Loading...
11-16-2015 Minutes15-0441 CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS November 16, 2015 4:00 p.m. The City Commission convened at 2:30 p.m. for Continuous Process Improvement Update and at 3:45 p.m. for Citizens Forum. The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners was called to order at 4:00 p.m. in Room 107, City -County Building. Roll call was taken followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Those present and comprising a quorum: Mayor Jon R. Blanchard (presiding), Commissioners Kaye Crawford, Trent Davis, Randall Hardy, and Karl Ryan. Also present: Jason Gage, City Manager; Michael Schrage, Deputy City Manager; Greg Bengtson, City Attorney; and Shandi Wicks, City Clerk. AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Blanchard congratulated the Kansas Wesleyan University football team on the recent win and the upcoming participation in the NAIA Championship. CITIZEN FORUM None. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR A CERTAIN TIME None. ICONSENT AGENDA (6.1) Approve the minutes of November 9, 2015. Commissioner Davis noted a correction to the minutes. Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. ADMINISTRATION None. IDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS (8.1) Application No. Z15-11, (filed by South Ohio Land, LLC), requesting approval of Article IV, Division 14 of the Salina Zoning Ordinance by amending the C-6 (Heavy Commercial) district regulations to add multi -family dwellings to the list of conditional uses in Section 42-333. (8.1a) First reading Ordinance No. 15-10812. Dean Andrew, Director of Planning, explained the request, Planning Commission recommendation and action options. Page 1 Jason Gage, City Manager, stated in the GIS system the land owned by the South Ohio Land, LLC was zoned PC -6 and the report mentions the land zoned as C-6 and asked staff for clarification. Mr. Andrew stated that the land was approved as a PC - 6. Commissioner Hardy asked if the land located within Liberty Addition was designated as a C-6 zoned property. Mr. Andrew stated the property was designated on the future land use map as a future employment center. Commissioner Hardy asked if this item would require a revision to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Andrew stated if the item was approved, the amendment would allow a property owner or applicant to submit an application to have multi- family dwellings on a C-6 zoned property subject to normal review. He also stated it did not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in order to approve the text amendment. Mr. Andrew stated if the question pertained to the specific Liberty Addition land, it would require an amendment to the land use map to allow for housing in an area that was currently shown as an employment center. Michael Schrage, Deputy City Manager, stated with a quick count of the C-6 zonings, there were 20 geographic locations including 50 to 60 individual parcels that were zoned C-6 and would be affected by the text amendment. He also stated a review would require 60 different analyses depending on each C-6 zoned property. A conversation ensued between the Commission, Mr. Andrew and Mr. Schrage regarding the C-6 zoned parcels and the requirement to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Blanchard asked for the locations of the other C-6 zoned properties. Mr. Schrage stated from the map provided in the packet, the properties shaded in green were zoned C-1 through C-5 and the red shaded properties were zoned C-6. Mayor Blanchard asked if it was necessary for the text amendment to come before the Comprehensive Plan amendment and provided his thoughts on the matter. Mr. Andrew stated an applicant that owned C-6 zoned property could not apply without a text amendment occurring first. Commissioner Davis asked why multi -family housing was not allowed in the C-6 zone. Mr. Andrew stated multi -family housing was not allowed in any zoning district initially and the creation of a conditional use permit was developed. Commissioner Davis asked why the C-6 district was not included in the ability to apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Andrew stated the properties staff was dealing with in 1994 were located in the C-5 district and there were less C-6 zoned property than C-5 zoned property at that time. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Andrew pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan and down zoning. Commissioner Crawford provided her thoughts on multi -family dwellings located in the heavy commercial district. Page 2 Commissioner Hardy asked if the commercial classes have a relationship with density. Mr. Andrew stated no and the reason the proposed text amendment refers to any development in the C-6 district utilizing the R-3 district standard for density was because the commercial districts did not regulate density but multi -family districts did. Commissioner Crawford asked if a multi -family dwelling would be built, could a heavy commercial business be located next to the dwelling. Mr. Andrew stated yes and if the C-6 district was amended to add multi -family dwellings to the list of conditional uses, an application would be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine if the plan provided the appropriate buffers or transitions between the properties. Commissioner Davis asked if a multi -family dwelling and a heavy commercial business would be located side by side, who would be required to install the screening fence. Mr. Andrew stated the required setbacks, buffer and screening fence would need to be installed by the property owner that developed second. Commissioner Hardy asked for the difference between a text amendment process and spot zoning. Mr. Andrew stated spot zoning would zone a single parcel in a district and a text amendment would amend the entire district. A conversation ensued between Commission, Mr. Andrew and Mr. Schrage regarding spot zoning and text amendments. Commissioner Davis asked what the original intent was for the property. Mr. Andrew stated the property was intended to be a business park. Mayor Blanchard provided his thoughts on the comprehensive plan and the agenda item. Mr. Gage provided information from Section 2-14 and 2-15 of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to profiles of the primary uses. He asked what the profile of the commercial zoned area was and what the secondary uses were. Mr. Andrew stated the primary uses would be light industrial, warehousing, processing, educational facilities, and airport and the secondary uses would be office and retail service. Mr. Schrage stated looking at the map of C-6 zoning, with the exception to the Liberty Addition and Enterprise Drive, the remaining areas were located on Crawford, Broadway, Pacific and Ninth Street with one location on Santa Fe and Ohio. He asked Mr. Andrew if he had a sense or prediction of multi -family dwellings being located in one of those locations. Mr. Andrew stated multi -family dwellings were allowed in C-1 through C-5 districts, you would be relying on the Planning Commission to serve as the filter for appropriate locations. Commissioner Davis asked