Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears PUD rezoning and contractor‑shops plan for South Dixie Boulevard site
Summary
Planning staff presented a rezoning request and preliminary PUD site plan for 14.24 acres at 1674 South Dixie Boulevard to create 15 contractor shop units and eight storage units; the planning commission recommended conditional approval with restrictions on outdoor storage, hazardous materials, buffering, and drainage controls.
Planning and zoning staff briefed the council on multiple land‑use applications for Radcliff-area properties, including a rezoning request for 1674 South Dixie Boulevard and a linked preliminary PUD site plan for contractor shops.
Mr. Murray Warner, staff, said the 14.24‑acre property (applicant: Coppel Associates / Southland Land Trust) was previously approved for apartments but remains vacant after the developer paused the apartment project. The new PUD proposal would allow a mix of industrial and contractor shop uses and is intended to provide affordable leased bays for small, non‑retail contractor businesses.
"These are not retail shops. These are shops for small entrepreneur businesses," Murray said, describing likely tenants as landscapers, painters, drywallers or small HVAC outfits who need garage bays and indoor storage rather than storefront retail.
The planning commission recommended conditional approval of the PUD and the preliminary site plan, subject to engineering review and specific notations on the plan: a clear definition that the use is for contractor shops (not retail), prohibition or heavy restriction on outdoor storage, prohibition of hazardous material storage, buffering for adjacent residential properties, and drainage/erosion control measures. Staff and commissioners said language will be added to the plan to define permitted uses and to exclude high‑risk fabrication or chemical storage.
Council members and staff discussed nearby residential impacts and property‑value concerns raised at the planning hearing; staff said the proposal is intended as a light‑industrial, warehousing‑type use with no retail sales on site. The applicant has previously installed site infrastructure (pavements, retaining walls and utilities), and staff described the PUD option as a viable alternative to the earlier apartment plan in the current market.
No final council vote was taken at the work session; the planning commission’s conditional approval and staff recommendations will be part of the formal record when the council considers the rezoning and site plan in the required review process.
