7.1 Rezone Faith Add Rplt CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/20/93 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: Development O~GINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM:
NO. Roy Dudark
1 BY: BY
Item
Application #Z93-11, filed by William J. Stover, requesting a
change in zoning district classification from R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) to R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) on property
legally described as Lot 11, Block 7 in the Replat of Faith
Addition to the City of Salina (aka 730 Meadowbrook.)
Historical Background
An identical application was filed by the applicant in December
of 1992 and considered by the Planning Commission on January 5,
1993. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning
Commission voted (8-0) to recommend that the application be
denied citing the following reasons: 1) there is a single-family
home on adjacent Lot 10; 2) the duplex does not fit in with what
was said to the initial lot owners in the area; and 3) the duplex
would not conform to the character of housing on that side of the
street. On January 25, the City Commission approved a motion
(5-0) to return this application to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration citing the following reasons: 1) no previously
implied zoning is the city's responsibility; 2) the character of
the neighborhood supports a multi-family residential transition
area; and 3) the overall neighborhood would seem to be well
served by a duplex in this location.
Upon return from the City Commission, the Planning Commission
voted (4-3) to submit a new and amended recommendation to approve
the rezoning of the lot to R-2. A valid petition was filed
protesting the requested zoning change. A motion to approve R-2
zoning was passed (3-2) but failed to receive the required 4
votes by the City Commission for passage of an ordinance change.
COMMISSION AC~ON
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
Page 2 CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE T1ME
12/20/93 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SECTION: O~GINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
NO. Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
Sec. 42-27 states: "After one official rezoning application
has been denied, an application for rezoning of
the subject property to the same or less
restrictive zoning district cannot be filed until
the expiration of six (6) months from the date of
final action by the board of commissioners."
Six (6) months have passed since the City Commission took action
on the previous request.
Nature of Current Request
The applicant is again seeking to rezone a single lot on the west
side of Meadowbrook Road from R to R-2 to allow the construction
of a duplex instead of a single-family home. The subject
property was zoned R (Single-Family) when the Faith Addition was
originally platted in 1961. On October 25, 1989, the City of
Salina acquired this lot at a Sheriff's tax sale. This lot was
recently purchased by the applicant from the City.
The applicant feels that it is more feasible to construct a
duplex on this lot than a single-family home. The property is
currently shown to be within the 100 year flood zone. This means
any new construction would be subject to the City's flood plain
regulations and elevation requirements. No basement excavations
are permitted in this area without special approval from the City
Engineer because it is within 1,000 ft. of the city's flood
control dike.
The subject site is currently zoned R for single-family
dwellings. The site could be suitable for construction of a
single-family home but the applicant believes that it would be
difficult to market a single-family home without a basement,
COMMISSION AC~ON
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
Page 3 CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
12/20/93 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SEC~ON: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM:
NO. Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
whereas it is more common for duplexes and townhomes to be built
without basements.
To the north, three duplexes have been built facing Faith Drive
and most of the area to the north is zoned R-2. Across the
street to the east, duplexes were built and later converted to
two-unit townhomes. To the west are single-family homes on
Moundview. The adjacent property to the South (Lot 10) contains
a single-family home and single-family homes have been built
further south. A change in zoning to R-2 would permit the
applicant to increase the residential density on this site from a
single dwelling unit to two (2) units. Construction of a duplex
on this site would be compatible with the existing uses and
zoning of property to the north and east but may not be
compatible with the single-family development to the south on the
west side of Meadowbrook.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this
application on October 5, 1993. After reviewing correspondence
and receiving comments from the applicant and surrounding
property owners, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
denial of this rezoning request. The Commission cited the
following reasons for their recommendation: 1) the zoning does
not need to be changed to conform to the character of the
neighborhood; 2) the suitability of the site for development
under the existing R zoning is clearly evident; 3) there are
adequate public facilities and services to allow this development
as R without a zoning change.
COMMISSION AC~ON
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
Page 4 CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION AC~ON DATE TIME
12/20/93 4:~ P.M.
AGENDA SEC~ON: O~GINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. AGENDA:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ITEM:
NO. Roy Dudark
BY: BY:
This recommendation went to the City Commission on October 18,
1993 and by a vote of 4-0 the City Commission approved a motion
to return the application to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration.
On October 19, 1993, the planning Commission conducted a second
hearing to reconsider their original recommendation. At the
conclusion of testimony and discussion, the Commission voted 7-o
to resubmit another recommendation that the application be denied
for the following reasons: (1) it is not in character or
compatible with the adjacent residential uses; (2) it is suitable
for development as currently zoned, as referenced in Policy
Statement No. 2, la) and b) (attached).
City Commission Action
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, a motion should be passed to deny the
attached ordinance.
If the City Commission disagrees with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, a motion should be passed to approve the
attached ordinance on first reading. Because a valid protest
petition has been filed (representing the owners of 31% of the
land within 200 feet of the subject lot), a 2/3 majority or 4
votes is required to approve the rezoning. If passed on first
reading, second reading would be scheduled on January 3, 1994.
