_{Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Office}

Memo

To:      City Manager Mike Wildgen

From:   David R. Guntert and David Corliss

CC: Linda Finger; Sheila Stogsdill

Date:    1/27/2005

Re:      Protest Petition Report for Z-10-50-04: Rezoning of 3.648 Acres from A-1 to RS-2 District

The referenced rezoning case was considered by the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission during their meeting on December 15, 2004 (Item No. 8B on the December agenda).  At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted (10-0) to approve the zoning of the subject property.  The Planning Commission recommended approval from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District rather than going with the original RS-2 District requested by the applicant.  Their recommendation for RS-1 District was based upon the Lesser Change Table and the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report.  The recommendation of the Planning Commission was also subject to a condition of the recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.

Following the conclusion of the public hearing by the Planning Commission, several area property owners filed protest petitions with the City Clerk’s Office opposing the rezoning request.  These petitions were filed within 14 days of the conclusion of the Planning Commission’s hearing.  The protest petitions oppose the rezoning of the subject property to RS-2 District.  The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve zoning of the subject property to RS-1 District.  The protest petitions were signed by:

Mary Ann Hoffman               1439 E 920 Road       PIN #023-113-05-0-30-02-014.00-0

Francois G. Henriquez, II,     1436 E 920 Road       PIN #023-113-05-0-30-01-003.00-0

George Paley, Trustee                   1448 E 920 Road       PIN #023-113-05-0-30-01-002.01-0

                                                                   PIN #023-113-05-0-30-01-002.00-0

The protest petition signed by Mary Ann Hoffman is for property owned in common with J. Philip Hoffman.  He did not sign the protest petition opposing the RS-2 zoning request.  Staff did not include their protest petition in the initial calculations for determining the protest percentage because there is a question as to whether both record owners need to be a party to the protest petition for it to be valid.

Based upon using only the properties owned by Francois G. Henriquez, II, and George Paley, staff has determined there is a sufficient amount of real property in the protestable area surrounding the subject property to constitute a valid protest petition. However, the protest petition is against RS-2 zoning, the Planning Commission only recommended RS-1 zoning for the subject property.  Therefore, the protest petition is not valid because the protest is not against what the Planning Commission recommended (RS-1).  When a valid zoning protest petition is involved, the City Commission has to have a ¾ vote of all the members to pass the amendment.   If the City Commission where to seek to rezone the property to RS-2, a super majority (4 votes) would also be required. 

Z-10-50-04 Protest Petition Memo; page 2

A map is attached depicting all the properties in the notification area surrounding the subject RS-2 zoning request and the properties owned by those protesting the zoning request.

Calculations for the protest petition are as follows:

Total area of zoning notification buffer (not including subject property or rights-of-way) = 61.237 acres

Total area of properties protesting the zoning request (not including Hoffman property) = 17.835 acres

Percent of the notification area property protesting the zoning = 17.835 acres/61.237 acres = 29.12%