Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recall the July 16, 2026, Reno County Planning Commission meeting to order. Staff, will you please call the roll? Knisley? Here. Strand? Here. Schaefer? Seltzer? Here. Macklin? Martin? Here. And Gerson? Here. Welcome to everyone. In your packets, there were the minutes from the June 18 Planning Commission meeting. I hope you had the chance to review those. Chair? Mr. Chair, you want to note the correction in the minutes, please? Yep, I sure can. On page 25, about two-thirds, three-fourths down the page, it was stated that the chairman closed the public hearing. That was incorrect. Staff has changed it in the official meetings and official minutes. The public hearing for that case was not closed. It was continued as the motion stated below it. Just so you're aware.

Okay, I would move that the minutes be approved as amended.

Second. Second. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor of approving June 18 Planning Commission minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. The Kansas Supreme Court has defined a conditional use permit public hearing as a quasi-judicial function to ensure the rights of all parties of interest and to provide an opportunity for each party to address the Planning Commission in an orderly manner. The Planning Commission will follow the fact-finding procedure, which is outlined in the handout in each chair. Your attention to this procedure is appreciated. If a recommendation is made tonight, that recommendation will be based upon the record of information presented to the Planning Commission. The county commissioners will not conduct a separate public hearing or accept additional written documents. The county commissioners will consider written requests for additional public comment or documents based only on valid claims that the public hearing process was incomplete or based upon new information which has become available since the public hearing. For purposes of this County Commission policy, a public hearing is considered incomplete only if the Planning Commission failed to follow its procedural guidelines, which resulted in a denial of due process to a party of interest, or if the Planning Commission failed to allow an interested party an opportunity for public comment. For purposes of the County Commission policy, new information shall pertain only to germane information which did not exist at the time of the public hearing or which was unknown or could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence. An example of that may be a traffic study completed after the Planning Commission recommendation. Planning Commission recommendation to the county commissioners will be accompanied by a summary of proceedings before the Planning Commission at its public hearing, along with the report and recommendation of the county planner, letters, informal petitions, and other information constituting the record of proceedings provided to the Planning Commission before and during the public hearing. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation after tonight's public hearing, this case will be presented to the County Commissioners at their next available meeting after the protest period expires. Contact Planning staff or visit the website for County Commissioner agenda items. Any party who wishes to require the county commissioners decide this case by supermajority vote may file a protest petition pursuant to KSA 12-757 at the office of the Reno County Clerk, 125 West 1st Avenue, Hutchinson, Kansas, within 14 days following the decision by the Planning Commission. The form is on the Reno County website Planning Department webpage. I will now formally, you know, we have some old business. I will entertain a motion to open the discussion again on case 202604. Motion to remove it from the table. Gotcha. So moved. It's been moved. Is it seconded? Moved and seconded. All in favor of removing 202604 from the table, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. I'll reopen the case in 2026-04, a request by Sam Marjorie Miller, agent Lance Yoder, for a conditional use permit to establish a retail store that sells a variety of backyard structures on Land Zone R1, rural residential district. The property is located at the northeast corner of East Red Rock Road and South Yoder Road. This was tabled from, just for note, it was tabled from the June 18 meeting. Have any Planning Commission members had any outside contacts regarding this case? No. Do any Planning Commission members have any conflict of interest in this case? No. Will the applicant please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes to present your case. Additional time may be allotted to the applicant at the discretion of the chair Planning Commission members may request clarification at the end of your presentation or may have questions Good afternoon, I'm Lance Yoder currently reside at 3805 West Mills Avenue Hutchinson, Kansas

I'm the owner of Gator Lawn Structures. We retail a variety of backyard structures, mortise and tenon, timber frame pavilions, pergolas, poly swing sets, greenhouses, chicken coops, and hunting lines. I'm sorry, I wasn't able to be here last month. I was out of town. That's the, you can see there, we changed some of the parking and display areas since last month's meeting. We have 15 consecutive parking spaces on the south edge there. And then the grass display area there is about 80 feet wide and then about 50 feet by 80 feet display area there. And then there would be some small displays around the corner here. We will keep the site triangle open. 60 feet or 90 feet, whatever was approved back from Yoder Road and Red Rock Road. We'll keep that open and only have small displays if we have any displays in this area to keep that visibility open. And then if we have bigger items, greenhouses, some of those solid bigger items would be along Red Rock Road there as well. So currently I go out usually to people's places, meet them Discuss whatever they want to purchase. Looking at purchasing with a showroom, I could display the options there. They could see the options. And often I have people going past the lot and they call me and ask for information. With building their office and being there all the time, they would just stop in and we could discuss. So I know there was some concern with the displays along Yoder Road. That's a big factor for me with the way the business is. I mean, that's most of the reason that I have this location is for displaying my items along Yoder Road is a very good location for that. A lot of traffic from Wichita to Hutch and back and forth. So... Yeah, I think that's about all I have for now.

