At the forefront of the meeting was a public hearing regarding the rezoning of two residential parcels to a commercial classification for a drive-thru associated with Neelson’s project. The parcels are adjacent to an existing grocery store already situated in a commercial zone. The board deliberated the implications of this rezoning, particularly focusing on potential issues such as car headlights impacting neighboring properties. To mitigate these concerns, the plan includes installing screening on the property’s west side and adding a stop sign.

A concern was raised over the timing of the public hearing, questioning the standard procedure of holding such a hearing after the project had already commenced. Clarification was provided, indicating that typically, rezoning should occur before project initiation. Debate ensued over the specific zoning classification, with questions about why the parcels were not rezoned to C2, which is more accommodating for drive-thrus, rather than C1A. The rationale seemed to stem from compatibility considerations with the surrounding residential area. Ultimately, a motion to recommend the city council approve the rezoning to C1 was seconded and passed.

The meeting also revisited a previously tabled issue concerning the acquisition of land by local residents Jennifer Walter, Glenn Proudfoot, and Leah Witchman from Driscoll Southside Properties. The land, if purchased, would require rezoning to R1 for residential use. Board members emphasized the importance of tying the new lots to existing residential properties to prevent future zoning conflicts. A point of discussion was whether a standalone shed should be allowed on these lots, and the potential implications of maintaining the property’s industrial zoning. Concerns were voiced regarding future developments that might not align with the residential character, prompting the proposal of a restrictive deed to ensure developments remain consistent with residential zoning.

The board discussed the physical attributes of the land, noting steep grades and wooded areas that could complicate building efforts. There was general agreement on the need for a public hearing to gather neighbor input on the rezoning proposal, with members expressing concerns about traffic impacts and residential compatibility.

Attention then shifted to the procedural aspects required for the potential residential development of the industrially zoned property. The property owners expressed intentions to develop the land for residential use, highlighting long-term implications if the property were later sold. The board discussed the possibility of a deed restriction to tie the lots together in future sales, preventing separate transactions.

Specifications for an accessory building on the property were outlined, with plans for it to function as a storage space and pottery studio. The necessity for a public hearing to approve a minor subdivision and rezone was noted, alongside the requirement for a certificate of survey before proceeding. Discussions revolved around scheduling the public hearing in December, with considerations given to the property owner’s financial implications related to parcel split taxes.

Ultimately, a motion was made to schedule the public hearing for December 10th, provided the necessary paperwork was submitted.