Planners recommend removing CVS from district

The city council will act on the recommendation at its Jan. 10 meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the Commerce Room of the Commerce Civic Center.

Monday night’s action was initiated not by CVS or any of the other affected properties, but by Perry, who already had a typed motion and maps prepared showing how he wanted the CBD’s boundary relocated.

CVS had applied for a variance to the sign ordinance to rectify what it considers a competitive disadvantage, but the company withdrew the application — according to Perry a strategic move in the face of a likely rejection by the city council — before the city council could act on it.

When he introduced the motion Monday night, Perry couched the action as an attempt to contract the CBD to match a “future land use map” in the city’s comprehensive plan in which the CBD is shown as smaller

Perry said the current district “is way too big,” suggesting that it should run from the DDA office to Peerless Cleaners. Such a change, he said, would preserve “the old core of downtown Commerce.”

After 50 minutes of discussing the nature of the downtown and other possible zoning classifications, responding to a question from member Hasco Craver about why the issue came up, Perry replied that it was because the city would not give CVS a permit for the electronic sign.

Downtown Development Authority executive director Denise McKay spoke against the change, opening her comments with a request that Perry recuse himself from the issue so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Perry, saying he had no financial interest in the outcome, declined, although he did say he might abstain from voting. As it turned out, he did not abstain.

McKay asked that the planning commission give the city time to create an ordinance incorporating design guidelines for the downtown before changing the district, and Craver pushed for a work session between the planners and the DDA to reach a consensus.

McKay and Craver — who used to hold McKay’s job —both questioned why the request was not brought up by CVS.

“CVS should be here to request to be excluded from the CBD,” McKay said. “Shouldn’t that be the way to do it?”

Craver pointed out that when the zoning was changed five years ago, none of the property owners spoke up in opposition. “Five years later they want it (the zoning) back?” he mused. Craver also asked if the affected property owners were aware that their setback and parking requirements would change if the properties were removed.

McKay reminded the group that removing the properties from the CBD “allows for commercial signage to be the standard for these properties. Commercial signage does not embrace the unique character of the downtown area, which in turn helps differentiate the core of the community from strip centers and areas such as Tanger.”

Questioned by Craver, McKay said the DDA had not voted on the matter, but that she had contacted six of the seven members on the issue, and all oppose reducing the CBD.

Vice chairman Joe Leffew backed Perry’s proposal, saying an occupational/commercial/residential zoning would be more appropriate. He also argued that the city had made no effort to convince CVS and Walgreens to build structures in keeping with the downtown’s style.

“Signage is not the issue to me,” he said.

Commissioner Andre Rollins expressed concern over Perry’s proposed new boundary of the CBD, which wrapped around Hardee’s and CVS along property lines.
“I like clear boundaries, like roads,” he said.

Perry, Leffew and the group’s newest member, Jimmy Stephenson, voted for the motion. Craver and Rollins voted against it.