Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to consider amended zoning ordinance to reclassify three College Street lots to R-2
Summary
Amended Ordinance No. 26-062 would rezone City Lots 5049 and 5050 from R-1 to R-2 and Lot 5051 from College Street Gateway to R-2; Planning Commission staff recommended forwarding the rezoning to allow a proposed private-drive 15-unit residential project, citing site constraints and sewer access costs.
Amended Ordinance No. 26-062, sponsored by Council Member Mike Reese, would change the zoning classification of City Lots 5049 and 5050 from R-1 to R-2 and reclassify City Lot 5051 from College Street Gateway (CSG) to R-2. The amendment was forwarded to council by the Planning Commission after a staff report and public hearing notice were published.
Planning Commission staff recommended the rezoning based on a site analysis: the three lots collectively total about 2.774 acres, front College Street, and have constrained lot depths and limited connectivity to the adjacent single-family subdivision. Staff noted that constructing a fee-simple subdivision would likely require at least 500 linear feet of new sewer infrastructure to connect to the sanitary main on the south side of College Street, making standard subdivision improvements cost-prohibitive. The application materials from applicant Evan Gasser / Gasser Builders state a concept plan for a private drive, turnaround, utilities, and up to 15 residential units (primarily duplexes). The packet records that AAACK LTD, the property owner, authorized Gasser Builders to pursue the rezoning.
Planning Commission staff summarized the rationale: "R-1 zoning is no longer appropriate as these lots on front on College Street and have no connection to the single family lots on Apple and Pegan Drive," and recommended forwarding the request to council to permit redevelopment in a form and density more suitable to the corridor. The comprehensive-plan excerpts in the packet describe the area as part of an "Established Neighborhoods" character area, which generally favors single-family development but allows for sensitive infill; staff argued R-2 was a reasonable accommodation given the site's physical constraints and proximity to commercial uses.
The packet includes the applicant's zoning amendment application, an owner authorization letter from AAACK LTD, and conceptual site notes; the materials do not include final site plans, financing details, or a recorded council vote. Next steps in the packet indicate council consideration of Amended Ordinance No. 26-062 and potential future review of a detailed site plan if rezoning is approved.
