That's what I don't get ... is it really profitable to have that many stations so close together? A gas station at one and a grocery store at another would be so much more practical and sensible and ... aw, heck ... this is politics, isn't it? Who am I kidding ...
I noticed this morning that they tore down that building that used to have a thrift store in it. I guess the little building that used to be Joyce's Hair Salon is next.
Apparently. Unlike the government, if a private company isn't profitable, it will go out of business. Along the same notion, a business owner (especially an oil company) won't say, "Let's spend tens of thousands of dollars building a gas station and we'll see if it will make any money." They take polls, they research the traffic and, only if they feel fairly certain of a reasonable return, will they invest the money to build. Yes, sometimes their research is wrong, but not often.
No kidding. This is my point. Too much of this stuff from bone-headed business people and planners. This is what happened at 4042. Too many gas stations crop up and they can't stay viable. That's their prerogative however, the gas station itself (the structure) remains when it goes out of business. Take Sonic for example. Their business model failed and now Clayton is left with a blighted drive-thru on Hwy 70. It is a single use building and is poor planning to allow this sort of thing without a demolition clause.
This is my point. The JoCo planners are not necessarily looking for highest and best use in the development and zoning plan.
My issue isn't with the law of supply and demand, the right to build your business, or whatever. My beef is with JoCo planners, planning board and commissioners who have never considered any long range plan for this area beyond next month.
Funny how you start by talking about gas stations that go out of business, but your example is that of Sonic. Sonic went out of business because of poor location. No one could make a left turn into Sonic, so the only way to enter it was to make a U-turn. Not very convenient, especially on Hwy 70 (and even worse on Hwy 70 during dinner or lunch time). I wasn't a fly on the wall at the planning meeting, but I'd be willing to bet good northern money that when they agreed to build, they had at least a verbal promise from the city that a left turn lane would be built (which, of course, was later retracted). Now I will admit that it's been quite a few months since I've been in that particular area, but wasn't the Sonic building occupied by another company not too long ago? But, on your concern of gas stations, which should have an agreement that, if the station fails that the underground tanks must be removed (and a bond is paid in advance for that specific purpose), which gas stations are you talking about that were built and then went out of business within a year or two?
Every parcel of land has a zoning. In that zoning there are what's called "permitted uses", which defines what can and can not go on that parcel of land. There are "special uses" which allows other types of entities to use that parcel of land but they have to jump through more hoops to get permitted. Then you are also allowed to apply for a rezoning permit to try and get the parcel rezoned to something more favorable to what you are trying to do. If you have ever seen or read the Johnston County UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) then you will see each permitted use for each zoning. Now the County can look at a parcel of land, lets say 50 acres, on the corner of Busy Street and Way Busy Lane and they can decide that they only want a park to go there. Something that benefits the entire community. Sounds good on paper and all the surrounding residents are all over it, thinking its a great idea. Now the County only has to sit back and wait for some developer or the actual property owner to build it. The County is not in the business of development so they wait a year and nothing. Few more years and nothing. The property owner doesnt have the money to build it because remember, its not like he just tells people....come play here - park over there, throw your trash over yonder and just go have fun. Nope, doesnt work that way. The owner, you see, will have to build it to the vision of the County and to its UDO. Have to have paved parking. Bathroom facilities, which means you have to run water and possibly sewer services to the property and that also means you have to pay sewer and water tap fees. You have to get it surveyed, draw a site plan showing what you want to do, landscape plan and so forth. 2 years later, you have a nice park that just cost the owner 100k in development costs, of which he will never recoop. Not to mention the insurance he has to carry in case someone gets hurt and they sue. And they would. So the property owner says the heck with it, he isnt going to go through all that. He cant donate the land to the County because he will cost him too much to do that so he finds someone who is interested in the property and wants to put in a gas station/car wash/mini-mart type thing. According to the zoning, its a permitted use. Or, maybe its someone who wants to put in a dog kennel, or a half-way house. Its all permitted according to the zoning. Know what the County can do about it? Nothing really. Sure they can deny the developmental applications, based on whatever made up reason Allen Mims tells them to use (he does it all the time anyway) and they hope the developer goes away. But the developer doesnt. He makes a few changes and submits again. Denied again. Submitted again, denied again. Finally! (and it has happened before) there is a law suit by the developer saying the County is illegally denying the developer the right to develop the property as it is outlined in the County's UDO. County gives in because they cant afford the suit, and the developer get to go ahead with his site. In the end, the County or any municipality can hope or plan or lay out a 20 year long range plan for what they want. In the real world, it matters little. The County does not develop so they cant build what they want to see. Just like the Town of Clayton dictated what they wanted to see in the area surrounding the new hospital on 42. They put out their demands what they wanted and look what happened. Nothing. The developers told the Town that they were the developers and paying for everything, not the Town. Town didnt see it that way. So now its vacant land. Town lost. Moral of the story is that you can long range plan all you want and believe me, ive been in the business of development for the last 20 years here in the County. Planning is great. What gets built is often a different story.
