Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Tuesday, August 4th meeting of the City of Salina Planning Commission. Daisy, can you confirm that the Kansas Open Meeting Act required notice has been properly provided?

Yes, I can confirm that the packet was posted and the required notice was provided.

Thank you, Daisy. Roll call, please.

Commissioner McFadden. Here.

There it goes.

Commissioner Rogers? Here. Commissioner Mikesell? Here. Commissioner Ault?

Here.

Commissioner Van Covern? Here. Commissioner Pankritz? Here. Vice Chair Farber? Here. And Chair Waters? Here. So with eight out of eight members, we have a quorum and we can proceed with business.

Thank you, Daisy. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the July 21st meeting, not unless there are some corrections. If so, please state those.

I beg of that motion. Second.

Moved and seconded to approve the meeting minutes from July 21. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right. Moving into the public hearing items.

All right, good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the commission. This afternoon I'm presenting application number ZMA26-005, which is a request for a zoning map amendment for a 3.96 acre tract at 635 West Diamond Drive from C7 Highway Commercial to C5 Service Commercial. So I'll walk through the request and some of the background, and then we'll get into the staff analysis under the rezoning criteria. So I wanted to note up front that you guys are acting as a recommending body on a zoning map amendment. So that will go as a recommendation to the city commission following this hearing. So the applicant in this case is Salina Investments LLC on behalf of the property owners, Continental Overseas LLC and Bonamati LLC. The request is a zoning map amendment from C7 Highway Commercial to C5 Service Commercial. The property, like I said, is a 3.96 acre tract, 172,542 square feet, located north of Interstate 70 on the south side of West Diamond Drive. The full legal description is up on the screen. It's also in your staff report there. So this property is currently zoned C7 Highway Commercial. The surrounding zoning is I2 Industrial to the north across West Diamond Drive, C7 Commercial to the east, A1 and the Interstate 70 right away to the south, and C7 to the west. On the west boundary, I'll note that the adjacent property was recommended for rezoning to C5 by the Planning Commission on July 21st, and that has already went through City Commission and been approved. Yeah, sorry, lost my spot. That was ordinance number 26-11294. It will go next month. Oh, I'm sorry, yep. Yep. August 10th. Dates are off. So that property remains on C7 until the commission acts on it. So some brief history on this property. It was platted in February of 1974 and currently operates as a Motel 6. The property immediately to the west at 645 West Diamond Drive was the subject of that previous rezoning application, which requested the same change from C7 to C5. This corridor has a history of infrastructure improvement. In the mid 2000s, the city authorized an infrastructure master plan for the West Diamond Drive area. And in 2008, a special benefit district was formed to finance paving, a looped water system for fire protection, and sanitary and storm sewer extensions. So those improvements are complete and serve their properties along Diamond Drive today. The request itself is, again, rezoning from C7 to C5. The reason behind it is that the property owner wants to submit a conditional use permit application to convert the existing Motel 6 into a residential apartment complex with 48 studio units and 18 one bedroom units for a total of 66 units. The C7 district does not permit multi-family residential dwellings. And the C-5 district allows them, but only as a conditional use, which would require a separate application and a separate public hearing and the Planning Commission approval before that could be established. So the rezoning here is the first step, and it doesn't by itself authorize the apartment conversion here. So getting into the next one would be zoning ordinance requirements for C-5. One C5 standard worth flagging right now is that an existing non-residential building, when it's converted to multifamily use, the conversion has to meet the lot size requirements of the R3 district in addition to C5 bulk regulations. R3 requires a minimum lot area of 1,000 square feet per unit and not less than 6,000 square feet per unit. not less than 6,000 square feet total. A minimum lot width of 60 feet and a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. So for the proposed use that would occur as planned here, that works out to a minimum lot area of 66,000 square feet. And this property is at 172,542 square feet with roughly 370 feet of width and 525 feet of average depth. So this property exceeds those standards. These requirements don't govern your action on the map amendment today necessarily because they are for what will come later. But just as looking at what the use is going, what the property would be used for, you might want to consider it. In the next slide for suitability of the site for development, there's no evidence in the record that the property can't be continued under its current use as the Motel 6. It's in active use today. But the applicant's request isn't based on inability to use the property as zoned. It's a request to pursue