Encl: Application
Attachment No. 2 Vicinity Map
Protest Petition PC Minutes of 10/19/93
Ordinance #93-9604
cc: William Stover
COMMISSION AC~ON
MOTION BY SECOND BY
THAT:
PUBLICATION DATE No Later Than Sept. 14. 1993 APPLICATION NO. #Z93-]
HEARING DATE October 5_. 1993 DATE FILED September 2, 1993
'.' $200. oo
r~ VICINITY MAP ATTACHED DA FILING FEE
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE RECEIVED DA RECEIPT NO. ~'~/-~'
., ~ (INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLYING THIS APPLICATION ARE ON THE R~ERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM)
~ . APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
DISTRICT ZONING MAP (R~ONING)
' 1. Applicant's Name: I~1' ~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:: 2. ~icant's Addre~ ~/ ~ ~~ ~Z~ ~p Code:
.'~ 3. Telephone (Business): ~ ~ ~ (Home):
4. ~ner'sName: ~I'Z~/~ ~ +~ ~/ZA ~
5. ~er's Addr~ ~DO/ ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ip ~e:
6. L~al d~ription of prope~ to ~ rezoned (a~ach additional sh~ts if nece~):
,~. Lot(s) ~Z ~ ~//~ In Block No, ~~
"~ In ~P~A ~ ~ ~ /T~ A ~D/ r /~ Subdivision
Met~ and ~unds d~ription E unpla~ (a Suweyo~s Ce~ificate mu~ ~ filed with this appli~tion and E approv~
~11 ~ mquir~ to ~ pla~ed):
" 7. Approximate street addre~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A O~ ~
- 8. Area of prope~y {sq. ff. and/oracres): ~ ~3, ~
9. Pre~nt zoning: ~ ' / Use: ~/~(~- ~ /~
:: 10. Reque~ed zoning: ~ - ~ Use: ~ ~A A ~z ~ ~ ~ ~O
11. Are there any covenants of record which prohibit the proposed development? (A~ach copy):
12. Li~ rea~ns for this r~u~. (A~ach addEional shes if n~w):
13. Supply factual data showing the effect the request will have on present and future traffic flow, schools, utilities,
refuse collection, surrounding properties, etc: (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
' 14. Will there be sufficient off-street parking provided for the requested use?
15. List exhibits or planssubmi~:
PROPERTY OWNER(S) ~ ~
" SIGNATURE: /~/J,~_~,,~ SIGNATURE: APPLICANT'S ~~~, ~
DATE: ~' - ~- - ~ 3 DATE: ~'-- ~- ~ ~,.~
If the applicant is to be represented by legal counsel or an authorized agent, please complete the following so that
correspondence and communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE:
ADDRESS: ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE {Business): AREA CODE:
White - Planning Canary - City Clerk Pink - Inspection Gold - Applicant
(Rev. 8/84) 101
(PLEASE DO NOT DETACH)
Application #Z93-11
........... -~- William Stover
CRAWFORD
FAITH DRtVE ~ ~
'1 ' II I~1
'~ I / :k I I .I m~
~ a ~ I '1 ~ I I I N '
I I .
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~ : 4 3 2 ~
~. . ....... PDD
. z ~3 4 S 6 7 · 9 tO ,~ ~, I
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 5
we're going to try to work with the homeowner to get it
replaced. If they absolutely refused, then there would
probably be a citation to Municipal Court.
Mrs. Duckers asked what are you going to do if someone says
they don't like trees~ I'm going to put shrubs out there.
Mr. Dudark said they wouldn't get the rebate.
Mrs. Seaton asked if the City would then go and plant the tree?
Mr. Dudark said no, we wouldn't be planting any trees that
they didn't want. If they say, I don't care about the
$200.00, then after a year, Steve Blue could plant trees on
Belmont Blvd, or wherever.
Mr. Hardman asked if Mr. Dudark sees any pitfalls in this as
far as maintenance?
Mr. Dudark there needs to be some time limit. A year seems
reasonable. Its not going to be perfect.
Mrs. Seaton asked if there would be a little flexibility say
for example they plant the tree in one of these droughts. If
they are trying to maintain it and they still lose it, is
there any leeway?
Mr. Dudark said he thought, that would be extenuating
circumstances. We are not so cold hearted that we would do
something like that.
Mr. Blue said we would see a lot of us suffer if that happened.
Mr. Dudark asked Steve Blue, what do they do now on your cost
share, is it for 3 years or what?
Mr. Wood said no, we don't have anything like that but because
it is cost-shared the property owner has a certain amount of
incentive to take care of the trees, but they also paid for at
least half of the trees, sometimes for more than that, so they
have a certain amount of incentive to take care of that tree
on their own.
Mr. Dudark said indirectly they would also pay for these
trees, so there is an incentive here too.
Mr. Larson asked if it was 38% of the front lawn area of
residential?
Mr. Dudark said that varies by the lot depth. If you had a
lot that is 100' deep then you've got 25% of the lot in the
front yard. Obviously the smaller commercial lot has a higher
percent of landscaping than the larger lot. That Just works
out because with a larger lot, there is more space and you
can do the landscaping along the street and its a small
percent of the total land area.
Mr. Morris asked if it was like Red Lobster?
Mr. Dudark said yes.
Mr. Morris asked if staff needed any direction?
Mr. Dudark said the only direction we need is having this sent
to the various organizations, ask for their comments, say
within 30 days.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed
ordinances be sent out for comments.
