant is to be represented by tegal counsel or an authorized agent, please complete the following in order that correspondence and communi-
cations pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
Name of Representative .....................................
Address ................................................... Zip Code
Telephone (Business) ..................... Area Code
White - Planning Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant
APPLICATION ~PDD95-2 &'!:~A95-1
FRANK NORTON
HIGHL~lqD 14EADOWS ~i4LET
"~ 2 3
8
PHASE I BOITIqDARY
\
//
I
!
o!
;' ' ~ .~/~s~, ...~'~ I,~ ~-'''"""', ""~ ; : .if'.' ~ ! I '\ ~ -\
i ! %,, -'-'"'" '""" :' ..... . "'"- . %;'; ~'" I ' ':
,.., ,,~ ,.,.--,., . ~./, '"""'.!j2:~\ ... \
/ -~ ' l, / i ';' - ..... ~ "-'",I'~' "~ '-
'" ' ,' !":.... i i ; --..
/' , ,'
/' ,' ' ," /I I" i ..... ~-' _. :
, ... /'.%' .~ I~->,H: i/,' \ .
· " ,' , ":: ~..'d,-:?~ J! I ,
Meadows Hamlet ~.~.,~,~=
.: Salins Planning Commission
'~'~. April ~8, 1995
.-' Page 2
· .t' none we will hear from the applicant if they
.":- to comment at this tame.
. Dennis 2035 E. Xron, X believe the star is'
clear are no problems with the
,.T the that they a~e requesting,
· ~-. Hazd~an are there questions of the
::~ applicant? would m~m_hers of the public
,.:., care to comment on Nothing heaz~iwe will
~ bring It back to salon for discussion and
..' possible action.
· MCY~XON: Hr. McCoach moved approve plat application IP95-
- ?'~: 3/3A sub~ect ce=rain corrections as
?. recommended .
~"~: SECOND: 14=s. seconded the motion.
VO~E: carried 7-0.
.~. #3. PrelimLnaz~/-PDD, Application #PDDg5-2, filed b~ Frank
:.. Norton, requesting prelJJainaz~ develolxnent plan/plat
· approval and a change in zoning district classification
from Saline County AG (Agricultu~al) to PDD (Planned
Development District) for propez~cy located on the south
side of Xagnolia Road, east of the Smok~H/ll River. ?he
:'" underlying zoning requested by the applicant is R (Single-
Family Residential) and R-2 (multi-Family Residential).
· Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated this vicinity
map that we have up now will give you orientation as to
--? the location of this property. Basically it is at the
southwest quadrant of the Markley-Magnolia intersection,
· about 3/4 of a m~le from the existing city limits. In our
-- repor~ we did a little background for you on some previous
sessions we had with you on looking at our Comprehensive
Plan as it relates to the Markley Tower~Magnolia Road
· ' water line and also how it relates to the City's. new
southeast sewer interceptor. We had discussion sessions
with you on December 6th, 1994. and then again more
specifically on January 17, 1995, and at that tame you
recommended approval of a Plan A~endmant which basically
would allow development in the SecOndary Service Area.
However, development would be allowed only if adequate
public facilities and services are provided, if the area
is annexed into the city, if the capital cost of City
facilities are recovered on an equitable basis, if
appropriate building restrictions are imposed to protect
public health and safety and if no financial assistance is
provided by the City for completion of public
improvements. Secondly, you recommended a change to the
plan to designate this area as a Secondary Service Area as
opposed to a Rural Area which it was on the original plan.
:' The City Commission concurred with both these plan changes
~ and they went into effect in February of this year. So
.'.' now this application has been filed An response to those
changes. We have a zoning application essentially for R
(Single-Family} and R-2 (Multi-Family) zoning for
-~ townhomes. It came in the form of · planned development
district because the applicant ks proposing private
-' streets. South is at the top of the transparency before
" you and what we have here is the entire parcel that Hr.
Norton owns. The river is on the west or right and
Magnolia and Markley Road are at the bottom. This is the
.0 concept plan for that entire tract and then what we are
dealing with today as part of this application is Phase I
and essentially what he has applied for is annexation,
rezoning and preliminary development plan approval for the
" area that is inside the purple line.
-. Hr. Hardman asked Dean could you please point out Magnolia
.' Road?
~ .... Saline Planning Comtssion
~-?:: April 18, 1995
· .- Page 3
.? Mr. Andrew stated what the problem ia that if we didn"t
.. · have that on there it would be less confusing. This is
:~ Magnolia on the botto~ so we ara actually looking south
: toward the top. The river is to the right and the bridge
... at Magnolia here, this is Markley Road coming Into the
., north so we are looking.to the south this is the entrance
-.. into this Phase ! portion of the develop~ento Holmes Road
. would be over here and Magnolia would continue on up the
:!; hill. So today we are looking at the very west pOrtion of
· ....~ the entire tract.
::~ Mr. Dudark stated this would be the master plan for the
entire 300 acre plat.
Mr. ~dldrew stated we re~dested that they present this to
us both for your information and also for ours in terms of
planning future street and utility extensions and
connections to see how the whole project might fit
to,ether which aright help us in our review of the street
phasing and utility phasing for this first portion.
~; Mr. ~dark stated, there are also two other access points
:.. that ultimtely would come out of this area.
Mr. Andrew stated what is not included in Phase I is a
· . second access out to Magnolia Road and that is some
distance east of Markley and then a third entry way which
-- would be off of Hol~es Road to the east and certainly this
would probably be near the very last, long-term future
phase of development. The actual application that you
have before you is and application for R and R-2, for this
area and the area outlined in purple has 1,250 ft. of
frontage along Magnolia Road and covers 85 acres. This
total tract ts in the neighborhood of 260 acres. The next
drawing will magnify this area.
Mr. Dudark stated again Magnolia is at the bottom and the
river would be to the right. You are looking south and
the river is to the right.
-': Mr. Andrew stated what we have superimposed on hera is a
· , quarter mile line and when you amended the Comprehensive
Plan in January and it was approved by the City
· . Com~ission, that was to move the secondary service or
· growth area to this point. And the map reflected that.
The applicant in our conversation since this was
originally filed has proposed that he would like to
develop this area inside the orange as his Phase I, where
he would final plat and pet In improvements that would
allow him to complete tho townhome area and also allow him
to create a circulation system. In other words, not have
a series of deadend streets., but have a street system that
' would loop back on itself. And then tho 85 acres is the
full extent of what is sh~en~ on the ctrawing. So when we
:' analyzed this, we analyzed it in te~ms of the full 85
-.~ acres which contains 67 slngle-faadly lots plus the 18
.v two-family lots. If you look Just at the Phase I area
inside the orange boundaz~ then you are looking at 43
single-family lots but all 18 two-f~ally lots are still
-~ included in that area. As we noted, the access for Phase
I would be from the single private street opening there at
" the bottom of the drawing. The applicant is not
requesting any deviations from our standard R or R-2
zoning requirements so the underlying zoning would be
straight R and R-2 with no specially tailored development
· . requlations. As far as the suitability of the site for
development, wa Just pointed out that there is a great
deal of slope on this property that you are probably aware
of. The low points are. near the river and along the
..' western boundary which Is about 1,230 ft. above sea level.
· As you get to the very eastern portion of Phase I that
rises to 1,290 ft. above sea level so that ia quite e bit
.. of slope and relief as far as the Salins area compared to
: other areas. We point out that this is good for drainage
!
Salins Planning Commission
· .]i.~ Page 4
?' because there is no detention required, water can get to
the river channel without any special need for detention.
