2004-72 REZONING PROPERTY - 2901-2999 NORTH MONROE STREET AND 635-757 WEST PERSHING ROAD

Home Browse Search

Mr. Smith questioned whether the court order was no longer effective. Mr. Crowe stated that the court order was still in effect. Mr. Smith asked if the zoning was changed would it have to back to the court. Mr. Jones answered no it would not. Mr. Nordholm questioned whether the staff report when referring to neighboring shopping center was the shopping center across the street. Mr. Crowe stated anything across the street is considered neighboring. Mr. Naber stated that west of the site there is a church and some land and it is zoned B-2. He stated that he understood that 50 percent of the zoning is B-1 and B-2 in this area and the rest is PUD. Mr. Naber questioned if there would be ordinances to govern these issues of PUD. Mr. Crowe stated because it is a large site and it is not conforming to landscape and lighting and it parts could be torn down that it would be best considered a PUD. Mr. Anderson questioned if the property was zoned to a B-2 would all setbacks meet code. Mr. Bragg stated they would, and there are plans to redevelop the site possibly tearing down and rebuilding. Part of the property will remain the same but a new building on the site would have to be in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Smith questioned if the current site met B-2 requirements. Mr. Bragg stated that the buildings did but the parking lot does not. Mrs. Stewart asked how it is not compliant now. Mr. Bragg stated that the parking on Monroe Street was not and that it possibly was not on the Pershing Road side also. Mrs. Sadorus questioned how this would affect the tenants there now (Perkins, Country Nutrition, etc.). Mr. Bragg stated it would not affect them and there would be no change. Mrs. Stewart asked if a B-2 was allowed what was it staff did not want to see happen. Mr. Bragg commented that if a B-2 zoning was allowed, filling stations would be able to go on the site as well as automotive servicing. Mr. Bragg stated that staff wanted to stay with a specific development for the area and sunounding property. Mr. Clevenger questioned whether there was any objection to the southside of the property with past issues. Mr. Bragg stated it was mostly the northeast corner. The City Council had turned down the rezoning request in 1976 and the developer retained the court order at that time. Mr. Clevenger questioned the existing businesses if zoning is under PUD, what does the redevelopment have on the outside of the existing businesses. Mr. Bragg stated no physical changes would have to be done to existing businesses. Mr. Ed Flynn, representative for petitioner, was sworn in by Ms. Jesse.