Thank you. Okay.

Does the board have any questions for you? I do. I'm going to hop back up here for just a second.

There was some concern about the display area and keeping it orderly and clean. You have a plan in place. That's kind of what you want to do to address that concern. Yeah, good question.

I was going to mention there would be a black a fence but some fence going along here and then you know we have someone scheduled every two weeks someone mows the lot keeps it all mowed weeded and everything so it stays clean and that's a big thing with my playgrounds and the items that I do I'm very particular about having a clean lot looking orderly and yeah trashy or low-class or anything So yeah, I think with the fence along there, that would add a nice accent to it. And this area in here is currently a rubber mulch area where that swing set is sitting. I would envision having some more area rubber mulch where the swing set playgrounds would be.

How often does your inventory turn? Does it sit there for quite a while, or does it turn fairly regularly?

It varies. Some of the items, greenhouses, some of those are only a few weeks, sometimes a week or two, sometimes a month or two, depends what part of the year. Swing sets tend to be there a little bit longer, possibly up to a year at the most. Everything would be less than a year at the most, and then I would get new displays in and rotate them, so keeping it clean, looking fresh and neat.

Since you're proposing along your road, you said wood or metal of some kind. Would that be like an open wood fence or solid wood?

Yeah, like an open two-rail wood fence or maybe a pipe tube or a pipe fence. It would be open. Yeah, I know. I would only be four or five feet tall.

Can you clarify the permanent structures for me? Because this is... Quite different than what we looked at last month.

Yeah, so here would be the 40 by 50 showroom office area, and then the 50 by 60 would be the shop area where we would build items. And then it would have a 10-foot wraparound porch here.

How far is that from your north lawn?

Here would be the 10-foot storage area then. That would be fenced in with a privacy fence, solid privacy fence for rubber mulch and some things like that. And that's right on the edge. The edge of the waterway would be it. It's about 10 feet from the edge of the waterway there.

And what's the figure there along Red Rock Road? It looks kind of like a building, but I don't know what it is.

It's a grain trailer right now.

I think there was a grain trailer and a cultivator or something there for sale and the picture was taken. The farm equipment would be removed then. I would have all that display area for my items then.

I know we discussed at great length the storage area last month and that prompted the meeting tonight. The discussion we had was have it contained with kind of the dimensions, the width of the dimensions of the building. You have it drawn up to where it wraps clear around the basically Yoder Road and Red Rock. Is that how you envision your plan?

Yeah, the main area would be lined up with the edge of the building or the outside edge of the porch. Yeah, from there north would be the main area. And then if that would get full or there isn't enough room there, there might be some smaller items here. But like the greenhouses or the solid items that aren't transparent to C3 with the site triangle would be back along here then or in this area. Yeah, it was about 15 or 20 feet, I think, in here. So there wasn't much room for displays there. And then the parking flow would come in and park and then back out and loop around and back out.

time we'll hear from staff.

