Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atchison commission sends four-property rezoning back to planning commission after heated public hearing
Summary
After extensive public comment on neighborhood character, parking and historic preservation, the Atchison City Commission voted to return a request to rezone four near-campus properties from R-1 to R-2 to the Planning Commission for further review on suitability under zoning code 803.45.3.
The Atchison City Commission on Monday declined to act on a developer’s request to rezone four properties near Benedictine College and instead voted to send the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Zoning officer Phil Burke opened the discussion by saying the Planning Commission denied the request at its October meeting by a 3–2 vote after neighbors raised concerns about maintaining single-family character. The four addresses under consideration were 920 North Fourth Street, 908 North Fourth Street, 316 Unity Street and 318 Unity Street.
A steady stream of neighbors urged the commission to reject rezoning. Tim Drafts, who lives nearby, told commissioners he feared a change from single-family to multifamily would “change the community character” and suggested other vacant lots and city parking areas could be redeveloped instead. David Eaglewood, a Unity Street property owner, said parking is already tight and asked commissioners to address street-parking solutions before allowing denser development.
Claire Harrelson, who identified herself as living at 421 North Fourth, raised both student-housing density and preservation issues, saying an increase from five to 10 unrelated occupants per unit “has the potential to increase the problems” on that block. Harrelson also said at least one property proposed for rezoning may fall within 500 feet of a home listed on the National Register of Historic Places and asked the commission to confirm any required notice or review for historic properties.
Developer Greg Ostertag spoke from the podium and described his previous projects as high-quality, disputed some parking estimates and said those who signed petitions opposing rezoning had no immediate development plans.
Vice Mayor Wilcox moved to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded and put to a voice vote. The chair summarized the result as a 3–2 split and said the motion failed. Commissioner Murphy then moved to return the application to the Planning Commission to evaluate the suitability of the subject properties for the uses to which they have been restricted, citing factor 803.45.3 of the municipal zoning code. That motion passed by voice vote, and the item was formally returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
The commission discussed what the Planning Commission should revisit, including whether the proposal constituted a change of use or primarily a change of structure, whether the historic‑property notification requirement applied, and whether alternatives existed that would both preserve neighborhood character and allow infill development. Commissioners said they expected the Planning Commission to address those questions when it reconvenes the matter.
Next steps: the matter returns to the Planning Commission for a focused review of the zoning factors cited in city code (including neighborhood character, surrounding uses and potential detriment to nearby property) and any historic-preservation notice requirements; the City Commission will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation at a future meeting.
