Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezone topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Claremore council approves rezoning to allow duplex on vacant lot (Ordinance 2024-10)

2172744 · January 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Claremore City Council approved Ordinance 2024-10 to rezone a vacant tract from RSF-5 to MX to allow a duplex, following a unanimous planning commission recommendation and no public comment.

The Claremore City Council voted to approve Ordinance 2024-10 to rezone a vacant tract in Rogers County from RSF-5 (single-family) to MX (mixed residential), allowing the applicant to build a duplex on the site.

City staff told the council the parcel is in an area the comprehensive plan designates as "neighborhood conservation," which allows limited infill and mixed residential types where the prevailing character of a neighborhood is changing. Planning staff said the rezone responds to a local housing need.

Mr. Cookton, a city staff member who presented the item, told the council the site is currently vacant and that "should the actual zoning change be approved, the applicant intends to actually put a duplex on this property." He noted the planning commission considered the request at its Dec. 3 meeting and recommended approval by a 5-0 vote; staff reported no public comments in favor or opposition.

Councilors voted unanimously to approve the ordinance. The roll call on the measure recorded affirmative votes from Miss Badde, Cottam, Feldman, Michael, Callum and Long.

The rezoning changes parcel zoning from RSF-5 to MX; staff said the action is intended to allow the applicant to provide two housing units on the lot and that it is not, in staff's view, injurious to surrounding properties or inconsistent with the spirit of the comprehensive plan. The council did not receive public testimony on the item during the meeting.

The ordinance was approved on first and final consideration as presented to the council; further administrative steps for permitting and building review were not detailed in the meeting record.