~'~ At the same time it is also not so good for drainage
' because of the severe slopes involved. You can get so~e
... pretty high runoff velocity ~f using surface dit=hes with
that kind of slope. We. do note that the slope is not so
-:'~ severe as to make any portions unbuildable although they
· have been very generous with designated common area and
:~:. open space so there will be quite a bit of open space and
timber area left undisturbed. This is a little bit
"';~-- different from the development you saw two weeks ago,
~.,_ the Valley View Estates Addition, where they were
;'~]~. contiguous to the city limits and the existing development
..~. but they were not so well situated to existing utility
-,..' systems. In this case this is a piece of property that is
well situated as far as utility systems but it is not
.7. adjacent to any existing residential development or to the
~.'f' city's urban services area. We point out that the
.~ desirable characteristics are the sloping terrain, the
? vieWs to the west and the proximity to the sewer and water
.~ lines. The drawbacks from our standpoint are the distance
;:. to public facilities such as the two fire stations that
· (.f are closest and also public schools. It is in an area
· -?'· .. that would require busing if the students so desire. As
' - far as the character of the neighborhood the surrounding
.~. neighborhood, is primarily either agricultural or
~ scattered rural home sites. We noted that as far as his
.- plan for townhomes It is going to be internal to the
subdivision anybody that purchases lots in this area will
: know that there ts going to be townhome development
proposed so that the only affected property owners will be
those that purchase property inside the subdivision. We
did not highlight this in a different color but the island
of 18 lots in Block 5 is the area that is proposed for
townhomes. Under his Phase ! plan this would all be
developed tn Phase I. He is proposing basically two (2)
units per lot and they would be orientated facing the
street with individual driveways. As far as public
~' utilities, the sanitary sewer, discussions with their
· engineer and our City Engineering Department indicate that
· ~ because of the slopes it will all blend quite nicely with
,. the gravity system that ends up probably down in this
location and because that interceptor line is a force
· .. main, they can't Just empty the affluent into the line,
.. they are going to have to have a pump station and inject
· it into that force main and in our discussions with the
Engineering Department, there was some discussion about
oversizing this pump station so that we would Just have a
..' large single pum~ station to serve this entire area and
should the area to the north or the northeast on the other
side of Markley Road develop they could also be served by
· this pump station and the City's wastewater utility might
... participate in the initial cost and then recapture that
money as other areas develop. Water, there is a 16" line
:- that runs along the south side of Magnolia, it runs right
...= along the edge of this property. That water is pumped
.'.- both up to the Markle~ Tower and also has the capability
of flowing b~ gravity back down to Ohio and Magnolia to
the Key Acres Tower. But we pointed out in our report
-~ that due to the length of line, it has to extend anywhere
from 3/8 to 1/2 mile of pipeline south of Magnolia, the
-' fact that there is only a single source of flow and the
fact that there is a certain amount of friction loss due
to the length and the change in elevation, that at this
point, our Engineering Department has not been able to
· . determine at what point, as we move south from Magnolia,
that we will be able to get 1,000 gallons a minute, which
" ~s what our Uniform Fire Code requires for single-family
residential and two-family residential, so that ts the
.' main issue for us and the reason that when we were looking
... at the plat portion along with the land use that we
recommended that this application be tabled to allow for
.. additional study and to allow some simulations of fire
: flows to be run so that we can determine at what point
:' Sallna Planning Commission
'-'~ April 18, 1995
-'.. . Page 5
/ development could proceed south and still comply with that
1,000 gallon a minute requirement. So that is the reason
we did not formulate a recommendation because we had no
educated basis on which to form a reco~aendation as to how
· . far south develo~ent could go and still meet that Uniform
. Fire Code standard. That is our recommendation today,
there are other issues relating to this as far as fire
protection obviously the fmrther south you go the farther
· ~. away you get fro~ the five minute response time. The fire
department did not feel that there was any problem with
'%t emergenc-~ response to the applicant's proposed Phase I
.~.. area and then there is not a school district boundary
? issue but the school district pointed out to us that
~.:: should students find their own way to school or have their
-~'-.. parents take them this property would be ~n the Coronado
and Salins South school districts, however, if there was
~"' bus service provided by the district then students would
~..- be bussed to Hawthorne, Roosevelt Lincoln or Salins
~' Central and that is simply because this is far enough from
:-. existing schools that if students request it, the district
· must provide bus service. We talked about the access and
;i~ in the plat report we also disCussed one of the
-:;! Engineering staff's concerns, the top elevation or cross-
:. section here is what their proposal is for the entrance
drive to Magnolia. They are proposing an island entrance
:. with 20' ft. of hard surface paving on either side with a
decorative island in the middle, kind of a boulevard
approach for that particular entryway. As far as the
internal streets, they are proposing 60 ft. of right-of-
way which would be common area owned by the homeowner's
association, a hardsurfaced private drive that would have
12' ft. paved travel lanes and then essentially V-bottom
ditches on either side of those private drives. As we
noted in the plat report which is on the yellow insert of
your packet, that was another source of concern for the
-: Engineering Department. These are private streets, they
would be built and maintained by the developer and by
future property owners. However, the Engineering
'~ Department expressed some concern because of the type of
.- slopes involved and the runoff velocities, having earth
· '. bottom ditches that are V-shaped will increase the
.., velocities and the risk of erosion and therefore create
maintenance difficulties both for the ditches and the
'.. adjoining roadways. So after we analyzed the land use
· portion of this and were working on the plat those were
the two primary concerns that the Engineering Department
had was the V-bottom ditches and the concern about
calculating where develolx~ent could occur and still
achieve 1,000 gallons per minute of fire flow, so their
recommendation to us at that time was that they would like
to have some additional time to work with the applicant
and the applicant's engineer to address those two issues.
But if there are other issues in this report that you
would like to ask Roy or ! about first, please do so or if
: you want to address the water issue we have both Don Hoff
-= and Shawn O~Leary present for those questions.
Mr. Hardman asked on the water supply, when they develop
the area to the east is that the time that we would use as
· .~ the opportunity for a looped flow?
-.' Mr. Andrew stated yes essentially you have a single source
'- which runs by the front of the property and the only way
to get two routes into that area is if at some point at
the Markley/Magnolia intersection you were to run a line
back to the east and then loop it back into the eastern
portion of the subdivision, but I think ! might direct
that to Mr. Hoff as to what the most desirable route would
be.
Mr. Hoff stated with the layout proposed of course you
would have single source coming in here, any break in this
particular line here and you would have no water in the
whole area. It could be a simple solution of having
Salins Planning Commission
:.. April 18, 1995
.. Page 6
?' another line temporarily brought into here. Proper
" valving would feed from the Key Acres TOWer or we could .
/ feed from the Markley Tower. So if we would have a break
in this line or this line and you will still get water
.. Into the area. Our concern is how you develop this whole
area, how you would size pipeline without knowing the
- .' development plan, what they intend to do for the entire
area, especially when you lay large enough lines back here
to pump 1,000 gallons per minute, that ia no problem. But
In the initial stages of development, it might take a
~:~ number of years to develop this, what is t~e quality of
water at the end of that line? We can't guarantee that
~:. quality. We would be looking at so~e other looping at
'" some later date. It would be awhile before we could lay
.71 this line and the one on down the rOad.
Mr. Dudark asked isn't there some concern1 about going up
the slope and the pressure diminishing?
/' Mr. Hoff stated yes, I think the critical area is
.; obviously the further away we get from this line and going
~;. up the hill. Down in this area we will have enormous
.~.! pressure from Markley Tower as, you try to get 1,000
~... gallons per minute at the south end of this development
and 1/2 mile away from the source, pressure is going to
... drop considerably. We can't Just run it through here with
an 8" and get the fire flow pressure. That is why we need
~" to work with Pete Earles who had developed a computerized
" program analysts of this entire area and say what can we
put in there now so that we are not oversized as this
other line comes Into play. Right now there might be some
other options. Maybe we don't need 1,000 gallons out here
. at the initial stage as long as we have some separation
between the houses, 1,000 gallons would be assuming we
have a house on each one of these lots.
Mr. Dudark stated with a 100' ft. separation if you drop
below 1,000 gallons for fire protection that puts kind of
'~' a burden on that lot that is skipped over, You know you
". have a street in front of It and you have a sewer line and
." you can't build on it.
Mr. Hoff stated once we have looked at the overall plan
and the overall line sizing we can make a better
recommendation.
Mr. Dudark asked Don don't you think between Magnolia and
the blue line there would be the possibility of having
1,000 gallons a minute with 8" lines.
Mr. Hoff stated yes. But we would still of course want
the additional source down here.
Mr. Hardman asked if the applicant were willing to Install
a looped line Initially rather than wait for the next
phase to be developed would that solve the problem?
Mr. Hoff stated ! think we want to get with the developer,
if there is a large line, maybe it ought to he on one of
..~ these other streets I am not sure where that connection
ought to be. But we haven't seen an analysis to show us
-- where we want to go with that.
Mr. Haworth stated I guess like you said you have got to
work with the applicant's engineer. ~u could even do a
tempora~f down here then once the development goes so far
that direction you could work out some plan on the
possibility of having that loop coming in at that
particular point of the second or third phase when ever
that may be.
Mr. Hoff stated a big line is great when you are looking
for fire flow but if you are looking for quality of the
water into the house, that isn't good news to have a big
Sallna Planning Commission
~;-i:. April 18, 1995
' . Page 7
~' line going Into a house. The water way has to be cleaned
-. out and even with the cleaning out of hydrants it
"~ difficult to get those done. We are not interested in
having the developers put In large lines that would cause
.. the need for that.
:" Mr. Haworth stated the other comment since you are up here
Don, was the open ditches ts that still a question?
.., Mr. Hoff stated with the open ditches I think the concern
~i~ would be with the V-botto~ ditches and the flat bottom
:.-' ditch would be the scouring and the erosion. These are
eno~oua slopes and with two foot intervals Roy is that
-'. correct?
... Mr. Dudark stated yes for those contours I think that Is
... right.
