Salina planners recommend amended PDD to convert Roosevelt–Lincoln senior apartments to general-occupancy, allow two signs and keep 58 parking spaces

The Salina Planning Commission voted to recommend amending the planned development district (PDD R3) for the former Roosevelt and Lincoln school complex — now RL Lofts — to remove its age‑restricted occupancy requirement, allow two ground signs, and retain the site’s existing 58 off‑street parking spaces for 61 apartment units.

The commission also voted to recommend approval of a preliminary development plan for the project, subject to conditions that include submission of a revised landscape plan showing at least 42 tree units, adherence to R‑3 bulk standards except for the carried‑over setback variations, and final sign/lighting plans before building permits are issued.

Why it matters: The buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places and sit in downtown Salina between Seventh and Eighth streets and Mulberry Street. Developer representatives said the owner is investing about $20 million to renovate the historic buildings, preserve on‑site green space required by the State Historic Preservation Office, and maintain 80% of units as rent‑restricted to households at 60% of area median income or less while making 20% market rate. Neighbors and church leaders said the change from senior housing to general occupancy could increase parking pressure and displace older renters who lived there before renovation.

Planning staff presented the application as PDD‑044b. Dustin, a planning staff member, told the commission the site was redeveloped in 2004–2006 into elderly multifamily housing and is bounded by Eighth Street (west), Seventh Street (east) and Mulberry Street (south). Staff summarized the requested amendments: repeal the 55+ occupancy limitation; add two ground signs (one per building); reduce required off‑street parking from the code‑calculated 102 spaces to the existing 58; and revise the landscape planting plan. Staff noted the property currently has two parking lots that together contain 58 spaces and that the R‑3 multifamily parking formula requires two spaces for the first 20 units and 1.5 spaces for each unit thereafter, which produces the 102‑space requirement for 61 units.

Applicant presentation and financing: Tony Kresnick, owner of Flint Hills Holdings Group, told the commission he and partners closed financing recently and that the renovation will preserve historic exteriors while replacing interior systems. Kresnick said the project will keep 61 units and that ‘‘80% will remain affordable’’ with 20% market‑rate units; he also said a land‑use restriction agreement has been recorded for an additional 30 years. Kresnick described relocation assistance given to residents during construction and said former residents were offered right of first refusal to return after renovation.

The applicant’s development team, represented by Matt Byron of Hutton and consultant Troy Smith, said they proposed an alternate parking layout during review but the State Historic Preservation Office and its consultant indicated changes to the green/open space would likely jeopardize historic tax credit approvals. Byron said the historic review effectively constrained the ability to reconfigure the site’s open space and parking. Smith told the commission that ‘‘there is nothing nefarious going on’’ and that the project’s parking reduction is consistent with national LIHTC (Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit) trends showing lower car ownership for comparable affordable infill projects (the applicant’s packet cites about 0.6 cars per unit for similar properties).

Public comment and neighborhood concerns: Several neighborhood residents, faith leaders and a local activist criticized the timing of tenant relocation and expressed concerns about displacement and long‑term affordability. John Holloway (resident) told the commission ‘‘the core problem is not just neglect, it's what's called subsidy harvesting,’’ and asked the city to pursue enforcement and consider receivership or other legal options. Pastor Jacqueline Thornton of Emmanuel Lutheran Church, which sits across from the site, urged that the commission require ‘‘first choice for those 55 and older’’ if the age restriction is removed to protect older residents.

Staff findings and commission discussion: Staff provided possible findings supporting approval — emphasizing historic preservation, infill location and nearby public parking — and possible findings supporting denial — emphasizing the significant deviation from Chapter 42 parking standards and the risk of setting a precedent. Commissioners debated parking and neighborhood impacts at length; several members cited Lee Lofts as a precedent and noted downtown public parking and curbside spaces are available but not reserved for tenants. Commissioners ultimately concluded that the project’s historic preservation and affordable housing components, plus the constraints imposed by historic tax credit conditions, weighed in favor of recommending the amendments and preliminary plan, subject to the conditions listed by staff.

Formal actions taken: The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Commission approve amendments to the PDD R3 zoning for the RL Lofts property, including the three setback variations carried forward from the 2004 PDD, authorization for two ground signs, and a modification of the required off‑street parking from 102 to 58 spaces. The commission then voted to recommend approval of the preliminary development plan with the staff‑recommended conditions (including requiring a final landscape plan showing at least 42 tree units and submission of final signage and lighting plans prior to building permits). Both motions carried on voice votes; no roll‑call tallies were recorded in the transcript.

What comes next: If the City Commission approves the amended preliminary PDD ordinance, a final development plan must return to the Planning Commission for administrative review and approval in substantial conformance with the preliminary plan. Staff told the commission that any non‑substantial modifications at the final stage would require another public hearing.

Context details (from the hearing): the property was redeveloped in 2004–2006 into elderly housing; proposed unit count is 61; applicant seeks to keep existing 58 off‑street stalls rather than the 102 required for non‑age‑restricted multifamily by the city’s formula; applicant proposes two ground signs ~10 sq ft (2'×5'); proposed addition of 17 new shade trees while staff requires confirmation that the total will meet the city’s 42 tree‑unit requirement; developer stated the renovation is roughly a $20 million investment; applicant stated 80% of units will be rent‑restricted at 60% AMI or less and 20% will be market rate and that a land use restriction agreement was recorded for 30 years.

Commissioners and staff said the City Commission will make the final legislative decision; the Planning Commission’s vote is a recommendation.