Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning of Hazel/University parcel to R‑2 after residents raise concerns
Summary
After extended public comment and clarification from planning staff, the Guthrie City Council voted 5–1 on May 5 to rezone an approximately 8.77‑acre parcel from A‑2 (limited agriculture) to R‑2 (limited multifamily residential), allowing duplexes and small multifamily lots; the vote does not authorize specific building plans, which will require later permitting.
The Guthrie City Council voted 5–1 on May 5 to rezone roughly 8.77 acres bounded by Hazel, East Perkins and East University from A‑2 (limited agriculture) to R‑2 (limited multifamily residential).
The action came after an applicant presentation by Jim Martindale, the property owner and developer, and extended public comment from neighbors who said the site was formerly a family pecan orchard and expressed concern about traffic, loss of ‘‘quaint’’ neighborhood character and long‑term maintenance of rental housing. Martindale told the council he plans incremental development of duplexes and fourplexes rather than a large apartment complex, estimated a top rent of about $1,500 and said the project would not pursue HUD‑subsidized housing.
The rezone request (Ordinance 3432) was presented to council by planning staff, who noted the planning commission recommended approval 4–1 and described that R‑2 zoning sets density and development standards — setbacks, parking, lot coverage and landscaping requirements — but does not include a binding site plan. Planner Casey and other staff emphasized that subsequent subdivision, engineering and permitting reviews would still be required before any construction proceeds.
Local residents who spoke at the council meeting urged buffering and vegetation to protect privacy, questioned whether future buyers could build more intensive uses, and asked whether traffic on adjacent dead‑end streets would increase. Denise Jennings said she opposed multifamily use because she feared a long‑term decline in maintenance and community character; other residents said they welcomed reinvestment but preferred owner‑occupied housing.
Martindale replied that infrastructure (water, sewer, gas) is already available and that an incremental lot approach would allow market testing and smaller‑scale construction rather than a single large complex. He told council, “This is a significant investment for me personally … we’re committed to the city,” and said the development would add property and sales tax revenue without creating a utility burden.
After discussion, Council moved and seconded approval of the rezoning. The motion carried 5–1. Council members and staff recorded that the vote authorizes the land‑use change only; any specific development, street improvements or increased density beyond general R‑2 allowances would require additional approvals through the city’s subdivision and permitting processes.
What happens next: With zoning changed to R‑2, the property owner may submit subdivision plats, engineering plans and site designs that will be reviewed by planning staff and possibly require additional council review if a planned unit development or special exceptions are proposed. Neighbors may have future opportunities to comment during those reviews.