#5. Application #Z93-11, filed by William J. Stover, requesting a
change in zoning district classification from R-1
(Single-Family Residential) to R-2 (Multi-Family Residential)
on property legally described as Lot Il, Block 7 in the Replat
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 6
of Faith Addition to the City of Salina (aka 730
Meadowbrook.) Roy Dudark explained that the City Commission
had received a recommendation from the Planning Commission on
this to recommend denial of the change from R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) to R-2 (Multi-Family Residential,) which would
allow for a duplex to be built on this lot. This is a vacant
lot behind the existing duplexes along Faith Drive and has
single-family south and west of it. It's the last lot on the
north side of this block. The City Commission considered the
item last evening and they voted to reject the recommendation
to deny and Instead to return it to the Planning Commission
for you to reconsider the recommendation. They gave these
five reasons. The first three are more or less converse
statements of what was sent forward, and the other two, 4 and
5, were added. Under the statute the Planning Commission can
submit the original recommendation or you can submit a new or
amended recommendation. It is back before you and you can
choose which action you want to take. The applicant is here
and some of the home owners in the neighborhood are here.
Last evening there was no petition that had been submitted
protesting the request, but.that was filed today. We have not
checked the validity of it, but assuming that the same people
signed, it probably is valid, but I can't say that for sure
right now. Anyway, I wanted you to know that it has been
filed.
Mrs. Duckers said even though the protest petition had not
been filed it looks like they would still need four votes to
approve.
Mr. Dudark said on first consideration they have to have four
votes, and it was three to one. To overturn they would have
had to have the 4th vote.
Mrs. Seaton asked did you tell us that we had to give
additional reasons for the motion7
Mr. Dudark said essentially it is a character of the
· neighborhood question rather than other issues.
Chairman Hardman asked the applicant to comment if he had
additional information.
Bill Stover, 5001 Country Club Rd., applicant, said I guess my
statement is still the fact that I believe this lot is suited
more for multi-family or a duplex rather than a single
dwelling. I know several people here and their occupation and
I would question say, Harold Larson, would you buy that lot
and build a house on it? _
Mr. Larson said he would.
Mr. Stover said first choice or last choice or where in
between?
Mr. Larson said probably middle choice.
Mr. Stover said, yes, because it has been there ever since the
duplexes were built. Ail the single-family houses were built
after the duplexes, to my recollection. So everybody who
built a house in that area built the house with the three
duplexes on the north. I'm not going to build a duplex in the
middle of anyplace. I'm just going to have the duplex a
little closer to the closest house, which is going to be the
one to the south. All it is, is footage difference. We're
not talking about building one right next to it. Don Morris
has been in the housing business, or real estate business, is
that the most desirable house to sell as a single-family
dwelling?
Mr. Hardman asked Mr. Stover to Just make comments in general
to support your application, and not put specific questions to
the Commissioners. We can respond to the specific points that
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 7
you might have, but I don't think it is appropriate to quiz
the Commissioners.
Mr. Stover said I feel that way too, you know, it is not
appropriate, but by the same token, I'm trying to get a point
across that I'm trying to build a unit here for someone to
live in, mainly two families, hopefully retired people, like
myself, I'm going to retire one of these days, and I want to
build a home that I can afford to live in, and I can't afford
to go out here and pay $128,000 for a single-family unit and
pay $10,000 worth of specials on it to retire in. A lot of
people are in the same position but they would like to have
something to call their own. This Is one lot, I'm not going
to change their whole neighborhood. All I'm doing is Just
building one little unit. As for as the house to the back, he
looks out his side door and he sees three duplexes to the
north. I'm going to cover this blight up for him, which if it
is a blight, which I don't call it a blight, but I think it
was well stated when one of the Commissioners drove by and
assessed what she thought, and this has been my opinion all
along, and I don't know if.there is a housewife that would
choose that residence if it was a single-family dwelling as a
first choice. Maybe second, third, fourth, probably the
latter. Out of ten, probably the last five. I am not
building a duplex, I'm not building a house that's going to be
going in between anything. They've already got multi-family
units. Ail I'm going to do is build this, like I say, off the
side yard which is not going to make that much difference
because everybody built their units there anyway.
Mr. Larson said, you mentioned the Commissioner making a
comment that one of them wanted affordable housing. The house
next door sold for $89,000. There is a couple of $91,000
homes down the street. When you bought the ground that was
also your choice and you acknowledged that single-family
dwellings could be built on the property. Affordable housing,
true, you're wanting to build a lesser value than a
single-family residence, which you said duplex or sell as
single-family dwelling on both sides. You can still do this
for a lesser amount than the $89,000. It could be done. It
could be a $70,000 home which would be compatible with the
R-2, multi-family. We're talking affordable housing, this
could be done on this lot.
Mr. Stover said very true but you're talking about a $70,000
house which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 sq. ft.
If I built a building there that would accommodate two
families, it could be upwards to 1,600 to 1,800 sq. feet,
- which would blend in more with the single-family dwellings
than a $70,000 house would blend with the single-family
dwellings. Now this is the contention, that it is not going
to blend in with the neighborhood, with the single-family
dwellings. I'm trying to put a deal together that's going to
address both of them.
Mr. Larson said your application is worded "duplex," and not
as a residential single-family townhouse dwelling. I know
that they subdivide then time and time again, but we're still
trying to get something that is compatible and even a planned
development that is sold as an attached single-family
dwelling, half of it, to comply with the area.
