[0:09] Kind of thought it’d be dead by now. I haven’t seen him a long time, but he’s been around a long time. All right, well, uh. Call to order the, uh, August 20th, 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals, uh, meeting.
[0:34] Start off by, uh, asking staff to confirm that the Kansas Open meeting Act, uh, required notice, have been properly provided. Yes, I can confirm that the packet was posted in. The required notice was provided. Thank you. And now we’ll move on to roll call. Board member. Michael. Board member. Hardy here. Board member. Creer here. Board member. Bowden. Here. Board member. Baker and chair. Owens here.
[0:59] So, with four out of six members present, we have a quorum, and we can proceed with business. First order of business is approval of the meeting minutes from May 21st, 2026. Is there any discussions, comments, additions? Changes? I move that we approve the minutes from the May meeting. I second it. We got a motion and a second. All those in all those approve. Say aye. Aye.
[1:25] All those. I opposed same sign. Motion passes. Moving on to new business application V26-005. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One and I’ll go ahead. I’m going to do a staff presentation and then there will be an opportunity for you. Yep. Um good afternoon, chair. And members of the board.
[1:59] This is application V 26005 filed by Bevan Welsh on behalf of Lloyd’s of Kansas, LLC for property located at 615 Oakdale Drive. The request is for a 5.7ft side yard setback variance. The applicable side yard requirement is ten feet, and the applicant is requesting approval to locate the proposed exterior stairway 4.3ft from the from the East property line.
[2:23] The request is associated with reconstruction of exterior access serving the upper level units of the existing multi-family dwelling. This next slide summarizes the specific request before the board, and I’m sorry that that text is small.
[2:46] Um, the applicant is proposing to construct a 19 foot by six foot wide exterior staircase on the east side of the dwelling, with a six foot by six foot landing at the top of the stairs. The R-3 district requires a minimum ten foot side yard on the side of a residential building, where entrances to two or more dwelling units face the side yard. In this case, the applicable standard for the side yard is ten feet.
[3:06] The proposed stairway would be located 4.3ft from the east property line, resulting in the requested 5.7ft variance. The reason for the larger landing on the staircase is that the current building code standards require an adequate top landing of 36in or 3ft, and then additional clear area.
[3:33] Um, because the upper level door swings outward onto that landing. So for the landing out of a stair, out of a doorway, on a staircase, you have to have three feet of clear space because the door swings out three feet. You’re required to have six feet because three of those feet have to be clear of any obstruction.
[3:51] So this means that building code requires a six foot landing at the top of the staircase. I would also emphasize that this is a dimensional variance. The request is not authorized in new use or additional dwelling units, or an expansion of the existing multifamily use. It is to allow reconstruction of the exterior access serving the existing upper level units. Um, some background.
[4:15] The subject property contains approximately 10,107ft, or about 0.23 acres, and is located on the north side of Oakdale Drive. It is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential.
[4:41] The existing dwelling was constructed in 1900 and based on staff’s research, it has been used as a multi-family dwelling since at least 1954, and the footprint of the building is approximately 1720ft. Exterior access. Stair access has historically been located along the east side of the dwelling.
[5:11] Because that stair arrangement predates the current ten foot side yard requirement, it was pre-existing non-conforming as to the bulk regulations, um, under the non-conforming structure provisions, normal maintenance, repairs, and remodeling are permitted so long as the work does not increase the degree of existing nonconformity. Here, the enlarged landing needed for current code compliance would increase the existing side yard encroachment, or increase the existing nonconformity, and therefore a variance is required before the stair can be approved. As designed so the existing staircase did not comply to the ten foot.
[5:36] It predated the ten foot requirement, but because they have to build to current building standards, the it now requires a variance because it’s increasing that encroachment. The next slide shows the surrounding zoning and land use context.
[5:59] The subject property is zoned R3 and contains the existing multifamily dwelling to the north as an R3 zoned property with a single family dwelling. Oakdale Park is located to the south and is zoned R1. The property to the east is also zoned R3 and contains a single family dwelling, and the property to the west is zoned R3 and contains a multi-family dwelling.
[6:19] So this request is within an established residential setting that includes both single family and multifamily residential uses, and the requested variance is limited to an exterior staircase on the east side of the existing structure, and does not change that surrounding land use pattern. This next slide is a overall site survey for the property.
[6:40] Um, and then we can zoom in to the next slide. But this is a closer view of the proposed staircase and landing in relation to the east property line. The requested variance would establish a minimum setback of 4.3ft, um, for the stairway and 4.4ft for the landing.
