Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated hearing, Manhattan commissioners send contested rezoning back to planning board for clearer findings
Summary
Following hours of testimony from neighbors and the applicant and a prior court remand, the commission voted unanimously to return the rezoning of 300 N. 11th St. and 1020 Leavenworth to the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board for reconsideration with direction to specify denial criteria, after an override attempt failed.
The Manhattan City Commission on Sept. 16 reconsidered a contested rezoning request for two properties—300 North 11th Street and 1020 Leavenworth—that had been remanded by a court for procedural errors in an earlier city review. The planning board had recommended denial (vote 2–3–1), the commission previously overrode that denial, and the case was later returned to the commission for reconsideration following a legal challenge.
City attorney Katie Jackson reviewed the remand history and advised the commission on the three statutory options available: (1) adopt the planning board denial (requires minimum of three votes), (2) override the planning board and approve the rezoning (requires four votes), or (3) send the matter back to the planning board for reconsideration. Staff explained the proposal as a request to rezone the parcels from RL (low-density residential with an established neighborhood overlay) to RLA (low-density attached) while retaining overlay protections.
The public hearing drew substantial comment. Neighbors urged preservation of the neighborhood’s historic character, criticized spot zoning and the speed of prior consideration, and outlined efforts to pursue historic-district designation. "What happens to the people who have already made this their home?" asked tenant and homeowner Ayesha Stevenson, who said the uncertain process threatens families’ stability. Several speakers urged commission adherence to the comprehensive plan and recommended denial.
The applicant, Gavin Schmidt, said the property sits among existing multiunit buildings and that allowing attached single-family units would increase opportunity for urban infill; he described the request as consistent with the comp plan’s medium-density designation and denied intentions to build large apartment blocks.
During deliberations Commissioner Mitten moved to override the planning board and approve the rezoning based on the staff report. The override motion required four votes and failed on roll call (Mayor McCullough voted No; Commissioners Adam Track, Mata and Minton voted Yes; Commissioner Opelt voted No). After that failed attempt, the commission voted 5–0 to return the matter to the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board for reconsideration and instructed the planning board to provide specific, criteria-based reasons correlated to the seven statutory rezoning factors should it again recommend denial.
City staff and commissioners asked the planning board to clarify which comprehensive-plan criteria led to denial and to identify scope, infrastructure and lifecycle-cost questions if applicable. The commission’s unanimous motion to remand is intended to produce a more detailed record if the planning board upholds its previous denial.
