Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Providence council tables contested rezoning for 96 North Main after weeks of public comment
Summary
After three public hearings and about 25 letters, Providence City Council voted to postpone a developer's request to rezone parcel 02-095-000031 (96 N. Main) from R112 to mixed-use so the full elected body can consider the plan; speakers sharply divided over historic preservation, neighborhood impact and commercial viability.
Mayor Kathleen Alder called a public hearing and opened discussion on a developer request to rezone parcel 02-095-000031 (near 96 North Main) from R112 to mixed-use. The proposal, which the planning commission had considered in May and June and which drew roughly 25 written comments, prompted a string of in-person speakers both opposing and supporting the change.
The most forceful opposition came from Owen Gettis, a lifelong resident of Providence's historic district, who told the council the project would "destroy that charm" and complained that ground-floor garages would displace planned commercial space. "By denying this rezone, you will protect our historic Providence," he said.
Supporters urged the council to allow new walkable retail and housing supply. Christopher Brown praised the developer's track record and called mixed-use development "remarkable for the community"; Justin McMurdy said the proposal could create a Provo-like walkable street but urged that rezoning be tied to a recorded development agreement that would bind future owners.
Developer Jody, present to respond to comments, said the plan keeps roughly 1,800 square feet of commercial frontage across three storefronts and that entrepreneurs have expressed interest. He argued the proposed buildings would be shorter and set back farther from neighbors than current zoning permits and asked the council to judge the facts on the drawing set posted on his website.
Council discussion focused on long-term implications. Several members cited a 2010 planning study and said mixed-use districts have citywide consequences beyond a single parcel. Council member Brent and others argued that, given intense public engagement and differing views, the full five-member council should be present to decide. The council voted to table the rezoning and take it up at the next meeting when the full elected body is available.
The motion to postpone carried; council did not adopt zoning changes tonight. The applicant may return with the same or revised proposal and any conditions the council requests.