Mark Vaughn, Ashland County Planner. Last month As you recall, this board continued this public hearing until tonight, and they requested that the applicant provide you a new site plan and a more detailed description of some of the products that he is going to be selling. Those documents are included in your packet. I've included the previous slides that we looked at last month here, looking at some of the differences. This is the original site plan. Where you see that there was going to be an 80 foot by 80 foot display area along Red Rock Road. He's going to have some parking over here and then a smaller display area here. The outside storage area was still the same here. So that was the original plan. The board had some concerns with that and requested a new plan B. Submitted as mr. Chairman said you know that the display area was probably gonna be no no further south than the northern edge of that building then on June 30th this plan was submitted showing the main display area being here and keeping in line with the porch then also going down and around your road and heading east toward Red Rock until you get to the I don't really have a lot of comments. I don't need to reread my report and ask everything that we did last month here. I'm just going to try intersection of Red Rock and Yoder Road. This would be Yoder Road looking to the north there. There's a lot of discussion last month, too, about site triangles and having things displayed in this part of the property here. So this week what I did, and unfortunately I didn't make it in your packet, but I did include a series of site triangle layouts here for your information here. This first slide here shows you what a 90 foot by 60 foot side triangle would look like. 90 foot being going from the center of the intersection north on Yota Road, the 60 foot going east along Red Rock Road. As you can see by the triangle here, those dimensions don't even really get you out. Next I did a 90 by 90, and again, what you're looking at here, the black lines are like the electric poles to kind of help you a little bit. And the electric poles are in the right of way. So even a 90 by 90 side trailer really doesn't get you out of the existing road right of way, which nothing can be put in there anyway. No fencing, no displays of items or anything. Next I did a 120 foot which is another common dimension by 90 foot and again we're getting close but we're still not out of the road right of way. Then lastly what I did was a 120 by 120 side triangle and you can see finally we are getting into the very corner of his property right there beyond that electric pole right there at that intersection so that would be a 120 by 120 side triangle. And that somewhat matches his black line right in here where he would not put anything in that intersection. So I have my original conditions of approval that I presented to the board last month based off of that discussion where I think the board was headed and after that testimony I kind of rewrote some of those conditions and This board has some work to do as to whether you want to accept the original conditions of approval. Do you want to accept these conditions of approval that I'm going to present to you tonight? Or do you want to go in a totally different direction and create your own set of conditions of approval? Or obviously you still have the option of recommending denial of this. The new conditions of approval, which I've included on page 26, would be approve as per the 30th, 2026, and then the owner would be permitted to exceed the requirements of Article 9-104. Remember, Article 9-104 limits the amount of outdoor display of items here. The owner shall provide the 15 parking saws as Mr. Yeller had said. The saws are going to be located right along here. You'll come in off of Red Rock Road And like he had mentioned, you'll come around the cul-de-sac and then exit right back out onto Yoder Road. There will not be any, or excuse me, Red Rock Road. There will not be any kind of access along Yoder Road. The third one, and this is kind of where I got into the site triangle concerns here. I just said that prior to the installation or placement of any perimeter fence, ground sign, or merchandise on the parcel... The applicant shall review with the Public Works Department the request for any motor vehicle vision or side triangle concerns. So essentially, if this is recommended for approval and approved ultimately by the County Commission, then I'd expect to have some further conversations with the applicant and owner along with the Director of Public Works on this. What type of fence can be put in here? What type of merchandise can be put in here? Exactly where do we want to limit the amount and display of items here? Is this adequate? Does he need to go further in? So essentially, I think it's going to be a conversation between the applicant and the director of public works, and ultimately it will be the director of public angle needs to come into the property. Like I say, the one slide I had, a 120 by 120 is not a lot of property. Is that enough or does it need to be a little bit more? That'll be a discussion we'll have to have in the future if this is ultimately approved. Any lighting of a sign, the parking area of the building shall be shielded and directed onto the property. No lights on the sign shall be directed onto South Yoder Road or East Red Rock Road. And then the rest of the conditions are our standard conditions that we always have on all conditional use permits, which essentially says that the applicant has to be in compliance with all conditions. anything that is out of the ordinary then, then he would have to come back for review before this board for determination if a new conditional use permit is approved. I did add, again, not in your staff report, a possible other condition for your consideration, and that would be that the parcel may not be used for the display or sale of motor vehicles. Motor vehicles not permitted to be driven on the county road. In other words, ATVs or UTVs, those types of vehicles. semi-trailers, trailers, or other farm machinery without a new conditional use permit. So that would solve the concern about having a grain trailer or farm implements, somebody's semi-truck that they want to sell. I think that was discussed last month with this board. It's going to be a used implement, used car dealership as well. If you add that conditional approval, then that would not be a So I will stand for further questions. If you want to add that, then the suggested motion, you'd have to change it to say that there'd be nine conditions of approval.

I have one question. Mark, I mean, you know, one of the big concerns is the side triangle down there, and where he's got that black diagonal line at the corner, would that be solved if he were just to make that his fence? In other words, cut the corner diagonally? They're at the fence line, you know, so that it doesn't come out to a square corner there at the intersection.

We had a discussion on June 30th at the fence, whether it's wrought iron or a split rail type of fence, you know, that, yeah, that it angles off and gets out of that intersection.

You can set that back a few more feet because, you know, that's not usable space really. I want like 20 feet there. Right.

site triangles, and I looked at Hutchinson's definition. We have a definition, but it's not as detailed as what city of Hutchinson is, and usually the site triangle, they say it's gonna be no items or anything that are between two and a half feet to 10 feet in height should be located in that area. So if you had some small bushes, plantings that stay below two and a half feet, that's not gonna be a concern about that.

Mark, is there a standard measurement for this site triangle at an intersection? Or does it just depend on the intersection? You gave several examples there.

In our regulations, we do not have those standards here. The site triangle is often based off of the classification of the road. Is this a local subdivision? arterial road. And side triangles typically will come into play in a city limit setting. So if you think about, say, the city of Hutchinson, if you've got 30th Avenue, 17th Avenue, those would be considered major arterial roads throughout the city. So you're going to have something in the range of 90 to 120 feet, whereas if that road comes into contact with a local subdivision street with not a lot of traffic, lower speeds, your other measurement might be in the 60 range, and so your site triangle is going to be shrunk. But it's really based off the road classifications that are for the different roads. In the county, we don't have that as much. We have a bunch of township roads. This just happens to be a major... major county road here. And so when you do all the calculations and the measurement, because it's such a wide right-of-way, by the time you bring that out to that county road, you don't have anything but the intersection right there.

