Council rejects rezoning request at 21 Steventale Court; parking, notice and petitions factored in

The Rolla City Council voted 4-5 to deny a rezoning ordinance that would have changed the zoning of property at 21 Steventale Court from R-1 Suburban Residential to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.

City planning staff summarized the request and told the council the comprehensive plan designates the parcel as appropriate for neighborhood commercial uses and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 3-1 vote. Staff also told the council the city had received notarized protest petitions signed by nine property owners; seven of those were inside the 185-foot notification radius but the signed parcels represented roughly 29% of the land within that radius, short of the 30% threshold that would have required a supermajority vote to approve.

That shortfall — and residents’ concerns about parking and notification — formed the core of discussion ahead of the final reading. The staff member presenting the case said the city posts signs at the subject property and mails notices to property owners listed in the county assessor’s records. “Letters to people who own property within 300 feet of the subject property … go to only the property owners,” the staff member said, noting renters may not receive mailed notices.

Council members pressed staff on whether some owners had not received notice. One council member said some residents reported they were unaware of the proposal until Friday before the meeting and that had motivated late petitions. “We should give due consideration to those who have faithfully followed the process,” a councilmember said, adding, “I have every sense that our city staff followed the process.”

Council members also questioned how many parking spaces the applicant planned to provide. Staff said the applicant had orally suggested he could fit “6 or 7” spaces, but staff said on measurement they could identify a layout for four and that, under the code for a takeout-only restaurant, the property might only be required to provide one space. “Until they sit down and draw it out, I don't know,” the staff member said in response to parking questions.

When council called for a final reading and roll call, the following votes were recorded: Councilmember Kessinger — No; Steen — Yes; Roman — No; Turban — No; Welch — Yes; Johnson — No; Penner — No; Hahn — Yes; Greven — Yes. The motion failed.

The staff presentation and public petitions were the most-discussed elements; no binding site plan or parking layout had been submitted for council approval. Because the petition did not meet the 30% threshold, approval would have required only a simple majority; instead, council members voted against the ordinance.