Planning commission denies request to eliminate street‑parking requirement for two Rusk Street houses
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners voted 4–0 to recommend denial of variances that would have removed parallel parking and other streetscape requirements for two new homes at 119 and 123 Rusk Street, concluding applicants did not show a hardship and that sidewalks/parallel parking further downtown serve walkability goals.
The Woodstock Planning Commission on Aug. 7 voted to recommend that the City Council deny variances sought by developers of two homes at 119 and 123 Rusk Street that would have removed parallel‑parking and other streetscape requirements in the downtown district. The recommendation was unanimous.
Staff told the commission the parcels total about 1.11 acres and are zoned DTMRA with an urban village future land‑use designation. The applicants requested three variances tied to downtown streetscape rules: removal of required parallel parking, elimination of a dedication of right‑of‑way for future parallel parking, and permission to increase a sidewalk supplemental zone above the LDO's 20‑foot maximum.
Cameron, the staff presenter, said prior administrative approvals had required the street infrastructure and that the lot‑of‑record exemption from installing street improvements did not apply because the proposed building footprints, architectural style and lot coverage differ substantially from the prior structures. "In the absence of a valid lot of record exemption, the applicant must include required street infrastructure on their site plans," staff said.
Applicant counsel Parks Huff argued the requested sidewalk and pedestrian connections would be provided but that a few isolated parallel‑parking spaces on a street otherwise lacking on‑street parking would be awkward, rarely used and could be misused by neighboring properties. He said the project would provide sidewalks at the required setback to maintain pedestrian connectivity while avoiding parking spaces that do not relate to surrounding lots.
A member of the public who lives on nearby Rote Mill Road, Paul Tandera, urged against removing on‑street parking, saying narrow Rusk Street already sees parked vehicles from neighbors and small businesses and that removing required parking would worsen safety when sidewalks are not continuous.
After discussion, a motion to deny the variances passed 4–0. Staff and commissioners cited the downtown plan's walkability aims and the absence of a demonstrated hardship as reasons for denial. The commission recommended the applicants include the required street infrastructure if they proceed with the approved site plans.
