Temple planning commission recommends denial of rezoning request for former veterans community center site

The Temple Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19 voted to recommend denial of a rezoning request for roughly 16 acres at 1252 Connor Lane, a site in the Crossley Addition that includes a vacant building the community had used as a veterans center.

Senior Planner Shelby Smith told commissioners the application sought to change the property’s zoning from Planned Development Single-Family Attached 3 to Office 1 to allow office or similar uses; she said staff’s recommendation was approval of the rezoning. "So the staff recommendation is approval of the rezoning from planned development single family attached 3 to Office 1," Smith said during the presentation.

The request touched on a prior ordinance that identified the subject lot for a community center for veterans and on recorded deed restrictions that include a prohibition on commercial uses. During the public hearing, multiple speakers representing Veterans Outreach Ministry and neighborhood residents said volunteers and veterans built and ran the community center and urged the commission to preserve its intended use. "We were told that veterans getting into the community had performed community service hours. So that's where we stepped in," said Mary Grace Sellers, founder of Veterans Outreach Ministry.

Developer and longtime project participant Pat Patterson described his role in developing the subdivision and building the community center. "I'm Pat Patterson. I own a cut called Patco Construction, and we have a property management company called LDR Management," Patterson told the commission, describing work he said he performed to prepare the development and keep the center operating during slow sales and COVID interruptions.

City staff said deed restrictions recorded with the subdivision limit uses and that one specific restriction (labeled in the staff presentation as letter h) states that "any commercial or professional activity, except reasonable home office use, is 1 of the prohibited activities." Staff and the commission clarified that the city cannot enforce private deed restrictions; enforcement is normally a civil matter for property owners who must pursue remedies in court.

Speakers who identified themselves as current property owners said they had been offered no viable alternative for operating or funding the center and that the building has been vacant for more than a year. One owner said remodeling the existing building into a single-family dwelling would be prohibitively expensive. The owner said she had been open to selling below market and to offers that would preserve community uses but that anticipated offers did not materialize.

Neighbors raised traffic and parking concerns because the site sits at the end of a cul-de-sac with a single point of entry and limited on-site parking. Several residents said they worry that commercial uses could increase traffic and depress property values in a compact neighborhood.

Shelby Smith told the commission staff mailed 19 notices to property owners within 200 feet and received 11 returned in disagreement from addresses inside the buffer and three additional disagreements from addresses outside the 200-foot buffer; the newspaper public notice was printed May 8. Staff also said the applicant’s request was evaluated and found to comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and utility and thoroughfare availability; staff recommended approval based on those technical findings.

Commission discussion touched on two practical constraints: (1) even if the city approves a zoning change, recorded deed restrictions could still bar commercial uses and would require civil enforcement by property owners; and (2) if properties within the 200-foot notification area that returned disagreement together represent more than 20% of the area, state/local rules would require a supermajority vote at City Council. Staff said GIS would calculate the 20% figure before Council consideration.

After hearing public comment and staff presentation, Commissioner Rhodes moved to recommend denial to City Council; a second followed. The motion carried with a tally the commission recorded as seven in favor and one abstention. The commission’s disapproval and the case record will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.

Next procedural steps noted in the staff presentation included scheduled City Council readings (staff had indicated June 5 and June 26 as the typical first- and second-reading dates), and staff said they would confirm the 20% notification-area calculation with GIS before council action.