Rezoning

One Year Plan Amendment

4-E-16-RZ

Recommended for denial
by the Planning Commission

DENY C-4 (Highway & Arterial Commercial) zoning.


See case notes below

Details

Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Details of Action

+
DENY C-4 (Highway & Arterial Commercial) zoning.

Applicant Request

+

Property Information

+
Location
4515 Clinton Hwy

South side Clinton Hwy., west of Tillery Rd.

Council District 5
Census Tract 39.02


Size
1.20 acres

Sector
Northwest City

Land Use Designation? GC


Currently on the Property
Vacant

Growth Plan
Urban Growth Area (Inside City Limits)

Case Notes

+
Staff Recommendation
RECOMMEND that City Council APPROVE C-4 (Highway & Arterial Commercial) zoning, subject to 4 conditions.
1. A minimum 15 foot wide vegetated strip must be maintained along the rear (south) property line, on the north side of Tillery Rd, as well as the east and west property lines, where adjacent to R-1 zoning. Within this vegetated strip, a Type "A" landscape screen (see attached) must be installed. Existing vegetation may be used as part of the screening, but the screening must be made continuous along the three property lines. The approximate distance along property lines where the landscape screen is required will be 655 feet.
2. No vehicular access may be taken from Tillery Rd.
3. No exterior loudspeakers shall be used in conjunction with the C-4 business.
4. A photometric lighting plan for the area to be rezoned must be submitted for review as part of the permitting process. This plan should clearly indicate that there will be no spillover of light onto adjacent residential properties.

With the above conditions, the impact of the extension of C-4 zoning will be minimized. The proposal is consistent with the current sector plan and the recommended amendment to the One Year Plan.
Disposition Summary
DENY C-4 (Highway & Arterial Commercial) zoning.
Details of Action
DENY C-4 (Highway & Arterial Commercial) zoning.

What's next?

+
After the Planning Commission
Applicant

Fenton Nissan


Case History