Salina planning panel backs raising R‑2 lot coverage from 35% to 40% and forwards recommendation to city commission

The Salina Planning Commission on June 3 voted unanimously to recommend that the City Commission approve a zoning text amendment to raise the maximum lot coverage in the R‑2 (multifamily residential) district from 35% to 40%. The recommendation on application Z‑25‑4 will be considered by the City Commission on June 23.

The amendment, requested by Building Kansas LLC to address construction problems in the Aeroplanes subdivision, would change the R‑2 code section that sets lot‑coverage limits so the 40% cap applies to permitted and conditional uses alike. Planning staff said the change would allow townhome models already planned for Aeroplanes to fit on lots in the eastern part of that subdivision and would also provide broader flexibility for infill development citywide.

Planning staff described the background: Aeroplanes is a new subdivision of about 170 lots in which three attached‑home models (referred to in project documents as Gulfstream, LEAR and Citation) are specified in the development agreement. As construction moved east in the subdivision staff discovered that those models produced building footprints near 3,000 square feet that yielded lot coverage around 37%–39% on the shallower lots (generally about 71 feet wide by 112 feet deep, roughly 8,100 square feet). Staff said lots on the west side of the subdivision are deeper because of a wide natural‑gas pipeline easement and that the depth difference is why the coverage issue did not appear earlier in the buildout.

To keep construction moving, staff described a two‑part approach already taken: (1) an administrative variance (AV25‑4) was granted for 12 lots to allow up to 40% coverage on those specific permits, and (2) the zoning text amendment (Z‑25‑4) would change the city code so the higher coverage applies across the R‑2 district. Staff recommended the amendment as consistent with Salina’s Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 2.1), supportive of infill and housing diversity, and aligned with national trends toward larger home footprints and more frequent two‑car garages.

Planning staff emphasized the narrow scope of the proposal: the amendment would only alter the percentage of lot area that structures may cover; setbacks, height limits and lot‑size standards would remain unchanged. Staff also noted the city’s historical practice: the R‑2 coverage limit was 40% until a 1989 change reduced it to 35%, and the staff report cited a 2003 change affecting R‑1 lot coverage as context for how coverage rules have been adjusted previously.

Applicant Lance Cochran, managing member of Building Kansas LLC, told the commission that the applicant needs the 40% allowance to finish the current phase and to provide the three unit types called for in the development agreement. “We were under the understanding for our development group that we were actually going to be zoned R‑2.5,” Cochran said, explaining that the project team believed the original layout matched a different district before negotiations with staff settled on R‑2. Cochran added that the development will operate under an HOA that handles mowing and irrigation and that the unit designs are intended to provide interior storage so homeowners do not need large detached outbuildings.

Commissioners discussed practical effects for homeowners on smaller lots, including the remaining capacity for a detached shed or covered deck after larger footprints are built. Staff and the applicant said the incremental increase from 35% to 40% translates to roughly an additional 300 square feet of footprint on a 6,000‑square‑foot lot and proportionally more on the larger lots typical in the affected blocks (about 8,100 square feet). Staff also pointed out that lot coverage is only one constraint; setbacks and separation rules can continue to limit the placement of detached structures.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve application Z‑25‑4 to increase maximum lot coverage in the R‑2 district from 35% to 40%. The motion carried unanimously; the commission will forward the recommendation to the City Commission for final action on June 23.

The record shows this change would apply citywide to the R‑2 district if adopted, not only to Aeroplanes. Staff noted that if the commission wants a broader review of coverage limits in other residential districts (R‑1, R‑2.5, R‑3, etc.), it can direct staff to study those districts and return with a separate proposal.