Mr. Stover said, again, I think as Mr. Dudark will mention,
you zone something R-2, you can build a duplex or a townhouse,
of course, duplexes can be considered townhouses, because they
can be sold as individual units, and this is what I would do.
It was put in as a duplex or an R-2 but I still planned to
sell part of it, if possible, and I may live in half of it
myself, hopefully, when I retire one day.
Mr. Larson said it still goes back to the idea that these
people have their home bought at $90,000 - $95,000 and living
next door to a rental, basically.
Saltna Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 8
Mr. Stover said if somebody buys that it won't be a rental.
Mr. Larson said I think you should change your application to
a planned development or R-2 where you signify what you're
going to do with it, not what you're telling us you're going
to do with a duplex, which ts an open rental.
Mr. Stover said I submitted this as a townhouse, somehow it
got tripped up and came back as a duplex. I don't know where,
but it still will be built as a townhouse because there are
townhouses all the way down the street, across the street, and
it is affordable housing for people that can afford a $70,000
house because you know well, that a townhouse is going to cost
me $70,000 too, or a single-family dwelling the same thing.
Mr. Larson said some of them don't comply with townhouse
regulations, but it's been made into a townhouse, that were
taken out as an application for a duplex and then sold as
townhouses. Some of the services don't comply, this is
something that you could do that the city doesn't have any
regulation over, I'm talking like running a 3/4" service line
out to each one of the residences of the duplex to service
them, while our city's specification is a one inch line, and
no doubt some other regulations. I'm Just stating one that I
know of, that some of the other people have mentioned.
Mr. Stover said you are right. Did Mr. Dudark mention to you
that I would like to resubmit this as a townhouse rather than
duplex?
Mr. Andrew said I think the application actually uses the word
townhome, however, under the actual R-2 zoning, it is whatever
the R-2 allows.
Mr. Dudark said it says "requests R-2 zoning, for two family
townhouse" but R-2 without any planned development
restrictions will allow a duplex or a two unit townhome.
There would be no guarantee that you have a townhome that is
· sold on each side. You could do a PDD and say it's going to
be a townhome and the buyer of each side could rent it and not
live there, so you have the same situation that a duplex would
create, still not requiring the owner to actually live in the
unit. That's not possible.
Mr. Larson said you could always split it up like that but at
least there is certain specifications and city regulations
that makes the thing a townhome. One residential, two meters
and all that in writing and it might comply with the local
- residents, the property owners. You directed it at me and I'm
a builder and builders try everything.
Mr. Stover said yes, builder to builder. I've been around a
little while myself. I've built a lot of duplexes, as a
matter of fact, I still own some of them. They all have
separate meters, separate water into them and I opted not to
sell half of them. The townhouse thing is the thing-that is
on the move right now. People are looking for affordable
housing, and looking for something to retire in, if they reach
that age.
Mr. Larson said the planned development that he is talking
about gives you more specifics, more movement, for what you
are trying to do, other than just R-2 zoning.
Mr. Stover said why would I as a builder go in and build this
thing totally as a duplex and then think now, I'll change it
around now and sell it. I mean, I have been in the building
business long enough to know that you have to look at all the
options you can to merchandise your property or if you want to
keep it.
Mr. Larson said at the price you paid for thelot, and no
construction, being able to build a 900 sq. foot duplex a
side, you'd have 1,800 sq. ft. in the thing. You could market
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 9
the thing for $65,000 and sell it for $130,000, totally for
the deal, and still be able to do planned development and
still comply with it and make more of a profit, which you as a
builder are trying to get. A regular duplex, which property
values would probably be someplace around $110,000. So it
would be to your advantage to upgrade your way of thinking
over an R-2 zoning and standard duplex and go to a planned
development.
Mr. Stover said R-2 doesn't mean a standard duplex, as Mr.
Dudark said, R-2 means that you've got the option. You can
build a townhouse on R-2. I Just don't feel that I'm going to
upset the neighborhood by building a upwards of a 2,000 sq.
foot unit there when they have already built duplexes anyway.
Mr. Larson said after Mr. Chapman called me and I walked by
and saw the thing, and was out there a block away, on Mr.
Mattison's property, and we walked around over there just to
see the perimeter or whatever and Mr. Chapman Jumps me about
the thing asking me what do I think? He mentioned that on the
petition of the thing, that .some of the duplex owners and
townhouses across the street, they don't want Iow-rent,
subsidized, affordable housing. They want property owners,
which they are seeking, that will take care of the property.
Mr. Stover said you can't build anything and have low rent,
you've been in the building business long enough to know that,
you can't afford to do that.. There is a big market for
low-rent stuff in this town, but there isn't anybody that can
do it.
Mr. Larson said but there is affordable housing that you could
build for this in a planned development type of plan.
Mr. Stover said it could be built on an R-2 lot.
Mr. Larson said or planned development.
Mr. Stover said so really, what it boils down to, is I've
filed under the wrong heading, which I am going to get the
same results, if I ever do.
Mr. Hardman said I don't think Mr. Larson was stating that you
filed it incorrectly. I think he is trying to point out that
you have an option of refiling the application as a planned
development district and whether or not you would choose to do
that is at your discretion.
- Mr. Stover said that is true, but I-guess, what the end result
is still I can only build 2 units, I can't go in there and
build five or six.
Mr. Hardman said and this commission may direct or request
that you reflle the application based on our findings today.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Stover how long he has owned the property?
