To: Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council
From: Katasha Smithers, Planner I and Julie Smith, Community Development Director
Subject:
Title
PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and approval of an ordinance by the City Council, to authorize Specific Use Permits (SUP) for a single-story liquor store (10,000 SF or greater), located on approximately 1.712-acre property, located on the east side of Keller Smithfield Rd, approximately 425-feet northeast of the intersection of Keller Parkway and Keller Smithfield Road, being a portion of Tract 3A12, Abstract 424, Dunham, J A Survey, zoned Town Center (TC), and addressed as 100 Chandler Road (Account#:03853381). John McClure, McClure Partners, Applicant; Greenway-Keller, L.P., Owner. (SUP-20-0010)
Background:
In November 2019, the citizens of Keller voted to approve the sale of liquor and alcoholic beverages within City limits.
In December 2019, City Council unanimously approved the Unified Development Code (UDC) text amendment to allow “liquor” and “distillery” uses in Retail (R), Town Center (TC), Old Town Keller (OTK), Katy Road (KR), and Commercial (C) zoning districts (Ordinance #1959).
Today, the Applicant is proposing to construct a 12,180 square-foot single-story retail liquor store in the Town Center zoning district.
SUP Requests:
1. An SUP to construct a single-story structure in Town Center (TC) zoning district.
2. An SUP for a liquor store 10,000 square-foot or greater to be constructed in the Town Center (TC) zoning district.
Site Design:
The Applicant is proposing to meet all Town Center requirements including parking requirements. The Concept Plan depicts how the lot may be developed if the SUP requests are approved.
Elevations:
UDC Section 8.03 (P)(4)(c) states, “The wall surface for all buildings other than glass shall be one hundred percent (100%) masonry material compatible with the Town Center district. Seventy-five percent (75%) of overall wall surfaces other than glass shall be brick, stone, or cast stone. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) may be stucco, fibrous cement, split-face block, or other masonry material.”
The Applicant proposes to utilize 100% brick and stone for all building facades and exceed the Town Center (TC) guidelines.
Proposed Hours of Operation:
Monday - Saturday: 10am to 9pm
Sunday: Closed
Trip Generation:
Per the UDC, a trip generation form was provided by the Applicant. The Applicant anticipates a total of 1,238 trips per 24 hours; consequently, the proposed use does not warrant a Traffic Impact Analysis.
Citizen Input:
In February, 2020, the Applicant met with the Saddlebrook Estates and Newton Ranch HOA representative.
On March 29, 2020, the City advertised the public hearing notice more than fifteen (15) days prior to the scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council joint meeting date.
On March 30, 2020, the city mailed out 33 letters of Notifications for this Public Hearing to property owners within three hundred feet (300’) of the subject site. A public hearing notice sign was also posted on the site.
As of April 3, 2020, Staff has received two letters in opposition, three emails from the public, and approximately five phone calls related to Specs.The concerns expressed include simple opposition to liquor stores in general, concern over trees (see below), and general questions about building height, site design, and the like.
• The three emails related to the hackberry trees (non-protected) located along the north property line between the proposed site and the neighborhood. In Town Center, the UDC requires the developer to construct an 8’ masonry screening wall on the property line between the commercial and residential uses. In order to construct the wall, these hackberry trees on and close to the property line would have to be removed. The three property owners requested that the developer be permitted to forgo the UDC-required screening wall and leave the trees in place or relocate the wall further south to save the trees.
o The proposed site design (which complies with the UDC) includes the 8’ masonry wall on the north property line and a 30’ landscape buffer. The building setback requirement is 60’ from this same property line, but the proposed site plan provides for a 90’ building setback - 30 additional feet.
o In Section 8.13(H), the UDC does generally provide City Council the ability to grant the request of a developer to use alternative screening wall materials (such as a living screening wall utilizing trees, understory plants, shrubs). However, this provision is specifically excepted and cannot be applied in the Town Center zoning district requirements pertaining to screening walls. But, because screening walls in Town Center are part of the design criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend and City Council may approve a variance to the masonry screening wall requirement. If such a variance were granted in this case, the Applicant could substitute live screening sufficient to provide adequate screening between the commercial and residential uses (trees planted staggered on 30’ centers with understory plants and shrubs within the 30’ landscape buffer).
o Residential property owners also asked if the screening wall could be moved south off the property line toward the building and away from the trees. Such an arrangement would create maintenance and access issues for the property north of the wall but south of residential property lines - a sort of no-man’s land. Also, if the wall is not on the actual property line, the design could potentially create future adverse possession claims (because the screening wall arguably also acts as a perimeter fence delineating property lines).
Summary:
Section 8.04 (B)(2)(a) of the UDC states that when considering a SUP request, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors:
1) The use is harmonious and compatible with surrounding existing uses or proposed uses;
2) The activities requested by the applicant are normally associated with the permitted uses in the base district;
3) The nature of the use is reasonable and appropriate in the immediate area;
4) Any negative impact on the surrounding area has been mitigated; and
5) That any additional conditions specified ensure that the intent of the district purposes are being upheld.
Planning and Zoning Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission has the following options when considering two Specific Use Permits:
- Recommend approval as submitted.
- Recommend approval with modified or additional condition(s).
- Table the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose.
- Recommend denial.
City Council Action:
The City Council has the following options when considering two Specific Use Permits:
- Approve as submitted.
- Approve with modified or additional condition(s).
- Table the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose.
- Deny.