So whatever you decide as far as the measurement goes, is that to

Become part of the permit? Ultimately, yeah. It's ultimately going to be if we accept that it's going to be up to the public works director to determine that. And we do that for all kinds of stuff. We don't have sign regulations. We don't have fence regulations. But in those regulations, we say that if you're going to put a fence or sign at the intersection of the road, in order to protect that side triangle so we don't create a vision issue for motorists. So we don't have it specifically number-wise in our regulations. We just say that it has to be approved by Public Works before that fence or that sign can go in on the property.

Can you put up the 120 by 90 again? That's the 120 by 90. So that's really just touching the corner?

Barely, yeah. According to that, it looks like it's just barely touching the intersection. It's just on the other side of the electric pole. I thought it was interesting. I wasn't sure myself. This is just taking off. Yeah, so it's not a scientific measurement. That's a stop sign interception. That's a stop sign interception too, isn't it?

Yeah. So where approximately would the stop sign be located? Back from the roadway or whatever. It might be. I think it's right there. Normally you're supposed to stop before you get to the sign.

school years ago. Yeah, that's right. So it's pretty close to the... Right in there.

I think that's it right there, possibly. If you went to the way in 121.20, you should have plenty of sight on that thing.

Well, this is just a general comment for future reference, but I guess I don't understand why there's not some standard speak, to figure out what's right for this intersection.

As part of that, I think in the county, you have all different types of intersections, different terrain, you know, more of the township roads or some of the county roads where it's hilly and

A lot of the roads out there, township roads, they're uncontrolled intersections.

There's not even a stop sign or even probably a yield sign in a lot of situations. If they are, don't pay attention to them.

Right.

Clarification question, Mark. Are you saying your recommendation is to not have any display along Yoder Road?

That was the original recommendation on my original conditions of approval. And then I provided the board some alternatives based off of that first public hearing we had back in June.

I think we all noted that what makes that track that valuable from a retail standpoint is the site from Yoder Road there.

And so that's why I didn't carry that condition much. You want to accept that plan. Do you like the original plan or do you want something else in between? And this board does have the option to require a different site plan if you want. Saying we want to see something like this. You would also have that option to continue the hearing for a week or two, give him time to come back and prepare another site plan. Our next meeting is, scheduled meeting is August 20th, so if you don't want him to have to wait until August 20th, this board could schedule a meeting, a special meeting earlier if you want something different other than what is shown here or what is on the original site plan.

Can we give you the power to approve the site plan that comes to you as our direction? You can do that if you so choose.

Well, I think it's already in there. It says prior to installation or placement, it's got to be, I consider, reviewed with Public Works. It's on condition, what, three?

I think what this board needs to look at is where do you want merchandise displayed? Do you want it displayed all along Yoder Road? Do you want something different there. What condition three is talking about is the specific types of merchandise being displayed. So what number three is intended to say is that are we going to allow swing sets and large barbecue grills and hunting blinds to be down here or...

I don't think that was from what... Mr. Yoder showed he indicated that would be smaller items. And he had that, I believe, in his written report, too, yeah. So he would be having problems with smaller items along there. Because they're not going to be, shouldn't be interfering with the sight line anyway, because...

So it's still a public hearing and so you're still potentially allowing public comments and then also rebuttal statements and so, okay.

Thank you, Mark. If anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this case, you may have five minutes to comment. Please come forward to the podium one at a time and state your name and address for the record before commenting. Audience members are only permitted... one time at the podium. In the interest of time, if you agree with the comments previously made by audience members, please don't repeat the comments. Simply state you agree with the previous comments and then present new information to the Planning Commission. Statements and questions should only be directed to the Planning Commission, not the applicant or staff. The Planning Commission may choose to not answer questions or engage with the public. Questions regarding the application can be asked to the Planning Commission and answered by the applicant during the rebuttal phase of this public hearing. Seeing none. Do you have any more information to give us? You may have two minutes. Additional time may be allowed at the discretion of the chair.

One or two things I thought of. I am currently, or the guy that does my mowing, he currently mows all the way out to Yoder Road. That's all mowed short, clean, all the way out to Yoder Road. He mows the ditch and everything out to there. I guess, yeah, the site triangle, I realize that is a valid concern. I can think of 20 other places in the county that are way worse than this, in my opinion. I drive a county road every day five miles, or within three miles from our place, that the corn is grown right out to 10 feet of the intersection And that doesn't even have any stop signs. And also the corner of Trails West and Yoder Road, there's trees right out to the corner. You have to go out past the stop sign all the way out almost on Yoder Road, especially with like a big truck or something before you can see traffic on Yoder Road that's going 70 mile an hour versus here it's 40 mile an hour and

the stop sign, a good ways there.

And also, same way with Yoder Charter School or any other corner of the intersection, there's trees, there's chain link fence, there's buildings, there's a lot of other stuff that's way, a lot closer to the intersection than what this would be. But I do realize it is a valid concern and want to keep it open and looking clean. Also mention, or somebody had asked earlier, I'd be fine with putting an angle on this fence, a wrought iron fence, whatever it is, it would come down and angle over and then maybe eventually we'd even put a fence along Red Rock Road. This area here would all be mowed, shore, clean area here, possibly rubber mulch area in there, having a clean display area there.

