Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances rezoning for 1017 and 1023 S. Husband St.; planners, neighbors voice parking and density concerns
Summary
The Stillwater City Council voted to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone two properties at 1017 and 1023 South Husband Street from two-family residential (RT) to commercial business (CB) and advanced the ordinance to a second reading after public comment and discussion about parking, density and future uses.
The Stillwater City Council on May 19 voted to accept the Planning Commission's 4-0 recommendation to rezone properties at 1017 and 1023 South Husband Street from two-family residential (RT) to commercial business (CB), and advanced Ordinance 3570 to second reading.
The rezoning drew a presentation from Josh Brown, development coordinator in Development Services for the City of Stillwater, who told the council the map amendment seeks to change the properties' land use designation and that the city's comprehensive plan calls for commercial uses in the area. "This is a map amendment to rezone properties addressed as 1017 and 1023 South Husband Street from 2 family residential to commercial business," Brown said during the public hearing.
The applicant's representatives said the change is requested to enable a denser residential project that would not fit under the current RT zoning. Stephen Gose, project engineer with Gose and Associates, said the site is 0.48 acres and "the density doesn't work within RT," explaining the project does not meet the one-acre minimum for a planned unit development. Corey Williams, principal of Progressive Development, said he was asking for a commercial zoning classification so he could build the multi-unit residential concept and cited nearby redevelopment and investments in the area.
Not all attendees supported the plan as presented. Janet Rogers, who lives at 1006 South Husband across the street, said she could not imagine fitting 13 units on the site and raised parking and infrastructure capacity concerns, arguing that "the parking there is horrible" now and "it'll only get worse." Council members questioned how on-street parking would be configured; staff answered that parallel spaces would be located between the curb and the property line (standard parallel spaces are 8 by 22 feet) and that the project's plan shows on-street parking inset from the travel lane so it would not encroach on the current driving lane.
Council discussion emphasized that a rezoning decision must be made on the zoning classification itself rather than the specific development proposed. Mayor William Joyce and several councilors noted that commercial zoning permits a range of uses and that approval of the map amendment would allow any use permitted in CB, even if the applicant proposed residential uses now. Councilors also noted the site's proximity to existing commercial corridors and the comprehensive plan's designation. The Planning Commission recommended approval 4-0; the council voted 4-0 to accept that recommendation and to advance the ordinance to a second reading.
No additional approvals for the proposed development have been filed or reviewed by staff; the council and staff clarified that zoning approval does not constitute approval of a site plan or building permits. Staff said future submittals would be subject to parking, setback and other standards in the CB district if the rezoning is adopted.
The rezoning will return for further readings under the city's ordinance process. If adopted, the property would be subject to commercial zoning regulations and any subsequent development proposals would follow standard review procedures.
