Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And you are? My name is Wyatt Dave Baker. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you, too. Now, here he comes. Is that the fearless leader right there? I see coming in.

Poor guy.

All right. Help me out here. How do I get the thing? doing well. Where? I watch it sometimes.

Good for you.

It's important to know what's going on. Well, know the best thing they do, they wait until they do the budget and everything. Mhm. They wait till 10:00. Okay. came off the mic all these terrible bundles. Oh, shoot.

Yeah, think we're ready whenever you are, Justin. All right, we'll go ahead and call to order the Salina Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for Thursday, December 18th, 2025. Has can staff confirm that the Kansas Open Meetings Acts notice has been properly provided? Yes, I can confirm that the packet was posted at the required notice was provided. All right. Uh, can we go ahead with a roll call? Board member Trow here. Board member Hardy here. Board member Baker here. Board member Bowen

here. Perfect. Youth member Angel here. Board member Kreer, board member Mike Cel and chair Owens here. So five out of seven appointed members, we have quorum and we can proceed with business. First order of business is approval of minutes from November 20th, 2025. Is there any discussion or any suggested changes? I approve that we um I move that we approve the minutes of the October 22 uh 2025 regular meeting. Second.

Have it moved and seconded to approve the minutes. Um we take all those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say sign. It's passed. U moving on to new business and we are going to move forward to item 3.2. Correct?

Yes, we can do that. All right. So this uh item 3.2 is variance 25 variance application 25-9 which has been filed by Johnny Adam who's an architect on behalf of Trace and Cynthia Walker. And the subject of the variance request is 1905 Springer Court which is shown on the screen and being highlighted by the the cursor by run by Mr. Michaelelsson. The zoning of the property, it's a planned development district with an R1 single family residential underlying zoning which requires a 25 foot rear yard setback for all principal structures. In this case, the walkers are proposing to construct a 14x6 two-story addition at the rear of their residential dwelling. And the location of the addition is the we'll call it the northwest corner of the house. So, current if you look at the floor plan, there is a kitchen and breakfast area. Um, zoom in a little bit. that the walkers are looking to do an addition to for a sun room. And the location of the sun room off of the kitchen is dependent on the location of the kitchen for obvious reasons. And so the areas of the property in which the addition could be constructed is limited to off the kitchen for an addition off the kitchen. And so the the Riverrun Edition, which is the subdivision in which this property is located, was originally platted in 2003. The Walker's residence was constructed in 2005. And the lot is a little over 15,000 square ft, so about a third of an acre. the surrounding area. There is a residential dwelling to

the south and to the north and which we'll pull up here on the aerial. And those are the the adjacent properties that that have existing structures or improvements on them that are adjacent to the Walker's property. There was also two vacant lots directly to the east that the walkers both own. And then there is a common area that is to the west that the property butts up to on the rear that has kind of a ridge line that drops off and goes down into the Smoky Hill River. So there is a common area that is shared by the members of the Riverrun edition, people that live in the neighborhood. The applicant's specific request is a variance of 14 feet to go from a 25- ft rear yard setback down to 11 ft. So the the proposed setback would leave the walkers with 11 ft roughly between the proposed addition and the west property line. And so when we look at the criteria for a variance application, the first criteria that we look like look at is uniqueness of the property. In this case, Applin states the property is unique due to the irregular rear property line. It runs kind of at an angle with the uh property. So, if you see the black bold line, that's the rear property line. And you can see the relationship of the rear property line in relationship to the existing dwelling. So while most houses are rectangular lots with rectangular structures that run parallel to each other, here we have a situation where we have a little bit irregular uh situation with um different angles. The rear lot line follows the tree line and the natural alignment of the Smoky Hill

River and the northwest corner of the existing dwell dwelling is physically constrained um by the rear yard setback and um these conditions limit the feasible locations for an addition. So again, the kitchen area, which is where the walkers are trying to do in addition to is in located in the north or excuse me, the southwest corner of the house of the dwelling. And so that's where the addition would have to be in order to do an addition to the kitchen. Staff would agree that the lot is atypical, especially compared to most residential lots. And the home's location on a ridge overlooking an undeveloped woodland is a sightsp specific condition. Most properties in Selena don't have a ridge that overlooks the river um with with a common area behind them. Most residential dwellings have another residential dwelling on their rear that they that they share or butt up against. And so staff finds this unique uh the uniqueness to this property to be a unique standard um for the board to consider. Looking at the adverse effects on the neighboring properties, the applicant states that the addition will not block the light, air or views, and the project will not interfere with the access to the Riverrun Trail system because there is a trail system in the common area to the west. and the adjacent homes are oriented in opposing angles which increases the separation of of the property or the proposed addition from the adjacent properties. If we can go to the aerial photo again Dustin we can kind of highlight that a little bit what being suggested there. So, where the proposed addition would be, um, if you look at the distance from the property to the neighboring property to the

south, there's about 65 ft, a little over 65 ft from that addition because of the way that the the structures angle away from each other. And there's about 145 ft or or maybe a little more to the residential dwelling to the north. And looking at unnecessary hardship, the um oh actually staff's analysis staff would agree that the impact of the proposed addition is localized to the subject property as well as the properties to the north and south. You won't really see it from the east and then the the west. There's there's a wooded common area and visibility is limited again to the north and south and staff finds no material adverse effects on the neighboring properties. Looking at unnecessary hardship, the applicant states that the existing floor plan restricts the feasible expansion areas and that alternate locations are impractical because you can't add to the kitchen if unless you're adjacent to the kitchen. and that the addition provides functional living space as well as a a spare bedroom on the level below the kitchen and then without the variance the addition cannot be reasonably be constructed. staff would agree that the strict application of the the the required 25- foot setback would prohibit the proposed addition and that the adjacent land to the west is undevelopable which reduces the risk of the setback's functional purpose. And for that reason, staff finds an unnecessary hardship could exist if the strict application of the 25 ft setback was enforced on this property. And looking at the effect of the public sa safety and welfare, the applicant states that the addition will not create any traffic hazards. There will be no visible obstructions or any rightaway

encroachments and that adequate space would remain for access to the site and maintenance of the property and the design is architecturally compatible with the existing home. If we want to look at the elevation drawings, Dustin, just to show what is being proposed. So, part of the exterior of the existing dwelling has a shake shingle design to it. And as part of the proposed addition, the exterior of the addition would match the existing exterior of of the home. So, this is basically the northeast side. If we can go scroll down another one. Here's a better look. So, on the top right, yep, the bottom left and top right. That would be the rear edition that's being proposed with all the glass windows for the sun room. So, you have a sun room that has glass windows surrounding it. And then you'd have the shake shingle siding on the exterior of the walls and then a matching um roof shingle there that would match the existing. In looking at the um staff would agree that it does appear that it is cohesive with the ex existing structure and that the proposed addition would not uh add any additional fire risk, flooding or safety concerns. And the project also does not impact any public infrastructure uh from a public health or safety standpoint. Looking at the conformity with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance, the applicant states that the addition maintains the residential character of the existing neighborhood and the property remains in compliant

with all other zoning requirements and standards and that the open space to the res to the rear is preserved due to the permanent undevelopable land and that the approval would improve functionality of the property value within the neighborhood. staff would agree that the rear setbacks are intended or we would note rather that the rear setbacks are intended to preserve open space, reduce fire risk, and allow light and air movement. And these purposes are still met due to the adjacent open space. If you were to go out there after the addition, you would not be able to tell that it encroaches into the rear yard setback area because there's no discernable evidence of where the rear yard setback is. There aren't any fences. There aren't any other structures that you you are visibly perceivingly getting closer to because it's just open space and trees along with the the ridge line there of the kind of the ridge. And so staff finds the request to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. So with that, the board does have the following options. You could approve the variance as requested with or without any conditions that you might have for the proposal. You could approve a lesser variance with or without conditions. You could continue and postpone this item to another meeting if additional information is needed for you to make a decision. In which case you would set a specific date to postpone the meeting to and or you could deny the variance if the sufficient findings of fact cannot be made. And so what we have done as staff is we do have findings at your seat for for both uh approving the variance or denying the variance. And we are open to any questions um that we could answer about the application and the the applicant is here to speak as well.