[7:03] And the distinction is reflected in the submitted survey. Because the landing and stair structure do not extend the same distance toward the east property line. So you can see the north, the, um, landing of the staircase extends slightly past where the actual staircase extends on the east side of the property.
[7:26] Um, next we’ll go through the we’ll start going through the five criteria. Um, the first one is uniqueness. The first variance criterion is whether the condition created the need for a variance is unique to the property.
[7:47] The applicant explains that the original staircase was built under earlier code standards, and that reconstruction under current standards creates the east side encroachment. Um staff’s analysis is based on the age and long standing configuration of this particular property. The dwelling was built in 1900 and is functioned as a multi-family dwelling for more than 70 years, with exterior stair access historically located along the east side.
[8:09] The need for the variance is not based on establishing a new use or new access pattern. It arises from the need to reconstruct historically existing upper level access while accommodating current building code. Landing requirements.
[8:32] Staff also found that without exterior side, the east side exterior access access to the upper level portions of the dwelling could be lost unless substantial renovation is undertaken elsewhere in the building. The next criterion is no adverse effects on neighbors. The second criterion is whether the variance would adversely affect neighboring properties. The applicant notes that the neighboring house is setback from the shared property line, and that both properties are presently owned by Lloyd’s of Kansas, LLC.
[8:57] Staff would note it is important to not rely on the common ownership of the two properties in support of this request, because ownership may change in the future. The relevant considerations are the physical site conditions and potential impact on adjoining property. However, a staircase has historically existed along this side of the dwelling.
[9:19] Although the proposed 4.3ft setback would increase, the existing side yard encroachment, staff believes that the effect would be localized to the subject property and immediately adjoining side yard. In addition, no permanent easements are shown along the East Property line and the adjacent dwelling appears to have greater separation from that shared property line.
[9:42] This would help limit potential impacts related to light air drainage, fire separation, and neighborhood appearance. The third criterion is unnecessary hardship. The third criterion is whether strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship by denying reasonable or beneficial use of the property.
[10:07] The applicant states that the exterior stairs serve the second and third stories of their multi-unit dwelling, and that without the stairway, access to those upper levels would be denied. Staff found that the strict application of the full ten foot setback would prevent reconstruction of the proposed code compliant exterior stair in that location, historically used for upper level access.
[10:28] The proposed staircase is 19ft by six feet and includes a six by six landing. That landing is necessary to meet current code requirements for landing depth and door swing clearance. Alternative interior access or a redesigned configuration may be possible, but staff’s conclusion is that those options would likely require substantial renovation.
[10:57] Reconstructing the existing exterior access and a safer, code compliant manner appears to be a reasonable improvement to this long standing multi-family dwelling. The next criterion is public health, safety and welfare. The fourth criterion is whether the variance would adversely affect public health, safety or welfare.
[11:21] The proposed stairway would remain within the subject property boundaries and would replace an older exterior stair that has historically served the dwelling. The stated purpose is to construct a more structurally sound staircase that complies with current building code standards. Staff does not anticipate that the request would create unsafe traffic conditions, affect site distance, encroach into public right of way, or increase flood risk subject to standard building permit review and compliance with the applicable Building Code requirements.
[11:45] Staff believes that the replacement stair would improve safety rather than create an adverse public safety effect. The next criteria is general spirit and intent. The fifth criterion is whether the request conforms to the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Side yard setbacks serve several purposes.
[12:09] They help limit fire spread, provide room for drainage, preserve light and air, and maintain neighborhood appearance. Staff considered whether the reduced side yard would undermine those purposes. The proposed stair would remain within the subject property. No permanent easements are shown along the East Property line, and the adjacent dwelling appears to be setback further from the shared property line.
[12:34] Most importantly, this is a replacement of long standing exterior access for an existing multi-family dwelling. It is not a new use, nor does is it a substantially different access arrangement or expansion of the building’s use. For those reasons, staff finds that the proposed variance can conform to the general spirit and intent of the side yard requirement.
[12:56] In summary, the applicant is requesting a 5.7ft variance from the required ten foot side yard setback to allow a 4.3ft setback from the east property line for the proposed stairway.
[13:18] The request is necessary to reconstruct the exterior staircase with the landing that meets current building code requirements, including clearance for the outward swinging upward upper level door. The existing use of the property is not changing. The property would maintain the general pattern of exterior access that has historically existed along the east side of the dwelling.
[13:36] Based on the analysis of the five criteria, staff finds that the board can make the required findings in support of approval and in our In Your Staff report, and we can go over these in more detail following the presentation. But on pages. Six and seven of your staff report, you’ll find findings in support of approval and denial. Um, of this application.