Mr. Stover said a little over a year.
Mr. Morris asked if that was a tax sale property?
Mr. Stover said yes, I took it off the city's hands cause I
guess they inherited it for lack of somebody wanting to go
with single-family zoning on it.
Mr. Morris asked if he would consider a planned development?
Mr. Stover said yes. That would be getting the same results
that I planned to do anyway. I planned to build a condo on it
anyway, where it could be sold out to two individuals.
Chairman Hardman opened the floor up to the public.
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 10
Rob Plckrell, 735 Moundview. Did you get a copy of Tim
Chapman's recent letter? Just to touch it real quick. This
planned development is something new to me. All I see is from
the property owners that are there now, their point of view,
still looking at the same case, we would still be on the same
side of that fence. Commissioner Maxwell said that the house
built there would not be appealing, well, that hasn't stood up
to the test of the market. The next door neighbor says right
here, that the view is fine, thank you. Houses built all tn
that area, sold new houses, recently built, they are turning.
You all know that. Commissioner Warner stated it ts not
clearly evident, well, it obviously is clearly evident,
they've been selling and building them. We don't see it as a
process as Mayor Brungardt stated. We've got a lot more
invested in the area, the property owners that have signed
this petition. It is suitable for single-family. Everybody
keeps bringing up low-cost housing, and I am sorry, I was way
off base here, I thought we were talking about a first time
homebuyer, not people who have made their living and are ready
to retire and are ready to buy a house. I don't see too many
of those people moving into.that neighborhood. In that type
of housing, anyway, which we have some. My next door neighbor
in a single-family house is in.that situation. Generally, as
to someone new, in that type of house, they are looking for a
little bit nicer, more expensive, a little lower maintenance,
one or two rooms, so I guess I'm a little confused and I think
perhaps Commissioner Maxwell was confused as to the aim of
low-cost housing, because this is the first time I have heard
it defined anyway, with that type of thinking. The lot and
several others were sold on a tax sale about the same time.
Other lots did have single-family homes built on them at that
time, and all the rest of the lots have been developed with
single-family homes. At the time those lots were sold, there
were several of them available. None of those are available
anymore. They've all been built upon. I don't see any
differences. I think the recommendations that passed the City
Commission the first time was completely accurate. I think
they are a little confused in sending the recommendation back
%0 you, but that is just my personal opinion and I think you
should send it back exactly like you did the first time.
Mr. Hardman asked if Mr. Pickrell had any solution to the
problem.
Mr. Ptckrell said he thought Mr. Larson's first suggestion
probably touched upon it. I am not a builder and I don't know
what it costs, but I know many people out there. My father
owns some new places, that I'm managing for him, that are
- looking for a $70,000 to $90,000 -house. They haven't found
something they like. I have some people who are looking for
$50,000 to $60,000 houses. Although you probably can't build
one for that. They would love to buy a new house in that
range. More first time buyers construction. That's what I
look at when I hear affordable housing, someone buying their
flrst home, and moved into that type of thing. He talked
about low-rent. When I first came back from college to
Salina, and started looking around for a place to rent, I
couldn't believe that the places I looked at were asking $300
- $350 for them. I wouldn't consider living in them. So I
guess that is my question, what is Iow-cost housing and that
type of thing. I think that $80,000 - $90,000 house would fit
in there and sell very quickly, and I believe the house next
door was pretty close to $100,000. These were the people that
signed the petition for single-family property owners. That
lot, with that zoning in effect, as was stated here at this
last meeting on this, a line has been drawn on this for many
years. With the development on that lot, it doesn't seem to
make any sense to move that R-2 line, or we're always going to
move that line. The property owner has rights, we agree with
that; all property owners have rights. I was brought up that
government was to serve the people, the majority. Sometimes
the minority has to give up something, a cost, or an
inconvenience to serve the better wealth of the majority. The
adjacent homes had to allow for a controversial nursing home
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 11
but it added permanent Jobs to the City's payroll. As a very
large property tax payer, it benefits a large population of
the city. If I was living there, I'd probably been in here
fighting you about it but there was a benefit to the majority
of the City, 'that even I can see, no matter what side of the
fence I would be on. I believe it was a clear cut case. The
state believes it was a clear cut case by the laws which apply
to protest the decision. If you want to take it further, I
have spent a lot of time in the State legislature in the last
year-and-a-half and I have talked with some of our
representatives about this case when it first came up the
first time. I was even planning a survey. They all wanted to
see the results of the survey, in regard to what areas the
people who were living in the area felt like, whether the City
had a responsibility to that block of community.
Mrs. DUCkers asked how many people signed the protest?
Mr..p~Ckrell said everybody signed It this time, except for
one i~dividual, who owned two of the lots, who said he was a
~ipersonal friend of Bill Stover's, and a personal friend of
.... mine, and he didn't want to get in between the two of us.