All right.

Oh, yep. I do have additional public comment to share. So, at your seat, there is a letter that was written um from the property owners that are to the south and it reads, "We are the nearest neighbors. Our home is 1900 1900 Springer Court. The Walker's home is lot 19 block two of the Riverrun edition." So, so they're located directly south. The Riverrun is a master plan community. Our home and the Walker's home are part of six homes in a row that are all villa lots and villa homes. All of the villas were limited to three specific craftsman style designs and nearly identical size and shape and proportion to their lot. Those who desired larger homes were required to build them on larger estate lots rather than on the villa lots. While we would be open to a request for a variance for a few feet, we oppose a request of this magnitude where the whole proposed construction requires such a large variance. The end result would be inconsistent with the charming uniform villa neighborhood appearance. And to add to that, Mr. Dan Guard and Angard came in and spoke with staff yesterday with a few additional notes that we've jotted down. And one of their concerns is that because this is an addition to the kitchen area uh and that the kitchen area is is the one of the more likely rooms in their estimation to catch fire that it potentially could increase um or decrease fire safety in the neighborhood. If a fire were to catch fire in the in the kitchen and then spread to the new addition um and then spread to the trees. The other uh another idea that they had or another thought that they they were

concerned about rather was that they believe that because this is a planned development district with a homogeneous design that the proposed addition could create a conflict or harm the homogeneous homogeneous design of the villa lots and villa developments. And they're also concerned about drainage, adding additional rooftop space. Here we have a a 14x 16, which is a little over 200 square ft. Adding that additional impervious area could increase additional water runoff. Um, and potentially create additional erosion on the ridge line to the west. and see if I can find other. I think those are the main concerns. Is there anything else that you would note Gage from our conversation? No, I think in in meeting with the guards, their their main concerns were were addressed either in the letter um just about the general nature of the villa lots or um in the comments that Mr. Hers provided about fire safety and drainage concerns. So

yeah and the concern of the homogyny we explained staff explained to the guards is that this development has a homeowners association that has review of architectural standards and it's their responsibility and not staffs or or the boards to control whatever design characteristics um are required in the riverrun edition. And just for for the sake of the the fire safety question. So there is a fire hydrant located in that middle island strip. So like where you drive in the half circle around. Yeah. Right where Dustin's cursor is, there is a fire hydrant there. Um and so even with the increased distance of the addition, the fire department would still have um enough distance to reach the the back of the home where the new the new addition would be located. So

there any questions for from the board for staff? Uh, do you do you know if the um the plans were brought before the homeowners association and given approval by that group? We don't know that. I I yeah, we don't know if that's gone through that review process or not. The when we get to the point where the project architect is on Zoom and so Mr. Adam might be able to to touch on that piece. Okay. Other questions for staff? Um would would he be available to do that now? Is that a good time or some other time? Once you

Yeah, once we're done with with staff questions, then we can move on to the applicant. All right. Questions for the applicant and their response. I would would really like to to know that. I guess uh we'll uh open questions up for the applicant. And Mr. Adams, can you answer that question from earlier?

Just to clarify, we have someone on Zoom that they're using their phone number. So, I don't have a name. And we assumed that was maybe Mr. Adams, but we don't have a name. It's just their phone number. It sounds like they're calling in or it looks like they're calling in.

Okay, we have we do have the walkers here with us. They might be able to answer that as well. Would you be able to address that question of whether the homeowners association has reviewed I can you please stand up to the podium? Yeah. Never done this before, but um I'm Cindy Walker and I assume Johnny has done that because he is part of the homeowners. He represents the homeowners, the architect that is hired by the the association. Yeah.

So I but I can't say yes or no. Are there any other questions for the applicant? I I think it would be appropriate to have that architect come in at this time if if he's available. I think I think they're working to identify.

I think the Yeah, the architect or the homeowners association is probably significant part of the discussion be my guess. They're the one that should have have to say. So if we if we are unable to get in touch with the architect on behalf of the applicant um to answer that question and it's a critical question, you would have the option to postpone to a later hearing date to to gather that information. If that's critical information you need to make a decision. That would probably be the the way to go.