With the way the business works, that's

Like I mentioned earlier, most of the reason why I chose this location over any other location in the county is because of the traffic and the site. Without that, that's the way the business operates, I guess, or what I run off of. The shop would also be a Big advantage right now, I have guys building in a few of their places, their shops at home, and yeah, I got stuff scattered all over. It'd be nice to have everything in one place, and I think that's all I have.

Thanks.

Staff, do you have any additional comments? I don't, Mr. Chairman.

Mark, can you go back to the picture that shows more of the surrounding area? THE OVERHEAD ONE

Does the Commission have any further questions for the applicant or staff? Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. Acceptance or denial of the conditional use permit must be based on the factors that are listed in the staff report and found in the audience chairs. This is the time for the Planning Commission to discuss this case and ask procedural questions of staff only. Is there any further discussion or questions by the Planning Commission?

I think the only thing I'd like to throw in is that I think if we decide to approve this, that I would be in favor of including that ninth condition that Mark mentioned for the prohibition on sale of motor vehicles or farm equipment. That's not what the applicant is intending at this point. whole set of other issues that we need to discuss. And what did you say about motor vehicles and ATVs?

That would prohibit. It's all inclusive? Yeah, the sale of motor vehicles or farm implements. Any motorized?

That's kind of the way Mark presented it, yes. The way I had it written was the parcel may not be used for the display or sale of motor vehicles Motor vehicles not permitted to be driven on public roads, semi-trailers, trailers, or farm machinery without conditional use permit.

Lawn mowers, riding lawn mowers. Those are vehicles.

Those would be vehicles. According to our definition.

I know the applicant's going to be building a lot of his own stuff, but what about storage containers?

Those would be probably an accessory use and permitted per the regulations. How about for sale?

That wouldn't be underneath this partition. You could use them for his own storage, but if he had them there for sale, then that would...

They'd be coming back because there's no mention of that in the plan of operation of selling shipping containers. He's changed that regulation on shipping containers in R1. It escapes me right now, but, you know, he'd be permitted to have one temporarily or permanently. It would be considered an accessory use. But, yeah, the sale of shipping containers would not be something that's permitted. I knew we had changed the permanent placement. Yeah. I mean, that's why we asked for detailed plan of operations. What are you selling?

Okay. Any other further questions or discussion? If not, the chair will entertain a motion on this case.

I would move the case number 2026, Station Hall, the request by Sam Miller, H. Lance Yoder. The question is, is there any additional use for Richmond-Reedo County zoning regulations to establish a retail store to sell a variety of outdoor structures on a parceled land zone to R1? Rural Residential District be approved based on the ten factors and nine conditions of approval listed in the staff report As amended as heard at this public hearing I further move to approve a waiver from article 10-101 for the number of required parking stalls article 10-105 sub 1 requiring the driveway and parking stalls be paved with asphalt or concrete and And Article 11-101 requiring the owner to install a loading space, all based on the region as listed in the staff report and heard at this public hearing. Second.

Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion in that motion? Have we decided what the site triangle should be?

It's up to Mark. It's covered under that condition number three to where it will be up to staff.

any fencing or whatever. Okay.

Any other discussion on the motion? No. Staff, please call the roll. Nine. Next item of business. For the purpose of speeding the meeting along, just be aware that the statements that I had monitored earlier in the previous case still stand. I'll now formally open the public hearing regarding case number 2026-07. A request by David Grebe, Agent Harlan Eicher, to rezone approximately 1.57 acres of land from R2 Suburban Residential District to R1 Rural Residential District for the purpose of redrawing the parcel boundaries to create two parcels of at least three acres in size. The parcel is located at the northeast corner of East Red Rock Road and South Halstead Street. The address is 9710 South Halstead Street. Do any Planning Commission members have any outside contact regarding this case? No. Do any Planning Commission members have a conflict of interest in this case? No. Okay. Will the applicant please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes to present your case. Additional time may be allotted to the applicant at the discretion of the chair. Planning Commission members may request...

South Parkridge, Kansas, 67566. So I'm representing the daily brief case 2026-07. This request involves the properties located at 9704 South Hallstead and the adjacent property at 9710 South Hallstead. We're requesting that the 1.75 acres at 9710, which is currently zoned R1, sorry, R2, gets rezoned to R1 so we can complete a boundary adjustment between these two parcels. The goal is to reconfigure the property line so both parcels become conforming R1 plots of approximately three acres each. change doesn't change the character or density of the of the neighborhood simply aligns with these parcels you know by adjusting the acreage so we're wanting to rezone rezone the r2 parcel now so we can adjust the property property boundaries a benefit that a benefit for the county is that to make it a bigger parcel we can sell it and hopefully build a house there in the corner, which is too small now to build the house there in the corner. It can be built, but it's pretty tight, and just make it more appealing for buyers who would like to sell the whole parcel. Happy to answer any questions.

