Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Map Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Salina planning commission recommends rezoning of West Diamond Drive motel to allow possible 66-unit conversion

City of Salina Planning Commission · August 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff recommended rezoning 635 W. Diamond Drive from C-7 to C-5 so the owner may later seek a conditional-use permit to convert the existing Motel 6 into 66 apartment units; commissioners moved to recommend approval and staff said the matter will go to the city commission with a 14-day protest period.

The City of Salina Planning Commission opened a public hearing on Aug. 4 to consider application ZMA26-005, a request to rezone a 3.96-acre property at 635 West Diamond Drive from C-7 (Highway Commercial) to C-5 (Service Commercial).

Dustin, planning staff, told the commission the rezoning would be a recommending action to the city commission and would not by itself authorize redevelopment. "This afternoon, I'm presenting application number ZMA26Dash005, which is a request for a zoning map amendment for a 3.96 acre tract at 635 West Diamond Drive from C 7 to C 5 Service Commercial," Dustin said, summarizing the proposal and the process. He added that the applicant is Celina Investments LLC filing on behalf of property owners Continental Overseas LLC and Bana Mahdi LLC.

Staff described the site as a 172,542-square-foot parcel currently operating as a Motel 6 located north of Interstate 70 on the south side of West Diamond Drive. The owner has indicated a future plan to convert the existing motel building into multifamily housing; staff said the proposed conversion would include 48 studio units and 18 one-bedroom units, "for a total of 66 units." The presenter emphasized that the C-5 district would allow multifamily only as a conditional use, so the conversion would require a separate conditional-use permit and further review of parking, traffic, school impacts and other site-level issues.

Dustin said the parcel exceeds R-3 lot-size conversion requirements (the site is roughly 172,542 sq. ft., and R-3 requires 1,000 sq. ft. per unit) and that staff found existing utilities and prior benefit-district infrastructure adequate for the planned uses. He also noted the southern portion of the property lies within an AE flood zone, and that any future building or site work within the floodplain would require elevation of the lowest floor at least one foot above base flood elevation.

An attorney representing the applicants told the commission he was speaking for the owners and clarified ownership. "I'm representing the applicants," the attorney said, and confirmed that ownership is held by Continental Overseas LLC and Banu/Bana Mahdi LLC and that the current plan is for that ownership to continue.

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant questions about whether the rezoning was driven by a need for housing or a shortage of hotel lodging and whether the application was related to a prior rezoning on an adjacent parcel. Staff said they had no lodging-demand data at the meeting and reiterated that a conditional-use permit would be required for any multifamily conversion. The attorney said the current application is not planned as a combined development with the prior rezoning, though the earlier decision aligned adjacent property zoning in anticipation of potential development.

Staff recommended that the commission recommend approval of ZMA26-005 to the city commission; if recommended, staff said a 14-day protest period would run through Aug. 18 and the application would be forwarded to the city commission, tentatively scheduled for ordinance consideration on Aug. 24. A commissioner moved to recommend approval of the rezoning based on staff findings and the motion was seconded; the chair called for a voice vote and members answered "Aye." The audio transcript ends immediately after the chair asked "Opposed?" so the written record in this transcript does not capture the final recorded outcome by name or an explicit announcement in the file.