~:? Mr. Hoff stated that Is a pretty good slope for V-bottom
ditches they have a pretty high runoff and higher velocity
: in the channel and there might have to be some erosion
.~; protection or ditch lining. I would like to talk to the
:.: developer, he obviously likes this particular plan and
~.. that is alright I think, but I think that you are going to
.~.. find out that curb and gutter is going to be cheaper than
-... any ditches, there is no doubt there. You cannot bulld
~.. ditches and use slope protection as cheaply as curb and
.:i gutter. Curb and gutter is normally $8.00 a linear and
· you Just can't dig a ditch for $8.00 a foot you would have
. sod it and put In wash checks and of course then the
property owner Is going to be responsible for maintaining
it. How do we maintain the shoulder area? There will be
· wheel tracks out to the water hole and the erosion ts
another thing. It will have to be maintained all the way
up to the pavement, there is no defined ditch.
Mr. Hardman asked for other questions of staff?
Mr. Umphrey asked Don how does this 24' ft. paved width
compare with standard city residential street width?
Mr. Hoff stated our residential standard would be 33' ft.
'f' back to back, 28' Inside and we would allow parking on
",' that particular area.
Mr. Dudark stated parking wouldn't be possible here but
now what people typically do ts pull off of the edge and '
maybe put one wheel on the pavement and maybe the rest of
.' it in the grass. It is not an ideal situation for on-
street parking. These are fairly big lots, we think that
~ost of the parking is going to be in driveways of course
% but maybe they do have guests and parties and things like
..- that and you are going to have social events and then you
w111 have parking in the streets and that is what he is
-:' talking about, people are going to pull off that edge and
-:.= over time that is going to make a fault llne, and UPS and
· ~. postal trucks, you know those kinds of things, through,
time Just kind of put wear and tear on that shoulder.
Mr. Haworth stated there Is less width allowed than on
private streets.
Mr. Dudark stated right and this meets the private street
minimum which it 20' ft.
· , Mr. Haworth stated that ls what ! thought, that It was
20' ft. and I thought that was the Initial question of 20'
ft. allowed for private streets.
Mr. Allen asked where would you put the curb and gutter if
you were to put curb and gutter in.
· Mr. Hoff stated you understand we have no problem with the
· pavement width connection with this, It could be a couple
Salina Planning commission
:ti. April 18, 1995
...~. Page 8
2. of feet less with the curb and gutter section. You would
· . want all of the water to run down the street that is the
.~'~ normal motion.
Mr. Hurdman asked would the applicant care to comment at
this point?
' ' Frank Norton, 2524 E. Magnolia, I ~m the applicant and It
:-. seems like to me that I need to address two or three
.., specific issues. Number one Is the ~atter of going beyond
~ the 1,320 or a quarter of a mlle. As I understood it,
..,- that limitation was set by the fire chief indicating that
.':.. the quarter of a mile is the farthest distance that they
Q could provide an adequate response for fire protection.
-?-. A~d In going through this he has now said that they don*t
.:~. think this a problem with tho area ~arke~ which is the
south part of Phase I and that Is three eighths of a mile
,:?: to that point. Obviously we have a great deal of
'" difficulty with this 1/2 mile cutoff even as part of Phase
:~. I because we can't loop the street. It cuts off this area
'.~ that we are planning single-family garden homes in and
;: divides the townhome area so Phase ! on the south as
-~./ shown. Our preference, of course would be to plat the
.. whole thing because we view that as part of our scheme and
we would like to plan for that entire area. But there are
: some questions that have been raised if you are more
... comfortable going to the area marked as Phase I that is
.:~ acceptable with us at this time. It will require changing
the Comprehensive Plan as the report shows to include this
additional area beyond a quarter of a mlle. We raised
that initially es one of the elements and we were told at
that time that that was a matter that you would consider
-, at this time so we don't feel like we failed to mention
that at an appropriate time. Secondly, we would ask that
you act on some of this today. We learned Friday that
· -. there was a question as to the capacity as far the fire
· . protection was concerned, we provided the information as
to the calculations of the line capacity and other things
· /' on Monday. We feel that if we could move along and get
· some things moving on this that we could pick up these
· - other things because they are design elements. Naturally,
., regarding the ditches we are not going to be stupid. We
are not going to have eroded ditches and this sort of
thing in this kind of development. We are going to put
checks wherever necessary if that is the way we go, we are
going to broaden the base so that the water flow is as it
should be. These are private roads, they are private
ditches, we are going to maintain them appropriately.
This is not something that we are ~ust trying to carve out
and as the report says we are following the terrain as far
as the elevations are concerned. We are trying to make it
as natural as possible. That is part of the scheme, and
we are going to carry that through with the entire
develolxaent and do it In a correct amnner. As far as the
:' water la concerned Pete Earles is here, he Is our engineer
and he provided the information on Monday. He assures me
.'.' that you will be able to work it out with line size and
other things. As to the matter of the quality of the
water at the end of the line, and we had an earlier
-: meeting where it was discussed that perhaps we will have
to do some extra flushing to keep the water active so to
-' speak and keep fresh water in the lines but that is part
of what we may need to do until proper looping takes
place. Naturally we are going to want to loop as much as
we can as much as is practical, being it is us who will be
., living there and we will want good water and they don't
have to tell us that we want good water, we understand
that we want good water and we are going to do what is
necessary to provide it and that is all there is to It.
Other than the ditching and the water problem, I am not
aware of anything else that needs to be addressed at this
time. There was a reference to notes and corrections that
is With the preliminary plat, we will meet whatever needs
to be done in that direction. Are there any questions?
<.. Salins Planning Commission
.. Page 9
·-~.. Mr. Hurdman asked is there a condition or something to
keep the water active in the pipe, can you ex,and on that
:~ for me?
... Mr. Norton stated the idea was that we have a large pipe
':. and it goes along way and that pipe stores slot of water
~ ~ and it could be that the water in the pipe could become
.. stele, for lack of a better word, in order to alleviate
~; that problem, it may be necessary for us to flush it more
...t frequently than you ordinarily would, open the fire
:~ h~-drants and let water escape to move the water in there.
Mr. Hard,an asked so are you suggesting some sort of
additional system beyond that?
Mr. Norton stated no sir I am not aware of anything and I
talked to Pete Earles and we have talked with the City and
we are Just going to do whatever is necessary to make it
work right.
.; Mr. McCoach asked Frank is it basically your plan to put
::. a11 the roads in at one time initially, is that correct in
· ~! the first phase?
Mr. Norton stated yes we plan to put in this portion, it
:. is divided with a median to this point. A~d then if we
:.. have a really wide right-of-way our idea being that in
:: years to come we may want to extend the median divided
'.' strip on St. Andrews over here, but we intend to put in
· . this area and these cul-de-sacs in here.
Mr. McCoach stated your primary reason for asking for the
-? extension is to loop that road.
Mr. Norton stated right, even if we would go to say this
.~. point and over here the first year and then do the rest of
-.. it, slot depends on how soon we can get started because
weather is always going to be a problem and we want to
~ contract as much as is practical initially.
:.. Mr. Hurdman asked are there any. fUrther questions for the
applicant? Hearing none would any members of the public
'f- caz'e to comment on the application? Nothing being heard
-. we will bring it back to the Commission for further
consideration.
~. Mr. Hurdman said I would have an additional question for
the Rngineering staff, regarding the suggested additional
..' line flushing as a possible solution to the stagnant water
at the end of the line, is this a feasible thing?
Mr. Hoff stated my concern is that the line would be
~ overly large initially without the proper sizing we would
always have that problem. ! don't mind if something could
:' be worked out and we could install hydrant meters and
.-.: flush it during the construction or whatever as this area
· '.- is being developed. I am concerned that we would size a
' line, that sould be oversized for this area looped in to
the east flushing that line would cause a continual
.~ problem, we would always have to be out there. We
obviously have to get the guaranteed ~aality of water to
-' the home, that is part of our standards. That is a very
· . expensive option plus not to mention the waste of water.
That doesn't really meet with out Conservation Plan to go
out and waste water, but ! think that working with Pete
· . that we are surely going to be able to come up with a
networking of pipes in the area. There ~ght have to be
some. pipes laid further to the east of ~his development
ln~tially rather than over size the pipes here. I could
.. run a 12" pipe all the way back and of course get plenty
of fire flow and ever~thing would be great but that would
" be a continual problem from now on.
Mr. Hurdman asked when they get farther along on their
" Salins Planning Commission
::'i: April 18, 1995
...... Page 10
· -}' design on the ditching, do you normally have input as to
-- what the harms or baffles or whatever you are using to
:~.~ slow the water flow down, do you review that particular
~ plan to make sure that they are adequate?
