Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves historic use change for South 17th storefront after debate over retail limits
Summary
The commission granted a special permit May 27 to expand allowable uses for a historic storefront at S. 17th and Harwood, amid neighborhood concern about the possibility of vape or similar retail uses; an amendment to explicitly ban e‑cigarette/vape sales failed, and the permit passed 5–2 with conditions that allow Historic Preservation Commission review of exterior signage.
The planning commission approved a special permit May 27 to expand allowed uses for a historic storefront at South 17th and Harwood (special permit 26016), following extended discussion about whether retail permissions could allow vape or other small retail uses that neighbors said would alter the residential character.
Staff said the property is a non‑conforming building in an R2 district and had historically allowed retail sales; the special permit would reestablish a limited set of uses that make sense for the site (personal services, retail sales of non‑intensive goods, short‑term rentals, small neighborhood support services) while excluding clearly incompatible uses. Historic Preservation Planner Jill Dolberg and staff emphasized that landmarking carries exterior review and design guidance; signage would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Neighborhood members expressed concern that a generic retail allowance could allow vape shops and intrusive signage. Planning staff explained the zoning code treats retail categories broadly and does not easily differentiate retail products by use; enforcement of signage and operating characteristics is a separate tool. Speedway Properties, the applicant, submitted a letter and a representative said the company has no intention of opening a vape shop at the site and would accept conditions limiting lighting and inappropriate signage.
Commissioner motioned to approve the special permit with an amendment excluding electronic cigarettes, vaporizers, e‑liquids and related accessories; the amendment failed to achieve five affirmative votes. A subsequent motion to approve the special permit without the specific product exclusion passed 5–2. Commissioners in favor cited the applicant’s written commitment and the ability of the Historic Preservation Commission and code enforcement to manage signage and incompatible uses; commissioners opposed to the amendment said singling out specific legal retail products by a zoning condition sets a difficult precedent.
The special permit is final action from the planning commission; appeals are available to aggrieved parties within the statutory window.