Mrs. Charlotte Stover, wife of the applicant, said I am going
to state something very controversial. I feel that it is not
going to be a detriment to the area because of the fact that
whenever you move in with some construction that is newer and
possibly of higher value then Qf what is existing there, its
not going to affect anybody's home value whatsoever. I think
people are probably motivated by fear, fear that there is
going to be riffraff moving in and that is going to upset the
neighborhood. We have had rentals for approximately 18 years,
and over the years we have rented to doctors, one attorney,
nurses, minister, undertaker, teachers, a lot of professionals
and I Just don't think that is going to hurt the neighborhood
to have more professional people living in their
neighborhood. As a matter of fact, we lived in the one side
of the duplex and we rented out the other side, and next door
to. us we had a lady who worked for the Presbyterian Church,
and then we had the minister, a pilot, and then the
undertaker, and then we decided it was time for us to move,
when the undertaker moved in. This is not going to hurt the
neighborhood and we do build classy little places. It's fun
to go by the one on Roach Street, 2087 Roach, it is a total
compliment to the neighborhood.
Chairman Hardman asked if there had been any correspondence on
this matter? I think that it would be useful if we refer to
the five points that the City Commission has directed to us,
that we examine them as their basis for returning the
application to us. I would like to hear comments.
Mr. Morris said as City Commissioner Warner said this is a
Judgement call, this application is a matter of Judgement, or
opinion. If you will bear with me, I would like to share with
you where I am at this time in regard to this matter. This
Planning Commission originally voted to deny a similar
application at the first of this year. The City Commission
returned it by a (5-0) vote. The Planning Commission then
voted in favor (4-3). The City Commission voted (3-2) in
favor, but wi.th the valid petition needed (4-1). No go. Then
reapplied.' The Planning Commission voted (6-0) to deny. The
City Commission votes (3-1) to return to Planning Commission.
Do you see any similarities to a tennis match? For me, the
zoning that exists and has been in place since 1961 is
sufficient to allow development of a single-family residential
property. Property owners adjacent to and within the 200'
notification area apparently felt comfortable with such
zoning, or would not have purchased their homes over the past
years. Six sales of single-family residences have occurred
during this period of time~ during which he was unable to
develop this property. This sale closed in February 1993. I
would feel quite differently if he had ownership of this
property for an extended period of time, with no development
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 12
in the area and he was clear that a zoning change was needed
in order to stimulate the development of this property. That
simply is not the case in this situation, I would say, in my
opinion. In my opinion, this request is a matter of new
owner, having purchased a property, who wished, at his whim, a
change of zoning. Agreeing R-2 zoning is very close in
proximity, it Joins it on the north, and is across the street,
however, for those who have signed the petition and who we've
heard from would say, there is from time to time, a need, a
need to draw a line from which reasonable people can conclude
that that is where the buck stops, no further inclusion, no
further encroachment, no further, no further. I believe that
is what my fellow Commissioners have tried to tell the City
Commission. I know that is what I have tried to say.
Chairman Hardman said looking at the five reasons that the
City Commission did return the application to us, in my
opinion, the first two items, items 1 and 2, are the ones that
are most appropriate for us to consider. I don't have a
problem with their last three items. I don't think, however,
those are really germane to our decision today as the first
two. Affordable housing doesn't mean Just construction of
duplexes, it also means the construction of single-family
homes. So we can't Just say, that we need more affordable
housing. I don't think that is a Justification for changing
the zoning. ! think the most important thing, as a
Commission, to look at is referring to the Salina City
Planning Commission Policy Statement %2, on Item #lB and that
has to do with the suitability of the site for development
under the existing zoning and we, as a Commission, this must
be one of the items that we determine, that the existing
zoning is not suitable for that lot to be developed. I've
heard nothing that would support that conclusion, in fact, it
is Just the opposite. In fact, we have a very active market,
that we've had two sales in the last 30 days. There is
nothing that has been presented that has supported anything as
I view it under #lB that this property could not be developed
under the existing zoning. I think we would be totally
remiss, if we found otherwise. Under Item #lA, also the
character of the neighborhood, and whether or not it is
compatible with the other uses that are permitted. I think it
falls back to one of the comments that Mr. Morris made in our
previous meeting, and has to do with where we draw the line.
A line has been drawn, and at some point you have to say no
further encroachment. I think that if you would stretch and
look across the street, yes, there are duplexes in the area,
and it would be somewhat compatible, but if we look at the
- properties right next door, in that block, and in that
neighborhood of the block, no they are not. I think we have
to look at where we draw the line. I feel that we should
support Don Morris wholeheartedly and say that I could not
support the change of our previous recommendation.
Chairman Hardman said he thinks it is important that we as a
Commission be certain to read into the record the statement of
what our feelings are from time to time, so that we can
provide the Commissioners some direction as to what we are
doing. Yes, they can read the minutes, but what are each one
of our thoughts? I think it is important to make statements
from time to time.
Mr. Haworth came in late at this point. 'Mr. Haworth said he
had a question for Mr. Hardman and Mr. Dudark. My office
called and said I would be late, so not hearing opening
comments, does that disqualify myself on voting?
Mr. Dudark said it would be different if something new was
being presented but you are familiar with the case.
Mr. Hardman said there has been no new information presented,
that we haven't previously heard. You might want to refer to
the handout that Dean Just gave you. They cited five reasons
as their basis of return.
