04-13-06 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2006 the time was to allow some limited commercial development of these front parcels, 2700 and 2724 Rice Street, as a buffer to the single-family residential. The Planner noted that the result are the uses that exist today. The Planner stated that in considering the most appropriate zoning for these two properties, his recommendation would be Residential-Business (R-B). This zoning classification allows the existing uses to remain as they are today while still providing a buffer for the single-family homes on Iona Lane. Duray asked if the City would have more control if the property were zoned Planned Unit Development. The Planner stated that the City had more control under the RB Zoning. He noted that the PUD Zoning would open the property up to additional commercial uses, some of which might be more objectionable to the neighborhood. Betty Biller, 91 Iona Lane, indicated Chat her property abuts the property in question and asked the impact of the rezoning on her property. Biller asked if Tony's Hair Salon would be required to put up a fence. The Planner replied thaC the effect of the rezoning would be that the status quo would remain. However, the R-B zoning will give the City additional conh~ols at the time a different use would move in. At that time the business moving in would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. A public hearing would then be held on the CUP request, and the City would have the ability to impose conditions on the business such as fencing and screening if it is felt to be necessary. Biller asked if the rezoning would change the tax base. The Planner replied that it would not. There was no one else present wishing to comment on this matter. Duray recommended approval of the Rezoning of 2700 Rice Street from Limited Neighborhood Business (B-1) to Residential Business (R-B) and the Rezoning of 2724 Rice Street from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Residential Business (R-B) as outlined in the City Planner's report dated April 7, 2006. Seconded by Hall. Motion carried 6 - 0.