for Mr. Andrew's non-binding opinion on what types of businesses would be appropriate for C-6 zoned area with housing. Mr. Andrew stated in his non-binding opinion, he felt there would be more conflicts between residential and C-6 than you would between residential and C-1. Mayor Blanchard asked for the significant distinction between C-6 and I-2. Mr. Andrew stated in any commercial zones, all parking, driving and maneuvering areas would be required to be paved and the front yard landscaping would be Page 3 15-0442 required but in the I-2 district paving and front yard landscaping would be discretionary or voluntary. Commissioner Davis asked if there were options to address a specific C-6 property and not address any other properties within the C-6. Mr. Andrew stated if the text amendment was approved, anyone within the district could apply for a conditional use permit and anyone who owned property in the C-3, C-5 or C-6 zoned area could apply for a change in zoning. Commissioner Davis provided his thoughts on the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map and asked when the annual review of both would occur. Mr. Andrew stated the review normally took place in March of each year. Commissioner Hardy asked how the Future Land Use Map could be amended. Mr. Andrew stated an application would have to be filed, review and action on the application by the Planning Commission and the City Commission. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Andrew regarding the various zoning districts and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gage stated the final determination should come if the request was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Hardy asked for the purpose of the Future Land Use Map. Mr. Andrew stated the Future Land Use Map would be considered a guide. James Hall, 1525 E. North Street, provided information on the request. Commissioner Davis asked if the property was zoned C-6 when the property was purchased. Mr. Hall stated the property was a vacant field when purchased. A conversation ensued between the Commission, Mr. Hall and Mr. Gage regarding the zoning of the property. Commissioner Hardy asked how many projects or vacant lots were in the area. Mr. Hall stated there were 15 to 16 lots that could be split into smaller lots. Commissioner Ryan asked who owned the I-2 zoned area on the map displayed on the overhead. Mr. Hall stated the South Ohio Land, LLC owned the I-2 area. Commissioner Crawford asked if there were public improvements in the area. Mr. Hall stated the sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water services were located in the area. Moved by Commissioner Davis to postpone Ordinance No. 15-10812 on first reading to the November 23, 2015 meeting. Motion died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Ryan provided his thoughts on the request and the approval by the Planning Commission. A conversation ensued between the Commission and Mr. Gage regarding the Comprehensive Plan in relation to the agenda item. Mr. Andrew stated the question asked to staff was what type of application would need to be filed to allow a multi -family dwelling on the specific location in a C-6 Page 4 15-0443 zoned area. Mr. Andrew stated he felt a request for a text amendment would need to be filed first. Mr. Gage asked if the request today was approved, would the Comprehensive Plan have to also be amended. Mr. Andrew stated yes. Commissioner Davis provided his thoughts on the request and amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gage asked staff if time allowed could a tandem item be brought back to the City Commission with a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a text amendment. Mr. Andrew stated yes but he would need assistance in guiding the property owner with future questions regarding the request. Mayor Blanchard asked for the distinction between the C-5 zoning district and the C-6 zoning district. Mr. Andrew stated the C-6 zoning district was zoned heavy commercial allowing warehouses and wholesale houses that the C-5 zoning district did not allow. Commissioner Hardy asked if the Comprehensive Plan amendment could be acted on first. Mr. Gage stated the text amendment would need to be addressed within 120 days from the date the packet was received. Mayor Blanchard asked how long the Planning Commission had to review the item. Mr. Schrage stated the Planning Commission had 40 days to review and act on the item. Mr. Andrew stated the soonest the Planning Commission could review the item would be January 5, 2016 and the City Commission could review the item on January 25, 2016. Mayor Blanchard asked if there was an appeal process. Mr. Andrew stated that the Planning Commission would simply be making a recommendation to the City Commission and the City Commission's motion would be the final determination. Mayor Blanchard asked about sending the item back to the Planning Commission and the possible outcome of the review. Mr. Andrew stated the text amendment application could be returned to the Planning Commission for review concurrently. Mr. Gage asked how the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan would take place. Mr. Andrew stated the application would be filed by staff on the City Commission's behalf. Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to send the item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, to ask staff to initiate the process for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to look at the narrative associated with the text amendment and to have the Planning Commission advise the City Commission on the text amendment in coordination of the reconsideration of the text amendment. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS (9.1) Request for executive session (trade secrets). Page 5 15-0444 w 15-045 15-0446 15-0447 15-0448 Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes to discuss confidential data relating to the financial affairs and trade secrets of a corporation for the reason that public discussion of the information would competitively disadvantage the corporation and reconvene at 7:05 p.m. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 6:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m. No action was taken. Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Hardy, to extend the current executive session for an additional 30 minutes. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened at 7:35 p.m. No action was taken. Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Crawford, to extend the current executive session for an additional 15 minutes. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. No action was taken. Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to extend the current executive session for an additional 10 minutes. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. The City Commission recessed into executive session at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Davis, that the regular meeting of the Board of City Commissioners be adjourned. Aye: (5). Nay: (0). Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. [SEAL] I ATTEST: J-t6&YA Shandi Wicks, CMC, City Clerk MeW41,Uay.01 Rah �ha Page 6