a use that the C7 district doesn't allow. Hotels and motels are permitted in C5 as well. So the existing use would remain permitted if the rezoning is approved. The requested amendment would extend the C5 zoning already established along this stretch of West Diamond Drive eastward rather than creating an isolated zoning district. Also note that the flood zone here, the southern portion of the property lies within the AE flood zone and the existing motel building and parking areas are outside the mapped flood zone boundary. The MAP amendment doesn't authorize any construction, but any future building addition or site work within the flood zone would be subject to floodplain review, including elevating the lowest floor at least one foot above the base flood elevation. And getting into character of the neighborhood, the neighborhood along the West Diamond Drive is a mix of highway commercial, service commercial, and light industrial uses. To the north is I2 Industrial, to the east C7 Commercial, to the south Agricultural Land and the Interstate 70 Right-of-Way. And to the west is the C7 parcel that this commission recommended for rezoning to C5 on July 21st. The uses permitted in the C5 district are consistent with the retail service and lodging uses already present along the corridor. And staff isn't aware of any changed conditions in the area that are driving this request. It appears to be driven by the owner's redevelopment objectives. And getting into public utilities, storm drainage and services. The site is served by existing public utilities, an eight inch water line and an eight inch sanitary sewer line, both located in West Diamond Drive. The site's fully developed with existing storm drainage infrastructure installed through the benefit district improvements. The rezoning itself doesn't authorize new development or occupancy, and the existing infrastructure was sized for the commercial and lodging uses permitted in both districts. Staff has identified no public facility deficiencies that would result from a change in the district classification here. The specific impacts of introducing 66 residential units, including effects on schools, fire, and police protection, will be analyzed under the conditional use permit when that comes in. The next slide would be streets and traffic. The property takes direct access from West Diamond Drive. The uses permitted in C5 generally generate traffic comparable to or less intensive than the highway commercial uses allowed under the C7 zoning. The applicant states that the 66 apartment units would be similar in scale to the current motel, so no adverse traffic impact is anticipated. As with the other development specific factors, the traffic profile of the proposed apartment complex would be analyzed in more detail with that conditional use permit review. Looking at conformance with the comprehensive plan. The future land use map designates this property as commercial. The comprehensive plan identifies C5 as one of the districts that implements the commercial category. So both the existing C7 and the requested C5 are consistent with the plan. No plan amendment is required for this one. The request meets the plan's locational criteria sitting adjacent to a major thoroughfare and conforms to its development criteria for corridor transitions. And I'll note one point here, one other point here, is that the primary uses the plan identifies for commercial category are retail service, office, and civic and institutional uses. Multifamily residential is not among them. This doesn't affect conformance of the MAP amendment itself, because C-5 is identified as an implementing district for commercial. The plan consistency specific to that multi-family proposal would be a question again for the conditional use permit so as far as staff analysis here to pull all of this together the property is developed with a motel operating under the current c7 zoning use permitted in both the c7 and the c5 districts so the amendment changes the range of commercial uses available rather than displacing the existing use The permitted and conditional uses of the C5 district are consistent with the established character of the West Diamond Drive corridor, and the amendment extends the C5 zoning pattern already in place to the west. The change is fully supported by existing infrastructure and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Impacts specific to the proposed multifamily conversion, including parking, occupancy, and traffic, will be evaluated through that later, that future application. and staff has received no public comments on this application. So getting into Planning Commission alternatives, your alternatives are to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment to the City Commission, to recommend denial to the City Commission, or to postpone consideration to a future date to allow the applicant or staff to provide additional information. And staff would recommend option one, that the commission recommend approval of the zoning map amendment from C-7 to C-5, based on staff's recommended findings in the staff report. If the commission recommends approval, a 14-day protest period will run through August 18th, and the application will be forwarded to the city commission for consideration by ordinance, tentatively scheduled for August 24th. The recommended motion is up on the screen here. I can read that.

