Manhattan commission rejects rezoning bid for two East Park lots after hours of testimony

The Manhattan City Commission on Oct. 21 failed to approve a rezoning request that would have allowed low‑density residential attached units on two East Park lots near City Park, after lengthy public comment and a split planning board recommendation.

The commission considered an ordinance to rezone two properties currently zoned low‑density residential with the Established Neighborhood Overlay (OEN) to a Low‑Density Residential Attached (RLA) designation. Staff noted the item had been remanded to the planning board following earlier litigation and that the planning board vote on the request was a 3–3 tie. City staff also told the commission a recent Kansas Court of Appeals opinion changed how protest petitions are counted, rendering a previously filed petition valid and meaning approval would require a three‑quarters supermajority.

Supporters of the rezoning, including the applicant's representative, said the RLA designation would allow modestly increased density in the form of side‑by‑side single‑family attached homes (no stacked apartments), align with the comprehensive plan’s low‑to‑medium density designation for the area, and help address local housing needs. An applicant representative described the types of improvements the requested funds and zoning would permit, saying each lot could allow up to three attached units under RLA rules.

Residents and preservation advocates mounted extensive opposition during the public hearing. Speakers raised concerns about the stability and character of the East Park neighborhood, infrastructure capacity (notably older storm and sanitary systems and limited on‑street drainage), the potential loss of existing affordable units, and the loss of historic fabric. Several speakers noted the neighborhood was downzoned in 2015 following a multi‑month public process and said approving this rezoning would undermine that prior community decision. Others pointed to potential eligibility for historic preservation tax credits and ongoing neighborhood efforts to pursue a historic district designation.

City staff and the city attorney clarified technical points during the hearing: nonconforming multi‑unit houses in the neighborhood may be repaired or updated in defined, nonstructural ways under the Manhattan Development Code, but a structure that is damaged beyond 50 percent of its fair market value by fire or other calamity generally must be rebuilt to conforming zoning. Staff also said lot coverage limits for RL and RLA are the same in the OEN overlay, and that some properties are counted as a single zoning lot under county deed records.

A motion to adopt the staff findings and approve Ordinance No. 7789 to rezone the two lots failed on a 3–2 recorded vote (Adam — no; Opelt — yes; Mata — yes; Minton — yes; Mayor McCullough — no). Following that vote the commission adopted an ordinance to repeal an earlier filing (Ordinance No. 7732) as a records‑cleanup measure; that cleanup motion passed 5–0.

The outcome leaves the two parcels at their existing zoning pending any future, separate application. The planning board’s minutes, the protest petition, and the staff report were all referenced repeatedly by speakers during the hearing.

Speakers who testified included residents who live on Leavenworth, Osage and Humboldt Streets, representatives of the Manhattan Preservation Alliance, and the applicant’s attorney. Commissioners asked staff for technical clarifications about permitted renovations, subdivision potential, and stormwater requirements during the discussion.

Commissioners who voted against the rezoning emphasized neighborhood stability and adherence to the prior planning process; commissioners voting yes cited the comprehensive plan’s low‑to‑medium density designation and the potential to add modest housing supply. No development approvals or building permits were authorized by the failed motion.

The commission’s action creates two immediate administrative outcomes: the requested rezoning did not pass, and the earlier ordinance on file with the county was repealed so county records reflect the commission’s current actions and status.