[13:59] And as we as you discuss, if you want to go into more details on those findings, we can go through those. The board has four alternatives. First, the board may approve the requested 5.7ft variance with or without conditions, if it determines that the required findings can be made after any condition should be supported by a finding that is necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent
[14:20] of the zoning regulations. Second, the board may approve the lesser variance. However, staff would note that a lesser variance may prevent the proposed stairway from meeting applicable building code requirements and could prevent issuance of the building permit as designed. Third, the board may continue the public hearing to a certain date with the applicant’s consent.
[14:44] If further information is needed. And finally, the board may deny the request if it determines the required findings of fact cannot be made. A denial requires written findings of fact supporting that decision. Staff recommends approval of the requested 5.
[15:07] 7ft side yard setback variance, subject to the four conditions, um, that I have summarized on the screen and are located on page nine or page eight of your staff report. Um, that first condition limits the variance to the exterior stairway on the east side of the existing dwelling, generally in accordance with the Cob Alley Engineering Survey and the submitted construction plans.
[15:32] The second condition establishes the approved minimum distances from the East property line no closer than 4.4ft for the landing and no closer than 4.3ft for the stairway. Any further side yard encroachment would require separate approval. The third condition requires the applicant to obtain all required building permits and comply with applicable building code requirements.
[15:59] And finally, the fourth condition makes clear that this approval applies only to the submitted staircase and landing, and it does not authorize additional building additions. Decks. Landing stairs, or any other structures within the required side yard.
[16:20] And staff has prepared a draft motion if you, um, find that the the findings of fact have been made and wish to approve this in that motion is moved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve application V 26005 a request made by Bevan Welsh on behalf of Lloyd’s of Kansas, LLC for a 5.7ft variance from the required ten foot side yard setback of Salina code section 422052 B1, to allow a 4.
[16:46] 3ft side yard setback for construction of a 19 foot by six foot exterior staircase at 615 Oakdale Drive. Based on the findings of fact and supportive approval set forth in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. And that concludes staff’s presentation, and I’d be happy to answer any questions from the board.
[17:09] And the applicant is here as well. Is there any questions for staff? Does the applicant have any comments you’d like to make? Yeah, I think you covered it. Well, we’re just trying to make better the stairs that we inherited when we bought the property. I have a question. Sure. Uh. Sorry.
[17:33] So, uh, how many, um, units are part of the the home? Sure. I think at one time when we bought the property last October from, um, Sheriff Darryl Wilson’s estate. And at one point, I believe they had one, two, three, six units in there. We have four, um, with no intention at this time.
[17:58] Definitely not ever. The third floor. Um, and there’s one that a second or. Sorry, a third unit on the second floor that we will most likely at some point turn into a laundry space because there’s not laundry in the current units. Okay. And so is there just one unit that uses a staircase or two.
[18:18] Two units that use the two on. There’s two on the main floor and then two in the upstairs. Okay. Thank you. Um. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there any discussion on the board or entertain a motion for approval? Pretty straightforward.
[18:52] I think I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve application number V, 26005. A request by Bevan Welsh on behalf of Lloyd’s of Kansas, LLC, for a 5.7ft variance from the required ten foot sides. Yard setback of Salina code section 42-2052 B1 to allow a 4.
[19:16] 3ft side yard setback for construction of a 19 foot by six foot exterior staircase at 615 Oakdale Drive. Based on the findings of Fact in support of approval set forth in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Second, that. I have a motion for approval. And a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye aye. All those opposed same sign. Motion carries.
[19:44] All right. Um, is there any unfinished or other business we need to discuss? Yes. New business or. Yes. No. New business. Um, as far as our next meeting will be our next regularly scheduled meeting would be September 17th.
[20:14] We don’t have any items on the agenda for that yet, but we will do our annual training and, uh, election of of, uh, chair and vice chair. And then in other news, we, uh, we had a, um, Mike trout. Mike trout, uh, resigned, uh, a week ago last week. Yeah.
[20:34] And so he’ll be missed on the board here every every week or every month. So that’s, uh, that’s all all we got. I think, at this moment. So since he was vice chair, then we’ll be able to clean that up then. Yeah. Meeting. So we’ll we’ll do the elections next. Um, next meeting. So we’ll get that taken care of.
[20:54] If it would have been a longer gap, I think we would have had to figure that out. But we should be good. Okay. So. All right. Is there anyone from the public that would, uh, like to make a comment? Would you.
[21:13] Have anyone from the public on zoom? So anyone who has comments would be in the room? All right. Hearing none, I’ll, uh, entertain a motion for adjournment. I move that we adjourn. Second. All right. We have a motion, a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye aye. All those opposed? Same sign.