On the zoning map that is included with the information here, Appears there's what some out buildings in that are to the parcel There used to be they have been fully cleared and that's been tearing down the Existing house or whatever that is on the other one that would remain Yeah, so yeah all these buildings have been cleared here.

There's a small farm a Little shed that's in here that would be included

Is this the corner where there's been a basement there for about 40 years or something? That's correct. Okay.

It's been quite some time.

Yeah. It was there when I went to South Campus. We won't do the math, but it's been a long time. That basement is still there.

All we've got to do is put a house on it.

As you heard, this is just a request to rezone that one property to R1. The reason is it's kind of a rare occurrence the way our zoning is that we would need to do something like this, but for the fact that this is only about five acres of land, and so Mr. Greaves is not eligible to split that into a separate single-family dwelling park. His decision is to divide Parcel 9 on that map and then add a portion of that to Parcel 7, creating two parcels of ground here. Like you heard, it's not increasing the density or anything like that. Typically, when people do boundary shifts, it's not a need to necessarily rezone a small sliver of that ground to the light zoning district because it's residential property. It only becomes an issue if you want to divide that property. And so here's a situation where, yeah, he wants to divide that property. So the R2 needs to be rezoned after he does that. Then this property will be split, and then that land that is to the east of parcel seven will be added to parcel seven, creating one approximately three acre land. What's left over with parcel nine will also be about a three acre land. Both of them will be conforming parcels of ground. This is the site plan kind of showing what the proposed division would look like. There'd be a slight jog down here, and that's probably so the fact that we can get each parcel above three acres if that rezone is approved. And that's really the simple request that we are here tonight. Having some pictures of it, you can see at that time the parcel had the mobile home on it and a large accessory building that's right here. Here's the aforementioned basement that everybody was talking about. As Mr. Eicher had said, the other two structures have been removed, and I'll have additional pictures of that. This is actually a picture of the property looking... to the west, actually, so you can kind of see the layout of the properties to the south. It's mainly farm ground, a little bit denser development to the north up toward K96. Current pictures as of June of 2025, you can see there's no structures here. Here's the basement, the mobile home has been removed, and the large... Looking across South Hollishead Street, you can see where the mobile home sat and also where the large building sat over there. They've been removed from the property. So there are no conditions of approval associated with any kind of a rezone request. It's strictly about land use. Is it appropriate to rezone this property from R2 to R1? And based off of those factors, staff is an rezone the property to R1. As I stated in the staff report, if for some reason this is approved to R1 and then Mr. Grieve doesn't follow through with the boundary adjustment, now that parcel is going to be considered non-conforming and no permits will be able to be issued on that property. So that's the one thing that needs to be understood is that if it is rezone, the boundary adjustment has to be followed through The boundary adjustment is something that staff approves internally. It doesn't come before this board. When they do that, they'll write a brand new legal description. So this land that's south of here, this new legal description will be added to this, creating a brand new deed for that property. Then they'd be able to sell that. Once they do that, I'd be able to issue a permit for a new house on that property. With that...

As I was reviewing the packet, I noted that you at the border adjustments and jagged lines, but as I looked at the other picture like you have there, that's pretty consistent with the area. Jagged lines is pretty much the way of the land over there. At first, it raised an eyebrow, but then as I looked at it further, it really...

Probably would have been nice to draw it straight across, but I'm guessing that it's... acres of land so if it was put up and straight across like that it would probably make this parcel just short. So that's why you have that. I didn't put a ruler on it but I kind of have that job so it kind of made some sense.

Any other questions for staff? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this case? Does the applicant have any additional statements you want to make? Staff, do you have anything to add? No, sir, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Does the commission have any further questions for the applicant or staff? public hearing is now closed. Acceptance or denial of the conditional use permit or the re-zoning must be based off the factors that are listed in the staff report and found in the audience chairs. It's time the Planning Commission can discuss the case and ask procedural questions of staff only. Is there any further discussion on this case? Chair, we'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move case number 2026-07, the request by David Green, requesting a rezone of approximately 1.57 acres of land from R2, suburban residential district, to R1, rural residential district, be approved based on the 10 factors listed in the staff report and as heard at this public hearing.

Second. Second. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, staff, please call the roll. Knisley? Yes. Strand? Yes. Seltzer? Yes.

Martin? Yes. Ingers? Yes.

Perfect. You're good to go.

Okay, is there any other business that needs to be brought before the Planning Commission?

I was waiting for everybody else. Next month, as you know, we'll have the public hearing on the parking and loading space regulations. Probably after that, since that's the only thing that we'll have on the agenda, maybe we'll do a discussion on future text amendments that you want to do. Maybe come prepared with some ideas again on the next set of regulations that we maybe want to to try and tackle. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Okay.

