Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning 2802 North Broadway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears divided public testimony on North Broadway rezoning; decision postponed
Summary
Council heard competing public testimony over a proposed sector‑plan amendment and zoning change for property at 2802 North Broadway before voting to postpone the item for two weeks at the applicant’s request. Supporters cited transit‑adjacent housing needs; neighbors cited scale, privacy and neighborhood fit.
City Council members heard nearly equal panels of supporters and opponents for an amendment to the East City Sector plan that would allow higher‑density residential zoning at property addresses including 2802 North Broadway, then voted to postpone the matter for two weeks at the applicant’s request.
Proponents including neighborhood advocates and organizers argued the site is appropriate for higher density because it lies close to transit, sidewalks, a park and services. Jack Coker, president of the Bel Morris Neighbors, said the proposal would add “much‑needed housing” and urged the council to support RN6 rather than a lower‑density compromise: “When or if this project comes back before you, I urge you to support RN6. Say yes to housing where it is appropriate and needed.”
Opponents — including homeowners who live directly behind the lot — described the site as a fragile transition zone and objected to the RN6 height and dwelling‑unit potential. Rebecca Tucker said she bought her house under R5 zoning and worried a taller building would increase traffic, noise and backyard visibility. Hayden Chappelle, whose home shares an 18‑foot lot line with the parcel, said RN6’s 65‑foot allowance would “dominate” neighboring houses and urged council to follow staff recommendations for RN5.
Former council member Lauren Ryder explained the site's existing split zoning (CG2 and office) and planning history, saying that doing nothing could still allow substantial development under current zoning and recommended staff’s RN5 alternative.
After hearing three speakers in favor and three in opposition, a council member moved at the applicant’s request to postpone items 10G, 10H and 10I for two weeks; the motion was seconded and carried.
Next steps: Staff will return the item to the agenda after the postponement period; council members and community stakeholders indicated they expect continued negotiation over height, unit count and design details before any final vote.