out if needed and that concludes our presentation and welcome to ask any questions you might have okay thank you dustin i was very thorough appreciate it commissioners are there any questions of staff uh is the ownership is that still remain a motel 6 ownership or is somebody else going to be purchasing that from motel 6 and redoing this i believe it's the ownership is It doesn't make any difference. I'm just kind of curious.

I'm pulling it up on the GIS right now to see.

I'll jump in here. I'm representing the applicants. Ownership is currently held by Continental Overseas LLC and Banu Mati LLC, so not necessarily by Motel 6.

And will that continue? And will that continue ownership?

Yes, I believe that is the current plan.

Thank you.

All right, commissioners, are there any other questions of staff?

I have one, Dustin. We've heard a lot of stuff about the need for housing in Salina. Have we heard anything about the need for hotel or temporary lodging, that type of thing?

Good question. I don't have information. I'm not familiar with what the current need is for lodging for hotel and motel, to be honest. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you. I have one question. I was a little confused reading through this that the primary purpose of this zoning change was for a multifamily use, which is not included in the C-5. So this is almost banking on a conditional use later down the line.

That's the overall goal here. And it is a little bit of, there's a little bit of putting in those details so you do have the proper context here that that's a future application. But to also keep in mind that we are doing We are going through the rezoning criteria and one of those that I touched on was that the current use is also allowed in C5, so you wouldn't be excluding the current use. So that's probably a little bit more on point to this, the review of the criteria. It is true though, they're going to need to submit a conditional use permit application and that will be reviewed independently, so that's not decided right now. Sure. It's context that may help you understand the situation, but it's not necessarily, looking at that multifamily is not necessarily probably the primary

factors here. I agree. And I concur. And I don't have a problem with the zoning change. It's almost like they're putting all of their eggs in the basket that perhaps down the line this could happen. Yeah, it's not a permitted use in the C-5. It is a conditional use.

So it is a listed use in that district, but it's just one that requires that additional review just because of that. And I know that's not why we're here tonight. I get it completely. That's fine. It's good to help clarify that. We do have to put some of those details in just to give you context of the situation so that you understand that they do have kind of a path they need to follow. would prevent them from doing the CUP until it's in a zone that allows you to do it as a conditional use.

But the motel is a permitted use in the C5, correct? So there will be no cessation of business or anything? No. Thank you.

So why wouldn't they ask for a zone that they can change it to multifamily instead of just this one where they can get a conditional?

Well, do you have a GIS up?

Yep.

Let's put the zoning up on there. So the short answer is that the surrounding zoning is all C5 or C7, or it's industrial to the north. So you don't have any adjacent zoning that you could really put it into that would allow multifamily just as a permitted use. So the best approach here would be to zone it to something that allows multifamily and get that conditional use permit. I mean, get a plan and everything that works well and meets all the criteria.

And so that they can continue operations with the business that they have now.

Yeah, I don't have any idea on the projected timeline on that conversion.

So looking at contiguous zoning to the sub, so where my cursor is, is the subject property. Space here is the property that was the subject of your last rezoning request that's going before the city commission Monday. So in the direct vicinity you've got C5, you've got I2, and then this is actually highway right of way and is not annexed into the city. So it does not have a zoning classification, a city zoning classification. So if the intent is to do a multifamily, the only option to not create spot zoning or not create a one-off zoning district would be to request the C5 zoning.

So you typically have to, you need to expand the zones based on what's adjacent to them usually, or that's what the criteria set up around part of it is what's adjacent to it. Is it Is it within the character of what's around it? There are judgment calls on how far you go with that. But if you were to go down to a district that actually allows multifamily as a permitted use, you would be looking at R3. And keeping in mind that the zoning classifications are kind of One goes to the next. They go from the most restrictive to the least restrictive. So most restrictive being A1 or RS. RS would be the most restrictive one for residential. Requires large lots, low lot coverage, large setbacks. And then you get up to something like I3. It would be on the other end of the spectrum. It doesn't have... setback requirements as much as sides and rear and you don't have to have as big of a setback. It allows signs right at the property line, allows fences. If you say allowed uses are permitted or conditional, it's just that that segment, that second group requires an additional review.

All right, commissioners, I'm going to have the applicant on and we'll open it up to questions for her. And I have a question. I was just curious if you could give us some history on how this come about and did you do a study to find that this would be a good location for a multifamily facility?

I will first of all clarify that I am as a representative, as an attorney. So I am not actively the person doing the planning on that side. But, oh, I believe that there have been plans and studies on the building and on the feasibility of this. I don't have those in front of me now.

OK, that's all right. That's fine. Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any other questions of the attorney?

That was exactly the question I had. Okay.

All right. Very good. All right.

I have one.

Yes, go ahead, Dan.

I'm curious if this application is in any way related to the last application for rezoning that we had two weeks ago for the property next door on Diamond Drive. Is there a future? Are these going to be related in some way in the near future?

No, that is not the current plan. The prior application was chiefly to make sure that those two Bobcat of Salina properties are zoned in the same way in the event there is future development, and also with the knowledge that this application would also be submitted. But there's not a plan for that Bobcat property to be included in this project, if that's your question.

That's my question. Thank you.

All right, commissioners, are there any other questions of the attorney? All right, hearing none, is there anyone from the public in the room today that would like to address the commissioners? Okay. Gage, is there anyone online other than the two that would like to speak?

Nope. The only people on Zoom are the applicant and then Mr. McFadden, Commissioner McFadden.

All right. Thank you, Gage. All right, Commissioners, I'd open it up for discussion or motion.

Well, this seems like a pretty easy one. I don't think that we are hurting ourselves. We are certainly staying within the comprehensive plan. So I would move that we recommend to the city commission that application ZMA 26-005, a request to rezone the subject property from C7 to C5, be approved based on the staff's recommended findings as set out in the staff's report. Second.

Moved and second to approve this application. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right, commissioners, let's move on. Dustin, do we have any new business, unfinished?

We do not have any other items today on today's agenda. planning to have a preliminary discussion item, but we ended up needing some more discussion on that internally before we bring that before the Planning Commission.

Okay. All right. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on any other topic? Okay. Hearing Gage one more time.

There is nobody from the public on Zoom.

All right. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved. And second.

Moved and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner.