At the October 9, 2023, Richardson City Council meeting, the Council denied an application for a special permit for a car wash on Centennial Blvd. The vote was 6-1, with Joe Corcoran being the lone Councilmember who voted to approve the application.
Richardson's draft vision statement sees Richardson as having "a small town feel and big city amenities." In case anyone wonders what that means, this case offers a clue. The City Council spending an hour debating whether to allow a new car wash behind an already existing gas station is definitely "small town." Denying the request because the Council wants something grander behind the gas station is aspiring to be "big city."
The property in question is circled in red in this aerial photo.
The property is landlocked behind a Kroger gas station and a Zaxby's chicken restaurant, and between a Kroger's grocery store and a child care center, and backs up to a soccer field. There are no residential properties (single-family, townhomes, or apartments) bordering the subject property. The City's future land use plans label this area Neighborhood Service: "Neighborhood Service includes service-related uses such as retail sales; personal services such as cleaners, barbers and beauty shops; entertainment; recreation; and office uses oriented to the immediate area."
I'm not a fan of catering to cars. We have more than enough drive-thrus. We have more than enough parking lots. So in that sense, my position on this application should be predictable: deny. But...I'm left with two questions anyway:
1) If not here, where?
2) If not a car wash, what?
City Council didn't satisfactorily answer either of those questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Arefin was concerned about the added traffic, noise, and pollution: "And you know, that 70 cars there, they're sitting there. If it was all electric, I would consider this but with that much pollution coming out from those cars is concerning for that neighborhood. But after maybe 10 years, we'll have electric cars and then we'll consider this kind of development more." With this reasoning, Arefin shouldn't support any development that people drive to until we have all electric vehicles. Put Arefin down for "nowhere" as his answer to question 1, at least for ten years.
Jennifer Justice was concerned with water usage: "Being the Councilmember who shouts the loudest about the year 2036 and the use of water that's not been discussed tonight, I appreciate the reclamation of water that they do on the property and those sorts of things but as I sit here I really struggle with the idea of putting in a business that's primary purpose is to use water even if they do reclaim a lot." Put Justice down for "nowhere" as her answer to question 1. Still, I wonder if denying car washes in Richardson will actually lead to a reduction of water usage in north Texas. Will it instead lead to more water usage by people washing their cars in their own driveways? And more gasoline usage as people drive farther to get to car washes in other cities? Maybe a more effective way to conserve water is for the City Council to pass an ordinance prohibiting homeowners from washing cars at home, and then grant permits to efficient car wash businesses like this one. It seems like that alternative should at least receive a bit of consideration before denying applications like this in the name of saving water or helping the environment.
Curtis Dorian is concerned that a car wash is not the highest and best use for this property: "I'm looking at how we're growing Richardson, how we're growing every part of Richardson and the districts we're creating and how we're hoping to use this limited amount of land that we have and repurposing it, trying to elevate its status and elevate the area that we're in. Right now this is a very key real estate spot and I really felt like we should consider it an important area and what do we actually really need there." Other than calling this little landlocked parcel "a very key real estate spot," Dorian's argument applies everywhere in Richardson. Put Dorian down for "nowhere" in answer to question 1.
Dan Barrios was concerned with future adaptive reuse: "How can we use that land if his business were to go belly up or if the economy were to change or something happens where this business is no longer viable? You know, we're dealing with underground storage tanks." He has a strong argument. The lack of potential reuse for a car wash is a valid concern. On the other hand, even gas stations get reused, and their underground storage tanks are toxic. Given that Barrios's argument applies everywhere in Richardson, put Barrios down for "nowhere" in answer to question 1.
Joe Corcoran had answers to others' concerns: "Car washes do use substantially less water than if you were to hand wash your car. They are substantially environmentally safer than hand washing your car." And although difficulty of future adaptive reuse is a concern, "If we're going to build a building that does not have adaptable reuse, this one seems like it would have a high likelihood of staying open for a longer period of time." And, finally, "This car wash is not just better than the empty lot, but maybe one of the only things that, as the property owner who's held it for years and years said, is economically viable here." Put Corcoran down for "here" in answer to question 1. And for question 2, Corcoran shares the property owner's assessment that a car wash just may be this particular landlocked property's highest and best possible use. He'll vote to support the application.
Ken Hutchenrider, as usual, has trouble deciding. Even after the public hearing, and the questioning of the applicant, and Council deliberation, when it came time to vote, Hutchenrider said, "This one is very tough...I guess I'm trying to battle in my brain...I don't know. I'm still on the fence on this one. This one, this one's very tough..." In the end, he raised his hand to deny the application without ever saying which argument tipped the balance for him.
Mayor Bob Dubey: "The only comments that I would make is the landowner knew what he had when he purchased it and got it. He's having to have a special use permit to go away from that. So I mean, it's zoned for retail. So it's not like we brought it in on him after the fact." If you paint yourself into a corner, don't expect Mayor Dubey to help you find a way out. Good to know. In answer to question 1, Mayor Dubey's words imply that he'd support a car wash anywhere the current land use plan allows, but nowhere else. But where exactly is that, if not here in a PlaceType labeled "Neighborhood Services"? There's a gas station literally in front of the property. How is a gas station allowed on this block but not a car wash? How can the City Council spend an hour on this without noting the absurdity of our patchwork zoning map and land use plan allowing one but not the other?
In the end, the City Council's inability to provide satisfactory answers to my two questions would have led me to hold my nose and vote to approve a car wash behind the gas station, even though I'm not a fan of either type of development. And I'd resolve to spend more Council time updating the 2009 Comprehensive Plan and less time getting bogged down on "small town" zoning issues like this one.
"Precious water used,
Cars pollute and vacuums roar,
No more car washes."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment