Mark Wilcox/Daily Mining Gazette The Houghton City Council approved a zoning change request for parcels on Waterworks Drive

HOUGHTON — The Houghton City Council approved the rezoning of Waterworks Drive parcels at its Wednesday meeting. The parcels will now be classified as a R3 multiple family residential district instead of the R1 single family residential district. The rezoning comes with conditions on ownership restriction, a driveway not located on the eastern part of the property and principal use restrictions. The request for rezoning was brought forth by the Houghton Housing Commission to address the need for more housing in the area. The buildings planned for the parcels include duplex and quadplex homes.

Before the vote, a public hearing was held with several Houghton residents voicing concerns before the council and Houghton Housing Commission Executive Director Sherry Hughes defending the request for rezoning.

“The Water Works property presents an opportunity for us to help fill a housing gap,” Hughes said. “Our proposal is to develop a small number of high quality duplexes and fourplexes that are attractive, energy efficient homes that blend into the neighborhood and respect the surrounding character of the area. These will not be high-density apartments or transient rentals. They will be well managed workforce homes for people who live and work in the whole area. We understand that change can be difficult, especially for the neighbors who love and live [there] and want to protect their neighborhoods. We share that goal.”

She then explained the designs are intentionally made to include tree buffers, landscape, green space and architecture features consistent with the neighborhood. She added the intention of the project is long-term housing and stability, not commercial or student housing.

The concerns raised by residents varied from the wooded area within the parcel, potential violations of the R1 zoning, the zoning ordinances’ 17 questions when making a zoning request, potential changes to the area’s character and environmental impacts. One of those who spoke before the council was Dean Johnson who acknowledged there were people in favor of more affordable housing, but not the specific lots and brought up the 17 factors regarding rezoning.

“The only people that have ever brought those 17 factors up have been the residents. This has not been addressed and discussed in an open forum by the Planning Commission in any way, shape or form,” Johnson said. “If you would go through those 17 factors, I would argue very extremely, that the conclusion to those factors would be, no this ordinance should not be approved, with only one exception for one of those question factors.”

The 17 rezoning questions ask potential changes which rezoning can cause such as increased noise, changed property value, safety problems, master plan compatibility, aesthetics and old growth trees and more.

In the discussion preceding the council vote, council member Craig Waddell addressed the 17 factors issue that was repeatedly brought up from Chapter 98 section 772, Administrative Standards, explaining an important word in its verbiage. “The language is consideration ‘may be given…’ May be given. To these points, it’s not must be given. It’s not required. It’s consideration may be given.”

Chapter 98 Section 772 reads, “For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the zoning administrator, the planning commission, the council, and any other reviewing body or official, shall consider each petition for amendment as an individual case. Consideration shall be given to the location, size, and character of a use to determine if the use will promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and be in harmony with the intent and appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated, and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent districts.”

The next portion, which Waddell referred to, reads, “Consideration for zoning changes and use permits may be given to the following factors. This is a comprehensive list. Some factors will weigh heavier depending on the proposal.” The section then continues with the list of the 17 questions, then ends saying, “When considering a conditional rezoning request, the conditions restricting the use or development of the property should be considered by the planning commission and council when considering all of the above factors.”

Waddell also addressed the wooded area residents were concerned about, saying he has spent hours in the area and showed the council and residents pictures of the trees. “This is not old-growth forest. So when it’s been referenced as old growth forest, that is not old growth forest. I don’t think any forester in his right mind would tell you that’s old growth forest,” he said. Waddell also addressed concerns regarding the height of the buildings being 40 to 50 feet high, and Waddell had plans which showed the buildings being 28 feet and eight inches at the peak and 29 feet and two inches at the peak.

Council member Mike Needham also addressed those in attendance, explaining the start of the process does not solidify plans. The project will need to be brought to the Planning Commission for reviews. “We absolutely confirm that infrastructure in an area will support a development before we allow a development to happen, or we have a development agreement that includes addressing inadequate infrastructure. That won’t be an issue,” Neeham said.

He explained the city has worked on storm water issues for a long time, especially since City Manager Eric Waara has been the city manager. “We have a lot of planning commission work. We have a person on the planning commission together with the whole planning commission that did lot of work on stormwater management and planning. And we continue to do that. It’s never ending in a city that’s on a hill,” Needham said.

Council member Brian Irizarry was opposed to the proposed ordinance for the rezoning and was the only member to vote against it. “So my point I wanted to make on this particular vote is that I’m opposed, in principle, to a city council rezoning a property because a developer wants it to,” Irizarry explained. “I think that is inconsistent with the concept of the master plan and long term planning. And I think it’s inconsistent with the Master Plan’s emphasis on preserving neighborhoods and protecting community character. I believe this rezoning is also inconsistent with the surrounding residential and commercial character, and I think it’s also inconsistent with regards to traffic and safety the local and Main Roads in the vicinity.”

Irizarry expressed he was in favor of adding housing and zoning in a more dense way, however he felt the request was akin to a first draft and wanted the council to vote ‘no’ in order to get a better final draft. “We don’t have to approve every development that comes across our desk, we can be more discerning, and the housing can be built in a better way,” he said.

Irizarry also mentioned he is in favor of denser zoning which he believes is better for the environment, and that was not a factor in his decision.