Loading...
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 : ......... · ................ · ......... · ......