Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County planning commission continues rezoning request for Highway 17 site to allow applicant to tighten design and controls
Summary
Commissioners continued PUD 250009, a request to rezone 2.45 acres at 3075 Highway 17 from commercial recreation (BB5) to planned commercial (PCD), after staff recommended denial and commissioners cited missing specifics for lighting, signage, buffers and parking. Applicant asked for a one-month continuance to revise the submittal.
The Clay County Planning Commission on Feb. 3 voted to continue PUD 250009, a rezoning request for 2.45 acres at 3075 Highway 17, to the commission’s March meeting after staff recommended denial and commissioners called the current submission insufficiently specific.
Bess Carson, director of planning and zoning, told commissioners staff "does not see where the applicant has met the criteria established for a planned commercial district and therefore recommends denial of PUD 250009." The application would change the site from commercial recreation (BB5) to a planned commercial district (PCD) and proposes three additional commercial/office buildings and a drive-through coffee restaurant, with a maximum height of 35 feet, a 75% lot-coverage limit and a 40% floor-area ratio.
Agent Kelly Hartwig said the applicant revised uses on the table to be more restrictive — removing outside storage and certain heavy commercial activities — and proposed architectural standards and underground retention to help meet parking requirements. Hartwig told the commission the changes were made after a brief staff review and asked for more time to refine lighting, signage and landscape details and to update the conceptual master plan.
Several commissioners said the concept was promising but criticized the application as "poorly executed" for a PCD because it lacked specific commitments on lighting, signage, buffering and parking mix. Commissioner (Speaker 7) said the point of a PCD is that it should be "better than what you can get under straight zoning" and said the current submission does not meet that standard. After discussion, Commissioner (Speaker 7) moved to continue the item to the March 3 meeting; the motion carried on a voice vote.
The continuance gives the applicant time to work with staff on the commission’s requested changes; the applicant indicated willingness to incorporate more detailed sign and lighting restrictions, buffer treatments and parking strategies before returning to the commission. No public comments were offered during the PUD hearing.
The commission did not take a final vote on the rezoning; the item will return for further consideration at or after the March 3 meeting.