~.. Mr. Hoff stated it is limited more in this area because
· :c these are private streets. It is different than the water
.' and sewer lines which are public. We are going to have to
:~ maintain those in the future.
~. Mr. O'Leary stated we have taken a little bit more
-..' interest in the road surfacing standards as to what that
'=' hard surface means It has been interpreted a number of
:.~:. ·
'i':' different ways In other areas some are successful and In
-?.: other areas unsuccessfully, we have had some range in
:; that.
;:;' Mr. Hardman stated there are some concerns that we need to
;~ address as a Commission regarding the water flow as well
L-. as the ditches with the water flow being the primary
: concern for further consideration of the application today
:i:: and actually determining what is the buildable area on
:~.; this proposal. I w111 certainly open it up for discussion
~.. in this area as to whether or not we can consider it
-:i: further today or if we will require tabling until the we
· ...... can have soma more definitive Information with water
~ supply.
i. Mr. Haworth stated you are talking about a specific area
- : here on #PDD95-2, item number three for right now.
Mr. Hardman stated that is correct.
Mr. Haworth asked that will be our discussion for right
now.
". Mr. Hat,man stated that is correct not regarding
annexation.
Mr. Haworth asked my understanding is it is Just a
· preliminary planned development application, in other
· words the final plat, wouldn't that be the time that some
of the things that Don has laid out with the water that
would then be discussed?
Mr. Dudark stated it is a planned development so the
combined zoning and the preliminary plat all fit together
so any action that you take on postponement of action on
...' the plat has to go to the City Commission as well, the
zoning ordinance has a specific legal description in
conjunction with the preliminary plat and the final plat
· would follow after that. Our difficulty right now is
.. recommending what to take to the City Commission if we are
to assure the~ that each lot would be buildable, that
..:' there wouldn't be water flow problems, the farther you get
· -.: into the development the more iffy that becomes and so
· ? rather than guess at it, which is what we are doing right
now, ! think what we heard is in a future hearing we would
like the applicant's engineer to try to develop that data
-, a little more precisely so that you could say whether the
proposed Phase I requested by the applicant is really
suitable~ is really possible you know with a water system
design that will work, that it will be a long term viable
answer. We can't tell you that today.
· . Mr. Haworth stated I thought it was already said that it
was possible, but you Just don't know what the design
would be today?
Mr. Dudark stated we don't know where to draw that line.
Mr. Haworth asked what line?
Mr. Dudark stated the Phase ! line, is it the blue line or
Salins Planning Commission
April 18, 1995
?- the red line. We Just don't know.
~ Mr. Haworth stated then I misunderstood because what ! was
' ' hearing from the beginning was reaching the red line is
.. very possible for some type of water system, you Just
., don*t know what that water system will be to~y.
Mr. ~dark stated in order to get water-to the red line
:~ you have got to tap a large diameter line to get 1,000
.. gallons a minute. To do that, l~u have got the water
:.: quality issue, there is an answer but it has a downside to
... it so without having any looping system that comes hack,
i.::' now maybe there Is a line that can co~ off of Magnolia
..:. farther east, and come beck in, that ~nId be useable
..-'~ later on, that you can develop off of later on, that would
.~' be an 8" line to compliment the 8" line going in that
would provide you with the system without having the water
~/~.: quality problem.
~Q Mr. Hard~an stated that seems to be the largest concern.
Mr. Dudark stated right and that really needs to be
determined.
Mr. Umphrey asked could we maybe hear a co~aent from Mr.
Earles in regard to that?
:~ Mr. Hardman asked Mr.. Earles would you please comment on
· .' the water system design work that you have done so far?
· Pete Earles, Earles and Rlggs, Llndsborg, we have laid out
basically the lines for Phase I looking at what could be
done as far as line sizing. Basically we looked at
% obviously coming in with simply a 6" line and that quickly
showed that the pressure loss in that line was so great
that you didn't have any pressure and then we looked at
.. running a 10" line along St. Andrews and then coming off
with an 8" line back along Dundee here. It was showed
that we could get the necessary pressures, the worst
scenario of course was the farthest away. Up here was the
highest elevation and the farthest distance but that
wasn't even the lowest, it was on up to the next
intersection which is about 30 l~unds of pressure. The
fire code has a 1,000 gallon a ~nute req~lirement at 20
pounds of pressure, with 1,000 gallons a ~nute for fire
flow, you are talking about a requirement that would run
an 8" line where you normally would run a 6" line so it is
not an exuberantly large line that we are talking about.
· But this line here is a larger line along St. Andrews
which would be a 10" line that would be the line if you
would look at the overall St. Andrews layout and it loops
around and that is your second tie in POint. And that
· would be a main line. Its far as being able to get
pressure to this point, I think as Mr. Hoff stated,
:- think it is not a problem and it certainly has been shown
...: that it can be worked out with steeply line sizing which as
· far as the exact line sizing, I think that is what Mr.
~: Hoff was talking about that he and I get together and look
at the entire development in looking at a looped system
.: and that becomes part of the design process as we go from
this phase before the final phase and if w~ get together
-- with Mr. Hoff and work that out as the scenario of what
line sizes are the best and work the best for this higher
development now and in the future, but as far as the
question of can it work or will it work, the pressure is
.. there for fire flow. Was an increase in size great? No a
6" to an 8", so I think that is the scenario that we have
gone 'to at this point. So we believe that as far as a
preliminary plat you are on the right track and we feel
that this could be approved as a preliminary and that
would be a detail worked out on the final plat.
Mr. Hardman stated so again in coming beck to the issue it
certainly is not a question of whether ~u can get the
Salins Planning Commission
Page 12
water back to the end of the line, your primary concern
from the staff side is what the quality of that water will
be et the. end of the line. Is that correct?
· Mr. Dudark stated what I am hearing is that we will have
":. to flush those lines and that will be a continual loss of
~'-~ water and continual maintenance responsibility.
.,, Mr. Half stated when you are looking at is a balance as
far as fire flows and domestic service. If we are going
':' to create a large line size that would take care of the
~;~ fire flow. We can do that. What quality of water we will
have in that area we wontt know until there are other
: ' lines hooked in. If it is the only line serving the area
· .- it is pretty decent velocity even in a large size line but
then you start tying in two or three other lines for the
area developed to the east and the velocity in that line
'-; now cuts down and the number of directions with problems
continuing to develop here. There are sections of town
-? where we have similar problems today, they were la!d out
improperly, everybody thought they were doing a big favor
.~': by laying big lines but it was not it is not the answer.
.... Mr. O'Leary stated we look at this as the beginning of a
very large water distribution system as well for the whole
': development, this is the beginning of a very large area
.. that looks small on the screen. We think taking a couple
-~ of weeks to review that and work out the details of what
would be a very long term water distribution system is
probably not asking too much.
Mr. Hardman asked would your concerns be addressed if the
· ~ applicant would be willing to install the looped system at
the outset rather then waiting for the additional
development.
· : Mr. Half stated but some of those lines could be outside
the picture here.
" Mr. Hardman stated that is what I meant.
: Mr. Half stated I am not sure if that commitment As there
~- and it might not even be necessary. Until we do the
· analysis we don't know.
Mr. Hardman stated if that commitment were made today
would you be more comfortable with the improvement?
Mr. Half stated I think that is the same as saying you
have an open check book, yes we can make it work but At
mAght result An laying lanes that might not be used for
the next 20 years.
Mr. McCoach stated several weeks ago we looked at these
:- secondary areas and basically changed our policy, ! think
...: at that time X believe it was everyone's thought that
.:.' those developments in those areas should be the same
qualAty as those that are basically contiguous with the
cAty 1Amirs and I think when ! hear phrases like flushing
.~ the lines periodically ! don't thank that is An the spirit
of what I was thinking. I don't think Mr. Norton really
-' wants that either, but it appears that there are some
loose ends there and I know he wants the quality of the
project and this As a project probably that one day the
city will grow to and around and you would like for it
· · Just to blend in and be part of the com~unity and I would
certainly hate to see the exception made which I know that
they are not really talking about but I don't think it is
due here as far as to what to sacrifice with as far as
water quality.
.. Mr. Dudark stated we are not trying to be dAfflcult here,
what we are trying to do is to look for the optimal
.- answer. I think there is one. But I think that we need
Salina Planning Commission
April 18, 1995
Page 13
? to work at It a little bit more before we have lt.
?~ Mr. Umphrey stated Mr. Chairman what ! think I a~ hearing
~' here is that you all have the same goal in mind and what
we are trying to address at this particular time is how
'/' far can we go with .this development and Still be
~'~* comfortable with it, don't you agree on that thought? Do
. . you have a coement that would heXp us with how much of
:~/ this we can do today and you still not feel that your
· ..> responsibility would be Jeopardized?
