Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission sends contested East Park rezoning back to planning board after extensive public comment
Summary
Facing strong neighborhood opposition and procedural questions about the record, the commission returned a contested rezoning request for 300 N. 11th / 1020 Eleventh Street to the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board for clearer, criteria-by-criteria findings; the referral passed 5–0 after an initial override attempt.
The Manhattan City Commission voted to return a contested rezoning request for 300 North 11th Street and 1020 Eleventh Street to the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board (MUAPB) for reconsideration and more-specific findings. The motion passed unanimously (5–0) after commissioners heard extensive public comment and an attempted override failed to secure a supermajority.
City attorney Katie Jackson explained the quasi‑judicial process and reminded the commission of three statutory options: adopt the MUAPB denial (requiring a minimum of three votes), override and approve (supermajority), or return to the MUAPB for reconsideration (simple majority). The MUAPB had previously voted 2–3–1 to deny the rezoning and the decision was remanded for reconsideration after a court challenge regarding procedural timing.
Neighbors and preservation advocates urged the commission to deny the rezoning, citing comprehensive-plan consistency, the neighborhood overlay, risk of spot-zoning, infrastructure stress and potential displacement of long-term residents. Speakers including Ayesha Stevenson, Michael Masseri and numerous East Park residents described the area’s historic character and the consequences of incremental rezonings. Opponents recommended pursuing national-register historic designation and other preservation tools.
The applicant, Gavin Schmidt, said the parcel sits amid existing multifamily structures and that the requested RLA (low-density attached) designation permits single-family-attached units — not large apartment complexes — and would enable modest infill. Staff explained current zoning (RL) and nonconforming status of some buildings, minimum lot-width and other development constraints; staff noted that the rezoning could allow a two-unit attached building in some configurations.
Commissioner Mitten moved to override the MUAPB and approve Ordinance No. 7,732; that motion did not obtain the required supermajority. A subsequent motion to return the matter to the MUAPB, asking for specific, criterion-by-criterion reasons if the board again denies the request, passed 5–0. The commission directed staff to send back the item with instructions to clarify boundary, comp-plan consistency and compatibility findings.
The next step is for the MUAPB to reconsider the application with the additional direction the commission provided; if the MUAPB denies again, the commission will receive a clearer record to act on at a future meeting.
