Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning for 0.8‑acre parcel near I‑84 interchange to highway commercial; applicant proposes office and flex space
Summary
Morgan City Council voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 25‑14, rezoning about 0.8 acres (a portion of a 14.42‑acre property at roughly 948 North, 650 East) from agricultural to highway commercial. The planning commission recommended approval; the applicant said planned uses are office and small flex rental space.
Morgan City Council adopted Ordinance 25‑14 at its Sept. 23 meeting, approving a zoning change for approximately 0.8 acres (a subdivision of a 14.42‑acre parcel) located near 948 North and 650 East, changing that portion from Agriculture to Highway Commercial.
City planner Jake presented the application and maps, noting the full parcel totals about 14.42 acres and that the portion proposed for rezoning would measure roughly 0.8 acres after roadway dedication. The property sits adjacent to an automobile dealership and the city’s future land use map designates the area for highway commercial uses.
Jake told the council the planning commission held a public hearing on the item, received no public opposition and recommended approval. He said if the lot is developed, the applicant must dedicate a 60‑foot right of way and provide full roadway improvements — street, sidewalk, curb and gutter — and utility connections as part of any plat or building application.
Applicant Garrett Richens addressed the council and said his plan is to use the rezoned portion for office space and flexible rental units; he said he is not planning on on‑site equipment storage. Jake and staff noted some uses permitted in Highway Commercial would require conditional use review (for example, larger automotive or contractor storage uses) and that those would return to the planning commission if proposed.
The council discussed broader downtown and corridor planning during the meeting but confined the ordinance decision to whether the rezoning was consistent with the general plan. A council member asked that future planning materials available to the planning commission also be provided to the council in packet form.
Motion and vote: A council member moved to adopt Ordinance 25‑14; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
Why it matters: The rezoning allows small‑scale commercial development near an interstate interchange and will require public improvements if developed; it brings the city’s zoning closer to its adopted future land‑use map for that corridor.
