03/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . . Commission would be getting into the area of commercial uses in RPDistricts.' '. Councilman Murray noted elimination of any reference to "light commercial," replacing it with "professional office uses." He,asked whether that would rule out development of large....;,scale senior citizen facilities, including service facilities such as grocery, medical' clinic, etc. He' wondered if t{lOSe kinds of facilities were allowed whether they would have just as much external impact upon a neighborhood. as "light commercial," and why "professional officeluses" shouldn't be desingnated as "light" also. Mr. Saul replied that any large-scale residential developIDBDtwould probably be under PUl) procedures, so conceivably commercial. use could be provided. There is no provision at this time for dealing with size differeY:ltiating between "light" and "heavy" in professiDn<?,l uses would not be appropriate because that type of comparison is based upon degree of external impact - visual, noise, vibration, etc. In talking of pro- fessional uses consideration is given to nature of the operation. Mr. Murray felt it important that the.term be qualified if the intent. is to limi t those..;kinds of develop,~ents that would have a heavy exterhal impact. IVlrs ~ Beal moved seconded by Mr. W::i-lliams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with: unanimous consent o~~he Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. ,."" ,,- ---,~ .-.' . Councilman 'Williams said the issue of this ameridment is one of appropriate buffering or residential districts from. high density thoroughfares, such as encountered in the establishment of Citizens Bank at the corner of Gal Young and Coburg Roads. The position in the past has been that appropriate buf- fering is multiple-family housing but experience with'tl)at'typedevelopment along heavily travel$d street with noises generated therefrom has proved to be a point of conflict in thecoli~iunity. Although there may be some objectionable features in the present RP uistrict as contained in the zoning, ordinance, the light G'ommerical/professio:q.al uses seem to be the least offensive method of buffering residential areas near high density tho'roughfares. Mr. Williams felt the amendment would remove that buffer- ing tool and would make the RP zone useful only for transitional purposes between major land uses. He found it difficult to agree that the zone should include doctors' Offices, churches, schools, etc., but not barber and beauty shops; he felt th'e impact would be similar. Further, .he thought traffic noises from vehicular travel to schools would be far.greater than that to banks and other establishments now permitted. He urged rejection of the. am.endment, saying the tool now provided for buffering residential areas should not be given up. . I \ Mr. Pearson explained, that the Co~ission felt the present RP District classification was not working. Some uses permitted which would allow certain signing, overhead lighting, and which generated traffic were objectionable to residents, and were incompatible to surrounding uses. Commission and staff thinking is that because of the Citizens' Bank development there may be applications from other financial institutions for use of this zoning; so.Commission is anxious f'or the revision.' They feel the changes recommended will provide a u'se-fli 1, planning tool and will receive more acceptance by the public. He added that schools and churches under the amendment would be permitted conditionally, given the right are~ and condition$ which would make an appropriate development. In answer to Councilman Murray about elimination of H.~ zone as a buffer- ing .zone, Mr. Pearson said it is not being used for buffering now. Very few requests for RP Zones have been received because of the questionable uses permitted. Under, the amendment, he said, uses would be a little more limited but the buffering potential would remain intact, in fact would enhance utilization as a buffering classification. Councilman McDonald stated he was in favor bf the amendment, saying it would give the Commission something to work with. Mr. Williams repe'ated his contention that, although it' would give a;~suitable zon~ for transition be- tween major land uses, the amendment -d&es:tlot "fa:cidres~' the' problemofbuf"':' feting reside:htialareas from major thoroughfares. It was his feeling that uses calling for objectionable signing~ ~ighting, etc. could.be controlled under PUD procedures, and that it was a mistake to restrict the uses now permitted in the RP zones. .Mr. ~'i11iIur,raf' move.d seconded by Mrs. Gampbell,to insert the word "light" before the term "pro1'essional office uses" in Section 0.392 of the amend- ment. p' es 3/27/73 - 5