It is Mr. Adam online. He's he's uh he said that he's online or trying to reach now or trying to call in.

He's he's on but he I've asked him to unmute but he can speak at whatever time at whatever point he's ready. So the question Johnny and if you can audibly um unmute and and share your thoughts we are welcome to that. If not you can in the chat may perhaps you can answer the question but the question is have the design plans for the proposed addition been reviewed and approved by the homeowners association of riverrun? I just received a text from him that said if the city, let me see, if the city approves the variance, the homeowner association will approve.

Okay, that's your answer. Well, that's fine. But in my mind, I think it should be the other way around. Yeah. Yeah. And I I don't know if that's I mean like Dustin said that's not necessarily our decision as far as that goes. I mean ours is based off the zoning and if

and the issue is the zoning is a setback and we got to decide whether the setback is allowed and then they can override that as their own homeowners association if they so choose. Yeah. Just to clarify, your role is to look at the setback and if the proposed encroachment is if if the the reasons and justification for the variance request, if the criteria are not being met, you could deny the the proposed variance request if you feel like the the um the property is truly unique and that there isn't unnecessary hardship that the rear yard setback puts on the applicant. And if there aren't any negative impacts to the neighboring properties or the public health safety and if the general welfare welfare or the general spirit of the required setback, which is to preserve space is still being maintained. Um, then you would have the option to approve the setback variance. But it's um chair Owens is correct that it's they're two different reviews. One is kind of an aesthetic review uh to the the standard to the development standards of the homeowner association. This particular review is is regard to just the radar setback.

Is there any discussion? I just Well, um I would uh move that we approve application number V25-9 because of the uh irregular irregularity of the the lot and the the fact that there are no um uh neighbors on all sides just uh just to the north and the south. I second that. moved and second to approve.

And my my only comment is uh I would like to have the homeowners association speak first before we say or do anything. So I will be voting against this. Have a motion condition. What's that? Can we make that a condition for approval? Can we make that a condition though? Um no. No. I just I I guess real quick just to clarify, we do not have anybody else from the public online. It appears to me that our job they're they're meeting all the all the requirements of the things that we look at, right? Whatever the homeowners association, that's another subject to me.

But I'll be voting in favor of this because it's it meets everything we need to be looking at. We got a motion approved and second. Um all those in favor say I. I. I I All those opposed? Nay. Motion for item 3.2 is passed. On. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. On item 3.1, our deputy director Margie did call the applicant and she is on Zoom now to give some information.

Hi everybody. Um I did call the applicant Sean Carlin while you guys were all on 3.2. too um and gave him a call. He did not know that he needed to be in attendance and hadn't reviewed that email um that Daisy had sent him. So, he asked for continuation to the next meeting on January 15th of 2026. Um I have provided him that date, the time, and where he needs to be in attendance for the meeting. Um and has pointed him back to the agenda packet for any review of that. Okay. Uh, do we have a motion to approve to move that agenda item to the next meeting?

Mr. Chair, I move that we we uh now what's the term? That we postpone item 3.1 until our next meeting. A second, which is January 15th. Correct. Which is January 15th. All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those opposed.

Motion is passed. All right. There are no administrative items on the agenda or any other business. So, I guess we'll open up to public forum.

For other business, um, we will have our annual report that we'll review in at our January meeting. We'll also have the postponement of item 3.1 that we'll we'll bring forward again. And there's also an important announcement we'd like to make and that's that Mr. Michaelelsson is our new planning manager and zoning administrator. So, congratulations to him and um we're really excited as a staff to to have him continue working with us to move forward and make make our planning staff as good as it can be. Mhm.

And so with that being said, Dustin has moved up to the planning manager, zoning administrator role. So we do have a uh application out for a new planning um position to fill um Dustin's role. And so hopefully in the next couple of months, we'll be hiring a new um member of our team. And we're we're super excited to uh continue. So thanks. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to We do not have anybody on Zoom in public. And my wife doesn't count. She gets right at home.

Yeah. Right. All right. We have a motion to adjurnn. So moved. So moved. Second. All those approved or all those in favor say I. I. I. I. Opposed. We are journey.