Anything else from the board? The chair will entertain a motion to adjourn the planning commission. So moved. Second. And moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Planning commission is adjourned. call the July 16 Reno County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. In your packet, you'll have minutes from the June 18th meeting. I trust you got a chance to review those. Chair will entertain a motion on those minutes. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor of approval of the June 18th, 2026 minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Minutes are approved. To ensure the rights of all parties of interest and to provide an opportunity for each party to address the Board of Zoning Appeals, the BZA, in an orderly manner, the BZA will follow the fact-finding procedures which are outlined in the handout on each charity. Your attention to this procedure is appreciated. All decisions by the BZA are final. Decisions may be appealed to the district court within 30 days of the decision. If a decision is made tonight, that decision will be based upon the record of information presented to the BZA. I'll now formally open the public hearing regarding case number 2026-06, a request by Shawn and Judith Teichman for a special exception from the Reno County zoning regulations. To construct a 10 foot by 50 foot residential accessory building, lean to awning onto a 40 by 50 accessory building and permit a total of 2,500 square feet of accessory building square footage. The total square footage of the building exceeds the 2,000 square foot maximum square footage permitted on a parcel less than 2.0 acres in size. The property is zoned R3, single-family residential district, and located on a vacant lot adjacent to 7203 Hickory Way. Have any BZA members had any outside contact regarding this case? No. No. I will mention that I go to church with Sean and Judy. I visited with them in church on Sunday, and it was just basically procedural conversation. It will not affect my or influence my decision tonight. Do any BZA members have any conflict of interest in this case? No. Will the applicant please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes to present your case. Additional time may be allotted to the applicant at the discretion of the chair. BZA members may request clarification at the end of your presentation.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Sean Teichman, and we live at 7203. Now we... We decided he was going to buy that property next to us. Needed a little shop, not a shop, but a garage basically for a few vehicles we have. And we did that and we went with Wendell and he came down here and talked to Mark and he came back and said, well, we agreed to build. It's a little bit too big. We didn't realize there was a 2,000 square foot minimum on there, but... Shed-wise, the garage-wise, it's fine. All we want to do is, by having the extra 10 foot along there and the 50 foot, is we just want to put an awning up there so we can watch them. We've got some grandkids now, and we want to be able to watch them and not get sunbaked. We've got some lighting on that to try to make it look a little bit more like a house. We don't want to make this look like just a big old... metal shed out there in this residential area. So we're trying to keep it with that in mind to make it look as good as we can. And we thought if we had some furniture and things like that underneath there, it'd make it look a little bit more homey for people. So that's basically it.

I don't know if you got anything to add or...

I've got a couple pictures if you want to see these. So if you just call on Lane 2, it's just going to be an awning. That shop's big enough. I can put everything I need in there. So I don't need to put stuff underneath there. I just want to have, like I said, furniture and things like that eventually. Any questions or...

All right.

Like I said, we just didn't know there was a 2,000. We had no idea there was a difference there, but we really think it will make the property look better if we do have a porch and it will keep our sunscreen purchases to a less restrictive amount. That's what we're thinking there, so I appreciate that. Any other questions?

Mark, I'm actually a county planner, so this is a little bit of a complicated case. It seems like it'd be simple, but the way that we had to notice this and what we were doing was more complicated than what I hoped for. But we're up in Bloomsbury subdivision, and Mr. Tybon owns a house in one lot, and then he just recently purchased that vacant lot, as you heard of. Wendell Miller from Miller Home Construction, he came to get a permit and our regulations say that you can't issue a permit for an accessory building only without issuing a permit for a house. It just so happened he owned a house next door there. So part of the conditions on that permit that I issued was that those lots had to be combined. So when you combine the lots, now you've got a house on one entire lot and now you can issue a permit. We're still at the 2,000 square foot limitation because lot was less than two acres in size and so the permit that I issued was for a 40 by 50 building but it also had the lean to on there he didn't want to kind of wait to get you know this special accession for the whole entire thing so I was able to issue the permit for the 40 by 50 building and now he's back to before this board to add that lean to or awning on to that building so part of the The condition was, like I say, to combine those parcels. Well, at that time, the appraiser's office wasn't able to combine the parcels. And so we would have notified both lots, you know, both lots 59 and 58 together. But at the time we did the notice, they were separate lots. You know, it was in the process of being combined. And so it was kind of a little bit of a mess or so that way and how we wanted to go ahead and notify everything. But I think we've done the right thing with this. The lean-to or on-EC is going to be on the south side of the building. This building is already up. I don't have a picture of it here. I've got one here. But yeah, so as you saw, it's an awning, if you will, like he had stated to get out of the sun here. However, if you recall in our regulations, when we rewrote those, we included lean-tos and awnings as far as the calculation of the square footage of the building. So even though this is just going to be some poles and a roof, it could be enclosed if you wanted to someday. You could decide to enclose that and now it becomes part of that building. So I say go through the special exception process because it's still considered a lien to our awning and so that's why we are here tonight. That's the picture of his house and then the building is sitting up here in this vacant lot and then the lean-to will be on the south side of that. I can report to the board tonight that recently I did check and if you look at the county website, the parcels are now officially combined into one taxing parcel so the appraiser's office was able to get to that request and so bit closer view I say at the time you know he didn't own that so they were mapped to separate parcels obviously and I made him go down and combine those so we didn't have to go through another special exception to put an accessory building on a property prior to the construction of a single-family dwelling which was not his intent with that lot there and then this is just a picture of the lot Staff recommends approval of the request to construct that 10 by 50 foot awning or lean-to. Three standard conditions. Approval not to exceed the 10 by 50 lean-to. The accessory building can only be used for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. The accessory building should not be used as a single-family dwelling except as authorized by our regulations. And I added the fourth one, that lot 6 block 2 and lot 7 block 2 must be combined into one taxing parcel. At the time that I wrote this and sent it out, it wasn't being mapped yet, even though Mr. Tybett had verbally contacted me and said that they were and would be combined, so I added that fourth condition on there. It's really a moot point. It doesn't really mean anything right now, but you can approve it if you so choose with the four conditions, or if you want, you can eliminate that because it is mapped right now. So, sent letters to a lot of people in the Blue Spruce subdivision, probably the most I've ever... If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Any further questions for staff? I'll ask my standard question. Okay. The 2,000 square feet seems a little arbitrary whenever that was put into place, and I understand there's a need for something, but I don't recall that we've turned one of these down.