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 13
Mr. Haworth said he agreed with Mr. Hardman that the City
Commission wants to have a few more comments from us, not only
on this case but on other cases versus one person making a
comment, and making a motion and going ahead and approving or
denying it. On this particular issue ! do agree with the
comments that have been said so far, by means of character of
the neighborhood. The neighborhood does have character of R-2
and R-1. Again, where the line is drawn and trying to have a
good flow of where that line is drawn. I don't like to see
stuff in one zone encroaching another zone. It is in my
feeling it could be an R zoned. Single-family homes have been
built during that R zoning so that lot can be built on with a
single-family detached home. Where if we do zone it, as a
duplex or condominium could be built on it, that would be
encroaching Into the single-family housing on that side of the
block, where right now we have a distinctive line, along Faith
Drive, there is obviously an R-2 zoning, across the street is
R-2 and in this block, obviously here, would remain R zoning,
which I feel like would be a good flow for that area and even
if its a concern between an R and R-2 zoning, in particular,
the installing of a privacy, fence on the north side of the
property, actually blending the R and R-2 zoning.
Mrs. Duckers asked why affordable housing always meant that
they are duplexes? More problems are created for affordable
housing by people who want a single-family home.
Chairman Hardman said his point is that it is not necessarily
a duplex, I'm not looking at what is affordable, who's going
to move in. I don't think that is necessarily the issue. You
are not necessarily going to get a lower class of people who
are going to move for that, and there are some extremely nice
condominiums, townhomes, whatever term they would decide to
use, within a community, duplexes, across the street, there
are some fairly nice units. I'm not saying that those are
bad, I'm Just saying that they are in the flow of the
neighborhood. I don't think that is a right statement, it's
not my statement, saying that you are talking a lower class
housing. I'm talking the flow of the neighborhood, of the
block on that side. I'm not taking about that, that's not my
point. I don't think that was a fair Judgement.
Mrs. Duckers said she wasn't Just reading that into it, I was
saying that affordable housing can be single family. That was
my point.
Mr. Allen said we were talking ~bout affordable housing and
the neighbors were talking about $90,0000 - $100,000 in that
range. Buffer zones between R-2 and something already
established. There could be a $70,000 home and that's
affordable. That's more affordable than the $100,000 home.
Something like that still could be built on that. People that
would be buying it would know that there is a difference
between and not the people on the south, and not bFing down
their values any because they bought it with an understanding
that something that could be built was R-1. They understand
that. I think the R-1 should maintain as is.
Mr. Hardman said he did have one additional comment. One of
the things that did disturb me about the application, was that
the lot was purchased by the applicant with the clear
knowledge of the existing residential zoning and it doesn't
appear to me, that the basis for the change in the zoning
should be simply to allow this little duplex so that he may,
in what my opinion would be, to more readily match the highest
return on an investment. It was purchased with a clear
knowledge of that zoning and Item #lB under our policy
statement clearly supports the fact that a change in the line
is not suitable, its Just not the case.
Mr. Allen said he thinks he would have to agree with the
theory that we not rezone it, and that it should stay that way
in view of the circumstances here. If there was not any
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 14
as much as there are homeowners in opposition in the area and
neighborhood, then it should stay zoned as it is.
Mrs. Seaton said she was most persuaded by the fact that
single-family housing market has been so extremely active in
the area and again agree there is no way we can say this lot
is not suitable for development as single-family.
MOTION: Mr. Larson made a motion that Application Z93-11 be
denied as a duplex R-2 zone as it is not compatible and would
not be the same character that is on existing, adjacent
residential property.
Mr. Hardman had a point of order question. Do we need to
submit a new recommendation or under our apparatus do we
resubmit our original recommendations? I am not clear about
what our choices are here.
Mr. Dudark said you could do exactly what the motion is and
send back those reasons, or you could stick with what was
originally sent forth. Its your choice, whether or not you
think a new motion to deny is more appropriate than what was
originally sent.
Mr. Hardman asked that the motion as it stands now be read
back.
Mr. Dudark said what he had was to recommend denial of R-2
zoning because the request is not compatible and in character
with the adjacent residential uses.
Mr. Hardman said #lB clearly states that the application does
not conform to Policy Statement #2.
Mr. Dudark said it says that what it is currently zoned for is
suitable for development.
Mr. Haworth said it should also encompass in the motion the
comments made by the Planning Commissioners. There are
specific reasons that each one of us has stated.
Mr. Dudark said those in the motion so we'll have those.
Mr. Larson said to mention that under item #lB that the site
is suitable for development.
Mr. Hardman asked if it is suitable_or is not suitable?
Mr. Larson said that it is suitable. That deals with the
size, shape, and location of the property and as each
Commissioner has stated, the current zoning does not inhibit
development of the site.
SECOND= Mrs. Duckers seconded the motion.
Mr. Hardman asked if there was any comments on the motion,
possible amendments or additions?
Mr. Haworth said if the City Commission was looking for
additional comments, Mr. Morris wrote down some.
Mr. Morris said I think those are a matter of record. I hope
they are, if not I will make them available. The problem with
the whole issue is exactly the thing that we have debated for
the last hour, in that the City Commission says that the
zoning needs to be changed to conform to the character of the
neighborhood. This Board says it doesn't. I guess we could
restate that by saying we don't agree with that analogy. In
response to #2, "The suitability of the site for development
under existing zoning is not clearly evident." I think that
we have demonstrated by the activity in that neighborhood,
that it is clearly evident.
Salina Planning Commission
October 19, 1993
Page 15
Mr. Haworth said that would be the second point, if we wanted
to amend the motion.
Mr. Morris said there is no debate about whether there are
adequate public facilities and services to allow R-2 in
there. This is one of the last pieces of property, if not the
last piece of property that is available for development on
the block.
