St. Helens holds hearing on rezoning 1771 Columbia Boulevard to Holton Business District

The St. Helens City Council held a legislative land use public hearing on May 7, 2025, to consider a city-initiated request to rezone a portion of the property addressed as 1771 Columbia Boulevard from General Commercial to Holton Business District; the hearing was opened at 6:44 p.m. and closed at 7:04 p.m. with no final decision made.

City planning staff told the council the primary purpose of the proposed map amendment is to eliminate a pocket of General Commercial zoning that staff and the planning commission identified as a "spot zone," and that the change would make the entire parcel governed by the Holton Business District standards. Staff said doing so would update allowances made obsolete when the city removed a prohibition on ground-floor residential in February 2015 and would align permitted uses across the property. "Staff recommends approval, for the principal reason of cleaning up that spot zone," City planning staff said during the presentation.

Under questioning and in background discussion, staff and councilors described the site's history, including its past use by Portland General Electric and later owner testimony during a prior zoning effort. Staff said the Holton Business District was initially created in connection with a broader 2009 effort and that, at the time, the zoning language limited or prohibited residential uses on the ground floor; that specific restriction was later removed in 2015. The city packet shown to the council included maps of the subject parcel and surrounding zoning and minutes from the earlier council action referencing the property owner's testimony about residential development options.

The council also addressed public objections that the rezoning was effectively predeciding the siting of a police station. Several members of the public alleged the decision had already been made and raised concerns about conflicts of interest involving the mayor. Councilors responded that allegations are not the same as evidence and that the rezoning is a zoning cleanup that would be valid whether or not the police station is ultimately built on the site. The council agreed to continue participation in the hearing despite the objections; no member recused themselves during the hearing.

One commenter who identified himself on the record as a resident, Nicholas Helmick, said he opposed the rezoning. "I am opposed to it," Helmick said. Other attendees who spoke during the public-opposition portion questioned the city's motives and urged the council to be candid about any connection to the police station effort.

The planning commission had previously expressed concern that the amendment could be characterized as a spot zone but recommended the council find that the proposal eliminates that condition and adopt the zoning map amendment if it so chooses. At the close of public testimony the council adjourned the hearing and moved on to other business; the council did not take a final vote on the rezoning during this meeting.

Next steps on the request—whether the council will deliberate and vote on the ordinance at a subsequent meeting or take other procedural steps—were not decided at the May 7 hearing and were not specified in the public record at the close of the hearing.