Nevada council approves rezoning for former Story County Hospital despite heavy neighborhood opposition

The Nevada City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 10-64 to rezone the former Story County Hospital property to allow multi-family redevelopment, authorizing the project proponents to proceed to later site-plan steps.

The vote came after an extended public comment period in which dozens of residents and business representatives spoke for and against converting the old hospital into apartments. Supporters said the project would add housing and customers for downtown businesses; opponents said the plan would create parking and safety problems, amount to spot zoning and could degrade nearby property values.

Neighbors spoke repeatedly about traffic, parking and neighborhood character. Linda Bartleson, a Sixth Street resident, told the council: "The perception among taxpayers in this community is that input is solicited merely as a formality with decisions that are already predetermined." Marsha Grama, who said she has lived on Sixth Street for about 20 years, said the plan "is unpopular" and questioned the need for dozens of one‑bedroom units in a neighborhood of historic single‑family homes.

Business and economic development supporters urged approval. Scott Henry, speaking on behalf of roughly "60 plus investors in Nevada Economic Development Council," said housing near Main Street would bring customers and employees to downtown businesses. Emily Schack, Main Street Innovator Director, said state grant programs have supported recent downtown renovations and added: "I encourage you to vote yes to the rezone so the project can move forward."

Council discussion echoed the split in the room. Councilmember Dane said the city does not own the property and noted the project team is proposing a multimillion‑dollar investment: "We're voting to rezone at this point. If it sits there as it's zoned right now, there's not a lot that can happen with it." Councilmember Henry Corbin said he opposed the rezoning, calling it spot zoning and saying he did not see a market for the proposed unit mix: "I will be against it."

Speakers also raised technical and funding questions. Several residents and speakers referenced asbestos remediation and state grant requirements; staff and council noted that some state funds and grant approvals are already tied to the project and that site remediation and a formal site plan will follow rezoning. Christine Heights, who said she reviewed the grant documents, noted that Iowa workforce housing grants remain available for other projects and encouraged the council and neighbors to be aware of application rules.

The council passed the ordinance. The meeting record shows a motion to approve Ordinance 10‑64 and a second; the mayor called the vote and announced, "The ordinance has passed." The meeting transcript does not provide a roll‑call tally in the public record presented.

Next steps identified in the discussion: the developer must return with a detailed site plan that will address parking and other site‑specific items in a subsequent public hearing. Council and staff also noted that some grant paperwork and asbestos remediation funding are tied to the existing application and that rejecting the rezoning could affect those awards.

For now, the rezoning clears the way for the developer to pursue permits and site planning; concerns raised by residents about parking, traffic, neighborhood character and long‑term management of the property remain on record and will be part of later hearings.