Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 26-00544 - White Owl – 4 W Moody Rd – Comp Plan from IR to CReason for Decision 26-00544 - White Owl - 4 W Moody Rd - Comp Plan from IR to C May 11, 2026, an application was received from Trellis Development/Bron Leatham to change the Comprehensive Plan map from Intermediate Residential to Commercial. May 11, 2026, Payment was received for the application. May 11, 2026, Application paperwork was completed. April 23, 2026, Staff reviews were assigned. May 21, 2026, Staff reviews were approved. June 23, 2026, Staff Report was completed May 27, 2026, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published May 29, 2026, and June 5, 2026. June 2, 2026, Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners. June 9, 2026, Notice was posted on the property. June 18, 2026, the application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Public Hearing – (26-00544) White Owl - Comp Plan change from IR to C – Located at approximately 4 W Moody Road, the application is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Intermediate Residential to Commercial. – Trellis Development/Bron Leatham (Action) Presentation: Randall Kempton introduced the second public hearing regarding a Comp Plan change from IR to C – Located at approximately 4 W Moody Road, the application is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Intermediate Residential to Commercial. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson introduced the request of a public hearing for a comprehensive plan map amendment requested by White Owl for property located at approximately 4 West Moody Road. The request was to change the comprehensive plan designation from Intermediate Residential to Commercial. Administrator Parkinson presented the proposal on behalf of the applicant, explaining that the request involved two parcels located near the recently developed temple site and adjacent church property. It was noted that the applicant sought the designation change in order to allow for future commercial development. Currently, the back lot is zoned light industrial. Administrator Parkinson reviewed the surrounding area, identifying nearby features including the temple, a future stake center, and adjacent church-owned property. It was noted that the church-owned land had multiple designations and that future plans for that property had not yet been finalized. No changes had been made to the comprehensive plan for those parcels at the time of platting, as future uses were still undetermined. In response to questions from Commissioner Francis, Administrator Parkinson clarified the location of the stake center and other site features and confirmed that the applicant’s request would align with existing and planned development patterns. Staff further noted that the temple use could remain under the current designation, but any future commercial or residential development on nearby parcels would need to comply with applicable zoning and comprehensive plan requirements or seek amendments. Administrator Parkinson stated that staff have reviewed the request and found no reason to deny it, recommending approval of the comprehensive plan change to the City Council. Randall Kempton opened the public hearing at 7:25 for a comprehensive plan map amendment requested by White Owl for property located at approximately 4 West Moody Road. The request was to change the comprehensive plan designation from Intermediate Residential to Commercial. He then invited public comments, first from those in favor, then those neutral, and finally those opposed to the proposal. No individuals came forward to speak in favor, neutral, or opposition. It was confirmed that there were no participants wishing to speak online. Vice Chairman Kempton inquired about any written correspondence related to the proposal. Administrator Parkinson indicated that no formal written comments had been submitted, although a verbal comment had been received but not formally entered into the record. The Chair closed the public hearing at 7:26 PM and moved the item to Commission discussion. Commission discussion reflected uncertainty regarding the proposed comprehensive plan change. Commissioner Thackery expressed confusion about introducing additional commercial designations in the area, noting that the surrounding development pattern—particularly near the temple—typically favored residential uses and questioning whether the proposal would create an inconsistent or “hodgepodge” land use pattern. Commissioner Francis acknowledged these concerns but noted that properties adjacent to major roadways, including the highway, were often more appropriate for commercial or less intensive residential uses due to noise and access considerations. Administrator Parkinson explained that the subject property was currently designated light industrial in part and that the proposed change to commercial could be viewed as a transition toward less intensive use. Administrator Parkinson further clarified that the comprehensive plan represents a long-term vision and may evolve as new developments, such as the temple and surrounding projects, emerge. It was noted that the plan must remain flexible, as future uses of nearby church-owned property were not yet determined. Staff also emphasized that commercial areas within developing neighborhoods can provide nearby services and reduce travel distances for residents. Commissioners discussed the size and limitations of the parcels, acknowledging that large-scale commercial development, such as big-box retail, would not be feasible and that potential uses would likely consist of smaller-scale commercial or professional services. Concerns were raised about one of the parcels’ proximity to existing residential properties and the uncertainty of future uses. Commissioner Casper suggested tabling the item to obtain additional information from the applicant; however, legal counsel advised that decisions on comprehensive plan amendments must be based on the merits of the request itself, rather than speculative future development or specific project details. It was clarified that the applicant was not required to be present and that future zoning or conditional use permit requests would provide additional opportunities for review. The City Attorney emphasized that the Commission’s role was to evaluate the comprehensive plan amendment based on established criteria, including consistency with long-term planning goals, public welfare, infrastructure impacts, and changing circumstances. One commissioner stated that, based on current information, the proposal appeared premature given the limited known development in the area and expressed hesitation to support the change at this time. The Commission observed that the lack of public comment or opposition could indicate limited concern from nearby property owners, though the Commission remained divided as discussion continued. A motion was initially made to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment; however, legal counsel advised that the stated reasoning—lack of information—was not sufficient to support a defensible decision. The motion was subsequently withdrawn. A revised motion was proposed to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment based on concerns regarding land use compatibility and whether the proposal met the threshold required for amending the comprehensive plan. Legal counsel encouraged the Commission to clearly tie its reasoning to established evaluation criteria, particularly compatibility with surrounding land uses. Further discussion followed, with commissioners expressing differing perspectives. Some commissioners-maintained concerns that the proposed commercial designation was not consistent with the current development pattern and could create isolated or premature commercial areas. Others expressed support for the amendment, noting that a mix of commercial and residential uses could appropriately serve the developing area and provide needed services to nearby residents. The City Attorney reiterated that the Commission’s role was to make a recommendation based on the applicable criteria and that the discussion would assist the City Council in its final decision. The prior motion was withdrawn, and the Chair opened the floor for a new motion as deliberation continued. MOTION: Commissioner Thackery made a motion to make a proposal that we recommend denial to City Council because amending the comp plan doesn’t go along with the community design. Commissioner Thackery withdraws previous motion. General Discussion MOTION: Commissioner Francis makes a motion that we recommend to City Council the approval of a comp plan change from Intermediate Residential to Commercial at 4 W Moody Rd. because of the adjacent land use current development and planned growth in this section I feel that it meets the appropriate bounds to make a change to the comprehensive plan. Seconded by Commissioner Muir. Action: Approve, Moved by McKay Francis, Seconded by Vern Muir VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 4, No= 2, Abstain= 0) Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Rick Robinson, McKay Francis, Vern Muir No: Brian Thackeray, Bruce Casper Abstain: None Vice Chair Kempton declared that the motion carried and confirmed that the Commission would forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for consideration. July 1, 2026, The application was presented to the City Council and considered first read.