]~ Mr. Hoff stated obviously it would be a lot easier to deal
3]..' with in a quarter of a mile than a X/2 mile, of course
· ." that is 'also probably the biggest water use will be for
.~.-. the multi-family on the hills as cogitated with single-
"'~' family, we don't have the data today.
· ,.? Mr. Duckers stated, ! have another question that doesn't
""' relate to water. When we amended the Comprehensive Plan
./ did we take in everything we see on that screen or Just
" to the blue line?
Mr. Dudark stated Just the blue line.
Mrs. Duckers asked so if we approve this we have to amend
the Comprehensive Plan to include all the rest of it?
Mr. Dudark stated yes whatever rest you want to add.
.'.~ Mrs. Duckers also on the annexation there are two
different figures, one place it says 85 acres another
place it says the Phase I boundary.
'? Mr. Haworth stated first of all you are annexing an entire
-'i.. Mr. Dudark stated he still has to final plat so ! don't
.. think so necessarily.
i.- Mr. Haworth stated we do keep the final plat by phase
" Mr. Dudark stated the zoning won't take effect unless you
-.. final plat it so you wouldn't have any zoning beyond the
. final plat that you had. We wouldn't want a final plat in
areas that you couldn't build on you know, it has to be
bulldable lots to be included in a final plat. So that is
another piece of the puzzle, we have got to work that In
with the water.
= Mr. Haw°rth stated typically the final plat is by phases,
· .: but not necessarily the whole area.
" Mr. Hardman stated ! am always reluctant to t~ble an
:- application where there is a reasonable alternative to
. = working out details that can be worked out between the
.-. applicant and oity staff but I am having difficulty with
: this particular application today because as Mr. McCoach
stated earlier we have changed our develolxaent policy to
.: allow this type of development in the country and I want
to assure that it is done as it would be done if it were
.- contiguous to the city. I have got some and I am sure the
staff has some concerns that the water will affect what
this thing looks like. ! too would be reluctant to
approve it today without knowing more about the water
.. supply issue and it appears to me that tabling it for two
weeks to May 2 might be the feasible thing to do.
Mr. Umphrey asked would there be any advantage to looking
at the approval of extending this service area map up to
~nclude the 85 acres and to consider annexation but not
consider the plat layout at this date or do we need to do
" it all at once?
Sallna Planning Commission
· ,.~ Mr. Dudark you can do that but unless it is actually zoned
and platted you don't have anything that is bulldable so
.~'~ if you can't have the water and sewage with it you Just
; get taxed as city property without any benefit from it so
it may be Just as easy to leave this agricultural land In
the county. That is the only thing that I see.
~. Mrs. Duckers stated something of this magnitude ! don't
like to feel like I ~ua being railroaded into doing
... something that ! am not comfortable with.
'~.. Mr. Blev~ns stated I think any platting application Mr.
"' Chaizman is a commitment process and not withstanding the
'!;' high caliber of the project and the investment and time of
.~:.' the developer, there Is a commitment that the C~ty is
.~. making of a long term nature and ! think that it is not
too much to ask to make sure that we take every
~' opportunity to make sure that we are comfortable with that
"' commitment and I think that would bode well for the future
'~ once that Is done. So I would concur that two weeks Is
not unreasonable.
Mr. Umphrey asked well are we comfortable with the
extension of the blue line up to the red line? Provided
that the problems stated are reconciled within the next
two weeks?
Mr. Hardman stated I think that we are getting ahead of
ourselves, we don't even consider that at this point,
because what you are talking about is amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Umphrey stated yes but I don't understand how they can
work on the water solution not knowing how many acres they
are considering. You are asking them to come back with an
answer to a problem and they don't have a defined area to
consider. That is not fair, In m~ opinion.
· ~ Mr. Hardman stated the assumption would be that we would
". amend the Comprehensive Plan to conform with the area in
· ' question.
Mr. Umphrey stated ! think that is all we need to say at
this time. But we do need to tell them you know are we
going to work on the blue line or the red line?
Mrs. Duckers stated you amend the Comprehensive Plan and
then you approve the rezoning, those are the steps.
Mr. Hardman stated if we approve the Preliminary Plat
layout then the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the
zoning and the annexation will fall right in line.
Mr. Umphrey stated yes I understand.
..~ Mr. Hardman stated but if the ~lret one isn't ever
.'- rec~Lfied, there is no need to annex that Into the city.
Mr. Umphrey stated but you can't solve the water problem
-.. l~ you don't know how big an area you are going to serve.
-- Mr. Hardman stated right we certainly understand that.
Mr. Haworth asked haven't we considered water issues with
other preliminary plats?
Mr. Dudark stated yes water and sewer are always a major
concern in plats.
Mr. McCoach stated I think fairly recently we recommended
tabling the one on Seitz because of the surface drainage.
Mr. Hardman stated yes it was.
Salins Planning Commission
. Page 15
Mr. McCoach stated I to do not like tabling applications
because it puts things off and puts the developer behind
but ! think there are some serious enough questions here
to support tabling.
'" MOTION= Mr. McCoach moved to table Application #PDD95-2 until the
.:'~ May 2, meeting to allow for further study of both the
'.~ water quality and pressure and basic design of the system.
SECOND= Mrs. Duckers seconded the motion.
..- VOTE= Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION= Mr. NcCoach stated as a result of the previous motion I
.~-'~ would move to table Application #A95-2 to the May 2nd
.' meeting.
'" SECOND= Mrs. Duckers seconded the motion.
VOTE= Motion carried 7-0.
]i 95. #PDD95-4, filed by Kwik Shop, Inc.
of an amendment of the architectural re
as part of the planned development t
for the Georgetown Village Place PDD locate at
the = corner of Fairdale Drive and lord
(aka 657 Fairdale Rd.)
Mr. gave the staff report and stat this
~s filed by Kwik Shop located at the of
Crawford reet and Fairdale Road. North Is the top
and what have is a planned development which is
most of 3lock that was approved In 1978. was a C-
2 PDD there as you can see, a fairly plan
with access , parking areas and building,
landscaping also an architectural that was
. presented which elevation That was then
presented for first project which the Kwik Shop
· ~ store. The showed shake-sh roof, a brick
wooden type of that was to be the
- architectural theme the ect. It was a
' fairly large scale at the obviously it never
was completed as except the first building
here which is the Kwik Recently at the north
end of the tract a part was bought and five
townhomes have been and are in the process of
being completed. The ~ommission a~ended it to R-
2 zoning for that. These developers have I
understand a contract to remaining property. You
have another tract at and ~eorgetown that is
property that I would stil! receive a C-2 or
office-type use and between the Kwik Shop
and that tract that as retail or office.
The reason this is be you is about the first of
· the year the owners the Kwik Corporation, they
have Kwik Shops all the =ontracted with a
.. company to their stores, put new facade
treatments on canopy treatments, £gnage to more or
less change theme and appearance their
. operation. ThJ was one of those T.~ -ere are 6 or
7 in Salins all of them essentially~eceived this.
-' The coz came into our office, ~the Building
Inspection !ice and asked the Building Ins~ction people
if they d permits to install this faca~ treatment
work and canopy work and they discussed ~at, asked
some que] ; and so forth and determined that ~ was not
a build addition that it was not an a~terati~ of the
buildi] and that it was merely facade exter~r-type
archi elements and building permits we~ not
What was not asked was could they change_the
ext appearance of this particular building.
Pe~aps
t~ contractors did not know that it was subject to,he
P~b standards. Our Building Inspector didn't pursue
... ~roJect beyond Just talking with the contractors. That
-(,, ~%LINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
' C~Y COMMISSION ROOM
MEMBER~PRESENT. Larson, Allen, Haworth, Umphrey and Blevins
· MEMBERS ~ENTs Duckers, Hardman, McCoach and Weathers
DEPARTMENT ~%FF: Dudark, Andrew and Barker·
.- OTHERS ~ 0 ' Lea~
· The Hearing began~t 4:00 p.m. l//
· #1. Applicatto~#P92-4C, filed by Harold and./~oyanne Larson,
iJ~:' requesting f~al subdivision approval f~i a 2 lot addition
.... to the Valle~N~,View Addition contal,~'~.~g 2.38 acres and
-~.. located intheN 1/4 of Sec. 29, //i4S, R2W of the 6th
a replat of I ~ 3,
.~ P.M. and tnc~i~f~.' Block 2, of the
Valley View--~ (South e~~ of Valley Vle~ Drive).
Continued from ApriI~,1995.///
%2 fi~d~7~ Harold and Royanne-Larson,
· Applicat~on #A95-3,
" of~ ~2 acre tract located in the NE
requesting annexation
?' 1/4 of Sec. 29, T14S,~of the 6th P.M. in Saline
-" County, Kansas (So-~'~ e]~ of Valley View Drive).
