Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission directs Driven Brands applicant to renegotiate Cannery Square PUD after contested zoning hearing
Summary
After a lengthy quasi-judicial hearing on a rezoning request for a 2.97-acre parcel at the southwest corner of Canner Highway and Salerno Road, the board directed the applicant to renegotiate a PUD agreement rather than approve a straight general-commercial rezoning. The motion to seek a PUD was adopted 3-2.
The Board of County Commissioners on June 17 directed the applicant for a 2.97-acre undeveloped parcel at the southwest corner of Southwest Canner Highway and Southwest Salerno Road to renegotiate a planned-unit development (PUD) agreement after a contested quasi-judicial hearing on a proposed rezoning.
Staff presentation: Luis Aguilar, principal planner in Growth Management, summarized the application from Driven Brands Inc. seeking to change zoning from the expired Cannery Square PUD (PUD Commercial) to General Commercial (GC). Aguilar said the rezoning request followed an expiration of prior PUD approvals and that staff had found the application consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended adoption of a resolution terminating the old PUD and amending the zoning atlas.
Public input and concerns: Neighbors and commissioners raised concerns about compatibility with existing single-family homes behind the parcel and about noise, fumes and drive-through operations; several speakers urged strong buffering, filtration and wall requirements. Commissioner Campe, citing nearby residents, said he wanted “exhaust filtration and a wall” to protect neighbors if a drive-through food use were allowed. Deputy county attorney Elise Elder and staff reminded the board that a rezoning decision must consider the full set of permitted uses in a district and that specific site-plan elements such as filtration or walls are typically reviewed at site-plan approval unless negotiated as part of a PUD.
Board action: After extended debate and an initial attempt to approve straight GC (which failed for lack of a second), commissioners considered substitute motions. The board ultimately passed a motion 3-2 directing the applicant to renegotiate a PUD agreement; that motion carried with Commissioners Capps and Hurd recorded in dissent. Commissioner Capps and Commissioner Hurd voted no on the PUD-renegotiation motion; Commissioners Campe, Hetherington and Vargas voted in favor.
Why it matters: A PUD negotiation would allow the board and staff to secure specific conditions — buffers, walls, filtration, turn-lane accommodations or other site-specific requirements — at the ordinance level before a final site plan is approved. If the board had approved a straight GC rezoning without a PUD, the applicant might be able to obtain an administrative site-plan approval that would not require another board hearing.
Next steps: The applicant will return with a proposed PUD agreement (or alternative zoning application) incorporating negotiated protections for adjacent neighborhoods. If a PUD application is filed, the board will review it as part of the PUD approval process.
