Published: August 08, 2008 10:36 pm            

Zoning disparity confusing

EDMOND — The Edmond City Council created a confusing precedent recently when, in one night, the council approved open display zoning for one developer on Danforth, but said no to another developer who wanted a change to the same type of zoning at the south end of Broadway. Both developers were planning tire stores, but their zoning requests were slightly different, in part, causing the different reaction of the council.

Edmond 40 LLC asked for a Planned Unit Development zoning with E-2 open display uses for its site south of Danforth and west of Kelly near the McDonald’s. The item was approved by the council. The very next item was an E-2 open display rezoning request by GAF Properties LLC south of Comfort Drive on the west side of Broadway, near the entrance into Edmond from Oklahoma City.

The main difference in the requests was this: A Planned Unit Development allows the council to restrict many uses within the plan while straight open display zoning is more broad in what can be built and displayed.

While that may be a really great reason to have denied GAF Properties, there’s a few more points of interest to consider. For example, the property on Comfort Drive is completely surrounded by other businesses that include open display or have the zoning. From a planning perspective, the city typically tries to group like uses next to one another and to keep businesses with open display zoning away from neighborhood areas. This particular request is nowhere near a residential development.

Mayor Dan O’Neil reminds us that the city did not recommend an open display use for a company that wished to develop outdoor storage and vehicle displays at a location across Broadway from GAF’s land. While that’s true, it still seems out of character to deny open display when the land already is surrounded by that type of plan. In fact, Edmond’s master plan calls for GAF’s property to be considered for an industrial use.

Perhaps the worst faux pas in this whole matter is this: The council gave absolutely no direction to the business owner as to what they could do to resolve the council’s concerns with having open display on this property for a tire store to come into town. It’s almost as if the city officials did not care whether a new business came here or not.

In a time of diminishing sales tax returns, perhaps we should care about helping new businesses meet our expectations and city codes.

A major issue underlying this entire debate is the fact that a four-year process to revamp the city’s subdivision and zoning codes really has not provided the panacea everyone sought. It’s the new Title 22 code that forced both developers to go before the council with the rezoning request in the first place. Before the code was updated a year ago March, both property owners’ zoning actually allowed them to have tire stores without going back to the council.

If we want to improve the business climate in Edmond while providing adequate protection for property owners, let’s revisit Title 22 and soon. In the meantime, if the council does not like open display then let’s at least tell developers and property owners what is acceptable to the council.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.