Mr. harson excused himself frot~the table as he is the
Mr. Hawort a.k.d there were of th. public
- . who wish,~~ to comment on the above ap~lcation that would
not be ~le to attend the May 16, 1995,~eeting If this ts
.- tab~?~tothatdate.
///'Commissioners present to form a quos.
SEC0*5~ Mr. Umphrey seconded the motion. ~ '
:,,,,~, V~fE: Motion carried 4-0.
#3. Preliminary PDD Application #PDD95-2, filed by Frank
Norton, requesting preliminary development plan/plat
approval and a change in zoning district classification
" from Saline County AG (Agricultural) to PDD (Planned
Development District) for property located on the south
side of Magnolia Road, east of the Smoky Hill River. The
underlying zoning requested by the applicant Is R (Single-
Family Residential) and R-2 (Multi-Family Residential).
Continued from Aprtl 18, 1995.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated this is a
continuation of the hearing from 2 weeks ago. This is a
'~ planned development district application so that means
that the development plan drawing will be incorporated
into the zoning approval process as well as the requested
underlying zoning which is R (Single-Family) and R-2
(Multi-family). The development plan drawing would also
· : serve as a preliminary plat of the development. We have a
drawing here that represents the development plan that the
application has submitted. There are a number of colored
lines on there that we would use to refresh your memory.
This blue line represents the quarter mile line south of
Magnolia. You have previously amended the Comprehensive
Plan to make the area up to that line a secondary service
area for development. What is beyond that is still
considered rural on the plan. And if you wish to approve
a development plan and zoning classification beyond that
you would need to proceed that with a motion to expand the
secondary service area on the plan. The area outlined in
yellow is the area that the applicant has proposed for a
multi-family zoning which would be for two-unit town-
homes. The area outlined tn orange ts the area that the
Salins Planning Commission
~ ~ay 2, 1995
-;',, Page 2
.... applicant has proposed for Phase ! of the development and
~' this bluish green line represents areas that have been set
aside as common area and would not be individually owned
but would be owned by ~he homeowner's association. This
being the ~oint that would provide access to a recreation
:' area along the river. The primary reason for tabling two
weeks ago was our inability to make a recommendation on
'~ how much land area, how far south land development could
.- go and have an adequate water supply for fire protection
to meet the Uniform Fire Code. The applicant and his
· engineer have met with the City Engineering Department and
! believe that they have resolved those Issues to the
' satisfaction of the EngineeringDepartment and I might let
.'.. Mr. O'I~ary speak to the results of their meeting and then
.. ! will highlight a few other issues before we get to our
recommendation.
Mr. O'Leary stated we have met twice with the applicant
"' and his engineer, Earles & Rlggs out of Llndsborg, the
... most recent meeting being about 2 hours ago today to
' resolve the water volume question. TO Just kind of recap
....: where we were coming from a couple of weeks ago, we see
¥. this as a very large area, a very significant water
"' distribution system. And we have a number of concerns and
..' whenever we get into that sort development those concerns
.... don't Just lie In providing adequate fire protection. You
are talking clot about 1,000 gallons per aLtnute and that
~' for fire protection, but In doing that and In providing
:~. the lines at a certain pipeline size and the pumps and so
on, there are a number of other issues that come into
· effect and some of those would be the quality of water,
· the velocity of water and a number of other things that
must be considered when you design a system of this scope.
We asked the applicant and his engineer to go back and
· . develop at least a conceptual system of water pipelines,
valves and so on for the entire subdivision not Just the
: one shown on the screen. They have done that as of today
at 1=00 p.m. They did present some very preliminary
numbers of what can and cannot happen in terms of a design
in the system. They will now go back and revise and fine
: tune that design to show us some graphic representations
· specifically for this Phase I of the project and we will
. then report back to you prior to the final platting of any
other conditions that might be required. We are
comfortable with what they have done and appreciate what
they have done in those two weeks and we would on behalf
of the City Engineer's office concur with approval of the
preliminary plat on that basis. I do want to add a couple
of points though and they're things that maybe some of the
'- members of this commission were not presented with on a
previous subdivision that might be involved here. This
was the Holiday Resort Addition, the one that Involves the
nursing home at the corner of Holmes and Country Club
Road. There are some different things that happened there
: that may h&ppen here and I Just wanted to tell you a
: little bit about that. We had a case. there where there
was inadequate fire protection, we were getting say 600 or
700 gallons per minute and that system Just could not be
improved without some significant water system
': improvements and the City of Salins of was not ready to do
-' that at that time so that developer was showed some
alternatives and those were basically two in terms of the
residential part of the subdivision. Number one they
could separate their homes by having an empty lot every
other home and that would provide the separation between
homes in case of a fire so that an adjacent home wouldn't
-. catch fire automatically and it would provide adequate
time for the fire department to respond. The alternative
to that was a sprinkler system in a residential home which
again Is somewhat unusual. It is an additional cost for
the building and ! think that was the one that they chose
in that case. That could happen here and we will reserve
that until the final analysis is done. But if for some
reason the fire flows could not be provided In all of
Salins Planning Commission
.;? Nay 2, 1995
'-.. Page 3
.... Phase I with the line sizing that we need that may be one
alternative that the developer could offer that they would
· do some sprinkling of the homes or that they would
separate the homes by a larger dimension. Those are some
things that we can work out with them and we would like to
~ present those to you as part of the final plat. With that
! would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Blevins asked there was talk of it being an 8" inch
line do you knOW what you are looking at~
; Mr. O'Leary stated we really don't. What they have done
,~ at this point is they simulated a computer program to do
',~:' this because it Is fairly monotonous work calculating the
.:- various velocities and pressures and so on in a system
. this size. They simulated a lO" connection. They
. simulated two connections on Magnolia Road and then ran
:,. those into the subdivision with 6" size pipe. They will
-', go back now and do a number of what ifs. What if the
.,' whole system is 6"? What if it is all 8"? What if you
~ ' have a 12" here and an 8" here, that sort of thing and
· "':'! through all that they will come back with a system that is
~' a combination of those things. Our position Is that we
<' want them to look at the entire proposed subdivision and
· .~ not Just Phase ! because we certainly think that we can
.' size the lines accordingly for Phase X but that might
~. cause problems with the rest of the subdivision. We would
... like the system conceptually designed around the entire
subdivision and then come back and go with Phase I as a
"' second part of that.
Mr. Blevins asked so you are convinced, at least from the
information you have gotten so far that it is conceptually
" doable so to speak?
Mr. O'Leary stated yes we do believe it is.
Mr. Allen asked and for the entire Phase I which I believe
.. goes up to the red lines is that correct?
': Mr. O'Leary stated yes that Is correct and Just to clarify
~ what we think, there are a n~ber of th~ngs that could
happen, but in order to get the system design, it Is
really possible that we could have a series of smaller
pipelines, 6", that would provide the velocity of flow and
" circulation of the water and then be short on volume.
They might not be able to get 1,000 gallons per minute in
Phase I but with the completion of Phase II and III they
would get that. So that Is where that other set of
' conditions might come to pass. Again it is a kind of
conflicting set of conditions that we are trying to meet.
It is not Just volume or velocity it Is a combination of
those things and depending on what that engineer simulates
and the outcome of all of those what if conditions, we may
come back to you with recom~endations of some additional
conditions and things.
Mr. Blevins asked if you don't get 1,000 gallons at the
· far south reach of Phase I does that prohibit the whole
": project or does that Just limit the construction of those
" particular units at that far south end. In other words if
the flow is not adequate at the end is that going to Just
limit them or is that going to hold up the whole project?
Mr. Dudark ~t would Just affect the lots where you were to
have the deficiency s~tuation.
Mr. Blevins asked so the condition should we approve it
that you have listed in the report, if we adopted those it
would allow for construction as far as you get that flow?
Mr. O'Leary stated right, that is correct.
Mr. Dudark stated on every one.
Sallna Planning Commission
May 2, 1995
Page 4
.... Mr. O'Leary stated and as I ment£oned In the other
subdivision there were some other enhancements to the fire
protection capability of that area that allowed them to
'" fill all their units, They spent, ! a~ not sure what the
estimate was, I think It was $1,000 to $2,000 per unit for
· : an irrigation system for a single-family ho~e. And they
chose that In order to get the density those homes needed.
· Mr. Dudark stated there Is one other option and that would
. . be to build with type five fire resistant construction in
lieu of sprinkling so there are three alternatives. Skip
a lot, add a sprinkling syste~ or do a type five
: construction so you have essentially a fire resistive
outer wall. ~nd I think ideally if it all works out every
'~ lot within the Phase I line would be served 1,000 gallons
· a minute and would be part.of and treated like the other
': lots in the area. .Beyond the Phase I line we really don't
have much information on it right now. The developer is
.... not proposing to develop that at this point so essentially
- it would be subject to further review.