Mr. Dudark said that covers Items #1, #2, and #3.
Mrs. Duckers said we don't deny there is a need for
affordable housing ~nd here we are making a Judgement call
about whether we are going with the rights of the current
property owners that live in that area, or we are going with
the rights of one property owner that doesn't live in that
area, and that is a Judgement call. So those, I do not think
are relevant, why are we voting to deny the application.
Mrs. Seaton said she would actually prefer that Items #3, #4,
and #5 not be included.
Mr. Hardman said I know you would like to know what this
motion says before we vote on it, because this is really .
critical how this is going to be presented to the City
Commission. We need to tie it together.
Mr'. Dudark said the motion is to recommend to deny because it
is not in character or compatible with the adjacent
residential uses; and it is not suitable for development as
currently zoned. Those are the two reasons stated.
Mr. Morris said in accordance with Policy Statement #lB.
Mr. Dudark said they don't have that statement.
Mr. Hardman asked would it be appropriate, if they don't have
this, that we make this a part of our report so that they have
it.
Mr. Dudark said we can attach it.
Mr. Hardman asked if that needs to be in the motion or Just as
a directive?
MOTION: Mr. Hardman moved that it be placed in the record.
Mr. Dudark asked if that was to a~end the motion to attach
Attachment 2, to the recommendaton?
SECOND= Mrs. Duckers seconded the amendment.
Mrs. Seaton asked if the amendment is referencing #lA and #B?
Mr. Hardman said yes.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (7-0) in favor of the amended
motion. The motion carried. Mr. Hardman asked for comments
on the motion as amended. There were none.
MOTION: Mr. Larson's motion that Application Z93-11 be denied
for the following reasons: (1) it is not in character or
compatible with the adjacent residential uses; (2) it is
suitable for development as currently zoned, as referenced in
Policy Statement #2, #IA, and
VOTE: The vote was unanimous (7-0) in favor of the motion. The
vote carried.
#6. Other matters included listing upcoming applications for
November 2, 1993.
Attachment 2
Salina City Planning Commission Policy Statement No. 2
Policy Statement: Factors to be Considered and Format for Motions on
Zoning Change Recommendations
1. It is the policy of the Salina City Planning Commission that the
following factors shall be considered in deliberations during public
hearings for the purpose of making zoning change recommendations to
the Board of City Commissioners:
a) The character of the neighborhood. This factor concerns the
compatibility of the uses permitted by the proposed zoning with
the existing uses and zoning of nearby property and the extent to
which removal of existing zoning restrictions would harm nearby
property.
b) The suitability of the site for development under existing
zoning. This factor deals with the size, shape and location of
the property. It also concerns whether current zoning serves to
inhibit the development of the site compared to property
similarly situated.
c) The adequacy of public facilities and services. This factor
concerns the availability and capacity of public service systems
{streets, water supply and distribution, sewage collection and
treatment, storm water drainage, fire protection, schools, etc.)
to serve the uses that would be permitted if the property were
rezoned.
d) The conformance of the requested zoning change to Salina's
adopted Comprehensive Plan and any previously adopted zoning
policies of the Planning Con~nission and/or the City Commission;
e) The recommendations of professional staff, including discussion
of impacts, benefits and other information contained in the staff
report;
f} Any other data deemed relevant and presented at the public
hearing, including but not limited to: traffic studies, historic
preservation plans, drainage studies and presence of other
special conditions or characteristics.
2. In making motions, the following format should be used:
"I move that we recommend to the City Commission that the rezoning
request be {approved) or (denied) based on the following factors:
{recite the specific factor or factors that supports the motion or
indicate agreement with any specific comments in the staff report)."
Date of Policy Adoption: ~m~
Approved:~~Ch~./~,. al rman
00 NOT IRITK IN THIS SPACE
TO~ THE GOVERNING BODY ..
City of hlln-, bnel- , CITY OF S&LiNA, KS
, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Saline. Kaneos, to berry petltlm your honorable body fort :...o .. · · · ..
I~E PROTEST TH~ PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONING FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN ZONING
APPLICATION Z93-I! ZONE CHANGE FROM R-SINGLE FAMILY TO R-2 Z~JLTI FAMILY AT
LOT # I!, BLOCK 7, IN HPLAT OF FAITH ADDITION.
: : OO NOT IIRITE IN THIS SPACE
/. : PETITION
TO~ THE GOVERNING BOOY
Clt:y of S41lnl, Kanlis
#t. the uncler~gned, being restcle~l ind pro~rty owner~ ~n the
Cl~y of Saline, Kansas, ~o ~her~y pe~ttlon your honorlble boOy for~ : ..................... . ......, · · .o... .. ... ..
~ PROTEST THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONING FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN ZONING
APPLICATION Z93-! I ZONE CHANGE FROH R-SINGLE FAHILY TO R-2 1411LTI FAHILY
" AT LOT t Ii, BLOCK ?, IN EEPLAT OF FATIH ADDITION.
NAHE ADORESS
DO NOT IMITE IN THIS SPACE
PETITION NUNBER
TOz THE GOVERNINO BODY :
We, the underItg~, blt~ restd~tI a~ pr~er~ wrs tn the
City of ~ltna, ~as, to ~y pe~ttton your horrible bo~ forz : ......... · ................ · ......... · ......