And since, I don't know, as far as I can remember.

So, to tell you, we've never turned one down. A few of them have had questions. We're a little questionable in subdivisions such as these sizes when people want to put 40 by 50 foot buildings in small lots out there. You know, it's a pretty good sized building for those lots, but...

Go ahead, Brian. So I guess I'm just going to suggest again that we reconsider at some point the 2000 because we spent a lot of time and effort, and in this case an immense amount of effort, to do something we know we're going to approve anyway. I'm just trying to get rid of some bureaucracy.

I think we could have that conversation next month again, if you so choose. That was, maybe you weren't on the board at that time, but that was the challenge that I had to this board. Russ may remember that. At what level is this board going to have a concern about a large building being placed in a residential subdivision or a tract of ground At what point is there going to be a little bit of a pause on should we approve something like that? And the board at that time came up with two acres and 2,000 square feet. It used to be 2,000 square feet for any parcel, for 25 acres. And that was horrendous. And that's when we were doing 25 of these a year. So we finally changed that. The board landed on two acres and 2,000 square feet. But before we maybe go down that road and try and change, you also got to remember, too, if we're doing a fairly large building like this, whether it's in a subdivision or a tractor ground, part of this hearing... is to let people know that a large building is going to be in place, but also to put on record that this building is going to be used for residential purposes and all of a sudden it's not going to be an auto repair shop, a landscaping business, name any type of commercial operation. It's a lot easier to try and enforce when we've had a public hearing, such as what we did a couple years ago when we approved a building for a gentleman out there and he was running a construction company out of it. So having this hearing, bringing somebody in to stand up to the air, put it on record that, yeah, this is just for my residential cars and my lawnmowers. There's some merit to doing that, but I somewhat agree with you.

Plus the fact that the regulations require that there's normally a principal residence on the property. That's why you had to combine the two. If he had a smaller home on that track, then we might be talking about a different issue with a house and a big building on that tract of ground. Right.

We can certainly... We'll talk next month.

We can talk next month. Any other questions for staff? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment? No friends, no enemies. Nobody cares. Good neighbors. Do you have any additional? You've got a picture of him in the museum. I don't know. Thank you. Staff, do you have any additional statements? I do not. Okay. Does the BZA have any further questions for the applicant or staff? Nope. Public hearing is now closed. Acceptance or denial of a special exception must be based on the public hearing record of information and in its opinion. As a matter of fact, such special exception will not adversely affect the uses of adjacent and neighboring properties. This is the time for BZA to discuss this case and ask procedural questions of staff only. Any further discussion on this case?

I drove by, and I agree with their assessment. It will be a better-looking property with the awning on there, and it's a nice improvement.

Dresses things up. Any further discussion? Staff, please call the roll. I'll do it.

Supper's on the stove. I move that case number 2026-06, the request by Sean Teichman, for a special exception from the Reno County zoning regulations to permit the total square footage of the accessory building on the parcel to exceed 2,000 square foot limit in R3, single family residential district located on lot 6, block 2. of Blue Scrooge 3 subdivision and adjacent to 7203 Hickory Way be approved, allowing a 10 by 50 foot residential accessory building addition to be constructed for a total of 2,500 square feet of total accessory building square footage as requested in the application and subject to the conditions listed above based upon the reasons stated in the staff report and as heard at this public hearing.

Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

I'll move. Second. I'll move and second.

All in favor of adjournment, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same.