~ Mr. Andrew stated I would like to touch on a few items not
':'- related to water but Just a reminder that these areas you
-" see set aside as right-of-way, these are actually private
." streets, it is not public right-of-way it is private
. right-of-way so these areas would owned and maintained by
the homeowner's association not by the City. There would
:' be no City maintenance involved, the street surfacing
' would have to paved but not necessarily to our standard as
' far as paving thickness that you would have on a City
street and also the roadside ditches proposed would not
meet our City standard for a public road but again this is
essentially a private development and that would give the
developer some latitude in that area. Also this corridor
right here and to the rear back here which is not affected
: since it is not In Phase I, but those areas are pedestrian
corridors and it is not spelled out in his application,
but we are presuming that the applicant is asking for a
waiver or exception from our sidewalk requirement for new
subdivisions because of those pathways and because the
: design of the streets with the ditches would not be very
amenable to having sidewalks, there is really no place to
put them, but we will let the applicant address that and
we are only pointing that out. We did note that on any
motion going beyond that quarter mile blue line there that
you would need to precede that with a motion to amend the
service area map to expand the Secondary Service Area at
least to the Phase I boundary. We pointed out several
alternatives there. I believe it is the applicant's
- desire probably for Alternative N,,m~er Two which would be
the area within the Phase I boundary. We are recommending
nine conditions. Condition number one Just sets out the
development limitations for the single-family and two-
family areas. Condition number two is Just standard that
:' this area must be final platted before the zoning would
: take final affect. Condition number three deals with
storm water, water and sanitary sewer, that the
applicant's engineer would have to present preliminary
plans and specs to the Engineering Department so that cost
estimates could be developed for this area. Number four
deals with the developer either installing or providing a
financial guarantee such as a performance bond, something
of that nature, to guarantee the installation of streets,
ditches., water systems, sanitary sewer facilities so in
fact these lots are buildable for those people purchasing
them. Number five deals with the fire flow requirement
and also says in lieu of 1,000 gallons a minute that the
owner shall comply with the applicable exemption criteria
those are the ones that Roy mentioned, the sprinkling, the
fire resistive construction and the separations. We are
recommending that no development occur in Phase II until a
second entrance to Magnolia Road is opened and a second
connection to the water line is installed. Item number
seven is fairly standard when we are dealing with a
Salina Planning Commission
· .,~ May 2, 1995
-~ .. Page 5
.... development along an existing county road. If for any
reason that entire area were annexed into the city within
10 years and there was some need to upgrade Magnolia in
the eyes of the City Engineering Del~artment then that
would be an agreement not to protest the creation of a
: benefit district for that improvement. N~her eight,
before this goes to the City Commission, Just add an
.' informational note for those who see and review the plan,
a reminder that the maintenance of streets and common
areas and other open space will be the responsibility of
· the homeowner's association. Primarily they will be
putting people on notice of this. Number nine we have a
list of a few technical corrections we would like to see
'::. before this goes on to the City Com~__fssion. We did point
out in the report we have this substantial area of
.. frontage on Magnolia here, they are only preliminary
,.~ platting and would be final platting only to this point
here, this area to the east is left unplatted and would
" continue to be zoned agricultural and remain in Salina
· County.
Mr. Blevins asked Roy, what is the downside, if any, of
rezoning the whole 85 acres?
. ~ Mr. Dudark stated well number one is the question about
water supply and pressure even further into the
development. Number two is they only have one entrance
"'.. and exit point to this and the top of that map is a full
.'.. 1/2 mile from Magnolia Road and I think the other thing is
-. emergency, fire protection in terms of reaching that far
· '.. back into the area. I think on occasion we have had plats
where at some point during the process the Planning
-- Commission had wanted another way in and out for that
area. Tasker Addition for example. At some point people
· - who live near the entrance are going to be essentially
~ having a lot of traffic filtering by that location, so I
don't know where to draw the line on this.
.. Mr. Blevins stated I am wondering what advantage there is
to taking the rezoning application in stages. The issues
: you address, can't those be handled on a platting basis to
get preliminary plat approval?
.. Mr. Dudark stated this is a prelimina~f plat approval for
.. today.
Mr. Blevins stated I know that, it is not for the whole
section of it, ! mean it is not for the whole area.
Mr. Dudark stated I think that we are looklng at the Phase
I line as what would be the preliminary plat approval and
then the final plat would match that. Something beyond
that, I am saying there are too many ifs on it and it is a
substantial number of lots to be included, although they
':" are R-2 lots and a significant number of R-1 lots.
Mr. Blevlns asked is what we see up there, no matter what
'. side of which line, everything up there, is that the 85
acres?
Mr. Dudark stated yes.
Mr. Blevins asked so the only thing that is not included
in Phase ! is the very southern portion and at no point
are we considering rezoning this northern tract along
Magnolia?
Mr. Dudark stated no he has not requested that. ! don't
know what his intentions are.
Mr. Blevlns asked so that is not even in the rezoning
request at all?
Mr. Dudark stated no it is not. I presume it is for
Salina Planning Commission
May 2, 1995
.... future development with commercial or multi-family.
Mr. Blevins stated ok so isn't the zoning designation
simply a planning or a projection of the use of the
property. I ~ean it is not a done deal, it Just seems
· : that the other issues can be handled later.
~ Mr. Dudark stated here is how it would relate. If you
· were to recommend that the entire 85 acres with all of the
lots shown, with no intermediate point, be rezoned and
annexed, to make that official it would have to be final
platted so that there is a legal description that ia
· recorded, an official map that ~eo~le would use to
transfer title. The proper~y mast be platted before the
.. rezoning can take affect.
Mr. Blevins stated so there can't be a revision to that.
The final plat will have to' come right along.
Mr. Dudark stated that is right, you can*t wait.
Mr. Blevins stated alright that answers my question.
-'.' Mr. Dudark stated and that is what we were struggling
· with.
Mr. Haworth stated another thing I am referring to the
sentence staff's recommendation is only for a quarter of a
Mr. Dudark stated that is all we could write in the report
· last week. We didn't have the results of the water
.- simulation.
Mr. Haworth stated so that changes your recommendation.
You hadn't mentioned it.
Mr. Dudark stated of the issues that is the most
.. significant one. You still have the distance ·from
Magnolia and all that but they aresecondarywhen compared
.-: to the water and fire flow issues which we now feel
~ comfortable with.
Mr. Haworth stated having the fire trucks go Just a little
bit farther in.
Mr. Dudark stated the fire chief believes that it is ok to
the Phase ! line.
Mr. Blevins asked is there any problem in changing the
Secondary Service Area to that Jagged line. Do you need a
legal description for that kind of thing?
Mr. Dudark stated that wll! be accomplished when the
:' zoning and the final plat comes through. They will define
" that more. Your action is essentially to match that Phase
! location.
Mr. Haworth asked are there any further questions of
· .~ staff? Hearing none would the applicant care to comment?
Prank Norton, 2524 E. Magnolia Rd., ! am going to make it
brief because it seems like to me the issues are pretty
clear with the recommendation of staff. I am not going to
comment on the need to go to the Phase ! boundary because
to make the water system work for Phase I we have to loop
-- it. In order to loop it we have to go to where the roads
meet, and that is what we want to do anyway. Let me
answer Just a couple of things. The area in the northeast
corner that is not being included, ! consider that to be
maybe a neighborhood shopping area sometime or another.
.. And Just to tell you how X feel about it, it is a safe
area to get in and out of because of the terrain and so
forth and ! think that would be something that might
Salina Planning Commission
May 2, 1995
· ..,, Page 7
.... develop sometime in the future and that is the reason why
that is reserved. Everything else I think is pretty
clear. ! do want to comment Just a little bit about the
::.- water situation and I am going to tell you how ! view it
fro~ the technical aspect. First of all it lsn"t a matter
.:' of there not being enough water there. There Is a huge
supply of water in the city water line. The only question
'~ is do you run an 8" line or a 6" line or a 10" line and
.: what you are doing la, this is the entire a=ea that goes
clear over to Holmes Rd, the engineer has a computer
",. program that analyzes this whole entire area and you pick
a spot and that computer program with different line size
· analysis will tell you exactly what the pressure Is,. what
'..~' the consumption is going to be what It is going to be at
.:. the fire hydrant and so forth. Therefore, we are talking
-:. about ultimate final design when we talk about these
.~ specifications and that is the reason why it takes some
testing of the system or some use of the system with the
.. cooperation of the city staff to make the analysis and to
..- come up with exactly what we want. There will be, based
· on what we have talked about now, two connections to the
::' city line. One is going to be here at St. Andrews and
?- they will simply go to the lines at this point and the
:'.' other will be here north of Glances. If something happens
· ,' to one the other is a backup. In this ultimate design to
. get the pressures we want, to get the quantities we want,
yet not too much, we may have to go in with some other
~" connection earlier than we are anticipating but we are
'~.. going to do, and I am going to emphasize this, we are
' going to do what is necessary to have the right kind of
· .. system. And what you do today is never going to
" Jeopardize that requirement because we have to do that
.- before the final plat Is approved so there is no way
possible that is Jeopardizing that requirement. Not only
· . are we going to do it because it is the way the City wants
it done, the staff wants it done, that is the way we want
: it done. We want the right kind of development, if there
Is ever an inference that we want anything short of that
that inference is wrong, I am here to tell you .that
because we are not going to do that any other way so we
; are going to be whatever it takes to have the right kind
of distribution. I think that answers the questions that
have been raised. I don't want to take anymore of your
time than la necessary and if you have any questions of me
I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Umphrey asked do you have any specific comment on
these 9 conditions recommended by staff?
Mr. Norton stated no. I think they all fit tn. On the
matter of the sidewalk issue we have not requested a
waiver at this point, we don't feel that sidewalks are
necessary but we feel we want to make that decision when
we get farther Into this because as each one of you knows,
this Is very preliminary in terms of what we are able to
do as a developer. After your actions are taken, and we
get moving, then we can begin to focus on a lot of these
issues and make a decision as to the development without
sidewalks, with sidewalks and other things, but until we
get past this stage there is not much we can do.
Mr. Haworth asked is there anybody from the general public
that would like to comment on this application? Hearing
none ! will bring it back to the board for any further
comments or possible action.
MOTION= Mr. Umphrey moved to recommend to the City Commission that
the Secondary Service Area be expanded to Include the area
noted on the map by the red line which represents the
southern boundary of Phase I.
SECOND: Mr. Blevins seconded the motion.
Mr. Haworth asked basically a question on the motion, on
Salina Planning Commission
May 2, 1995
-,, . Page 8
-.- what you have stated before for a plan amendment to move
to the Phase I red line.
Mr. Dudark stated the plan now shows the secondary growth
area to the blue line, and this essentially is changing it
to another eighth of a mile south.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Mr. Blevins moved to recommend to the City Commission that
Application #PDD95-2 be approved for rezontng from
Agricultural to PDD R and R-2 based on the factors cited
~. in the staff and report specifically that the proposed
..: rezoning and preliminary plat are consistent with the
- character of the neighborhood and the site is suitable for
development of the area proposed and it meets with the
'% adequacy of public facilities and services to support the
.. proposed zoning and development and the conformance of the
- proposed rezoning with our Comprehensive Plan with the
. extension of the Secondary Service boundary that we have
already approved. I would also further this motion by
· ~. including the conditions #1-9 which are included in the
¥'. staff report and that the applicant has stated he does not
' oppose.
SECOND: Mr. Allen seconded the motion.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
#4. Application #A95-2, filed by Frank Norton, requesting
annexation of an 85 acre tract of land lying east of the
Smoky Hill River in the NW 1/4 of Sec. 32, T14S, R3W of
the 6th P.M. in Saline County, Kansas (South and West of
Markley Rd. - Magnolia Rd. intersection). Continued from
April 18, 1995.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report and stated you will note
on the application that we are talking about approximately
85 acres, that acreage has been amended probably by.your
previous action. As far as the actual acreage of the
annexation tract, that will have to be calculated by the
applicants surveyor and a legal description that
corresponds to that Phase I boundary will need to be
provided. As far as the annexation issues, most of those
were dealt with in our review of the proposed development
issues. I would note that the building lots within this
subject area would be subject to the Capitol Cost Recovery
Charge to help pay for the new interceptor line. The
other issue with this is that the boundary of the plat
does not include any of Magnolia Road or the Magnolia Road
right-of-way so Magnolia Road and its maintenance would
remain in Saline County and the roadway would be
maintained by Saline County. Our recommendation would be
that you annex the area lying within the City's Secondary
Service Area as amended, we recommend that this be
considered only in conjunction with an approved
preliminary plat and development plan which you have Just
done. We would recommend further that a condition be
added that the applicant provide an amended legal
description for the annexation area before this goes to
the City Commission. The issue on the legal description
is we have a description for the full 85 acres but the
rezoning and the platting would be on a smaller acreage
than that and we need an amended legal description and
acreage for the Phase I area.
MOTION: Mr. Umphrey moved to approve Application #A95-2 subject to
the conditions Just stated by staff including the amended
legal description and also that it be in conjunction with
an approved preliminary plat and plan.
SECOND: Mr. Blevins seconded the motion.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
(Published in The Salina Journal June , 1995)
OPd)INANCE NUMBER 95-9691
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE
NUMBER 8526, THE SAME BEING CHAPTER 42 OF THE SALINA CODE, AND
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP THEREIN AND THEREBY ADOPTED AND
PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY
AND PRESCRIBING THE PROPER USES THEREOF.
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent for the amendment of the Zoning
District Map, the rezoning of certain property therein, hereinafter described
has been timely complied with, SO NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Governing Body of the City of Salina,
Kansas:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DISTRICT "PDD". PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. That the Zoning District Map of the City of Salina,
Kansas, duly adopted and published as a part of Ordinance Number 8526, the
same being Chapter 42 of the Salina Code, be and it is hereby amended so
that the following described property be rezoned as follows, to=wit:
Lots One (1) through Nineteen (19), Block One (1)
Lots One (1) through Three (3) and Twelve (12) through
Seventeen (17), Block Two (2)
Lots Twelve (12) through Twenty (20), Block Four (4)
Lots One (1) through Eighteen (18), Block Five (5)
Lots One (1) through Six (6), Block Six (6)
all in Highland Meadows Hamlet Addition to the City of
Salina, Saline County, Kansas
A part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section
Thirty-Two (32), Township Fourteen South (T14S), Range
Two West (R2W) of the Sixth Principal Meridian in Saline
County, Kansas.
shall become a part of District "PDD". PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Section 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. That the use of said
described property shall be subject to all the conditions, restrictions and
limitations as made and provided for in Ordinance Number 8526, the same being
Chapter 42 of the Salina Code with reference to the PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT. Development of the property shall be subject to the plans on file
with the City Planning Commission and/or City Clerk and the following
conditions, to-wit:
1. Development limitations shall be as follows:
a) Lots One through Eighteen (1-18), Block Five
(5), shall be limited to the uses permitted and
the lot size and bulk regulations specified in the
R-2 Multi-Family Residential District.
Development shall be limited to Eighteen (18)
single-family attached dwellings containing not
more than Two (2) units per building.
b) All other lots shall be subject to the permitted
uses, lot size and bulk regulations specified in
the R Single-Family Residential District.
2) A final plat shall be submitted and approved prior to
final approval of the preliminary Planned Development
District.
3) The City Engineer shall approve plans and
specifications for storm water collection, water and
sanitary sewer systems prior to consideration of a
final plat for the development.
4) The developer shall install, or sufficient financial
guarantees shall be in place to provide for the
installation of, all of the following facilities and
improvements: streets, ditches, water systems,
sanitary sewer facilities and pedestrian-ways prior to
consideration of a final plat for the development.
5) The City Engineer shall certify that adequate water
supply exists to meet minimum fire-flow requirements
for all proposed building lots or the owner shall
comply with applicable exemption criteria prior to
issuance of any building permit.
6) No development shall occur in Phase II of the
subdivision until a second entrance on Magnolia Road
is opened and a second connection to the
Magnolia/Markley Road water line is installed.
7) The applicant shall submit legal assurances to the City
consenting to the establishment of a special assessment
district and obligating the abutting land within the
proposed development for one-half (1/2) of the total
cost to reconstruct Two (2) lanes on Magnolia Road to
city residential street standards. Said assurance
shall be valid for a Ten (10) year period and legally
binding on existing and future owners of land within
the development. This covenant shall be recorded
with the final plat.
8) A note shall be added to the preliminary development
plan as follows: "Maintenance of streets, the common
area and other open space areas delineated on the
development plan will be the responsibility of the
Highland Meadows Hamlet Homeowner's Association.
9) The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary
development plan containing all corrections noted by
staff prior to consideration by the City Commission.
Section 3. That the Salina Service Areas Map (Figure 18, P.172)
be amended as follows:
1) An area south of Magnolia Road and west of Markley
Road lying east of the Smoky Hill River from Rural to
Secondary a distance of three-eighths (3/8) of a mile
south of Magnolia to correspond with the boundaries
of Highland Meadows Hamlet.
Section 4. That the Land Use Map (Figure 11, P. 107) be
amended to show the area identified in section Two (2) above, as Low Density
Residential.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its adoption and publication once in the official city newspaper.
Introduced: May 22, 1995
Passed: June 5, 1995
John Divine, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Judy D. Long, City Clerk