I don't think anything has occupied the Sonic property since they closed. They even tore down the canopy. The one in Smithfield is being used as a used car lot, which would be a pretty good use for the Clayton one, if zoned for such use.
Dollar to donuts ToC will not allow another car lot along Hwy 70. They turned one down recently. Refused to let the owner access off of Hwy 70 even though there was an existing access off Hwy 70. So basically it was...yes we see you have access from 70 on to your property. However since we dont like this project, you must drive through the Hardees/Waffle House/Adam & Eve parking lot, through the lot and build a new access from that parking lot to get to your own property. You cant use your existing access. We dont like it.
I have had conversations and voiced opinions on other matters at public meetings. Perhaps you should go pound sand.
Gas stations and Sonic have a very similar architectural structure to them in that they are mostly pavement and canopy. Any unusual structure unsuited to adaptive re-use should have agreements in place that would compensate somehow for the departure of the business. I believe they do this here and there for big box retailers now. Clif, why have you decided to come back now?
I know you're talking about ToC now, as opposed to JoCo, but what you're saying here seems to be in contradiction to your previous post in that the planning jurisdiction has some authority to allow or not allow a particular use/plan based on density, saturation, etc. I am not questioning your experience in the subject, but rather trying to learn from it.
Initially i was talking about JoCo but then the car lot topic popped in and that was related to ToC, sorry. My point was this. You suggested that JoCo should do more, or better long range planning because in your opinion, they lack that terribly. I was saying that you can long range plan all you want and thats good. You can set aside this side of the county for residential, that side for commercial, over there for industrial and so on. You can do that all day every day and it will never work until the permitted uses for each zoning change. For example. Let me pull the JoCo UDO up real fast...sec..well actually the entire UDO is not on line and i dont have it at my house. Sorry. But the gist of it is this. There are multiple uses allowed in each zoning district. GB, for example, is General Business. Seems simple enough however residential lots are allowed in GB. Why are houses allowed in GB zoning areas? Dunno. A dry cleaning establishment is not allowed in NB (Neighborhood Business) but its permitted in CB (Community Business) as long as it is not bigger than 6500 sq. ft and GB at any size. Its now allowed in O&I (Office & Institutional) I-1 or I-2 (Industrial). Mini storage is not allowed in NB or CB, but is allowed in GB, IHI (Interstate Highway Interchange) , I-1 and I-2. Why not allowed in NB or CB? However if i have a prime spot for a mini storage and the zoning is CB, i can petition to get it changed to GB and if no one objects, boom. I have a mini storage in a place that it was not allowed 90 days ago. This is confusing as crap for people who dont deal with it every day but my point is, that how can you do 100% actual long range planning, 10-20 years down the road when everything depends on several factors that JoCo Commissioners and planners can never forsee? Economy. Desirability. Need. Will people develop the county as JoCo wants, or will it get developed as the developer sees fit (since he is footing the bill) but stays in the vague and general guidelines that zoning permits? You can sit there and say ok, these 10 city square blocks are residential now. But in 20 years, all these people will have moved out and we will bulldoze the entire place (if JoCo had the means to do it) and we are going to make this a JoCo Silicon Valley. Admirable goal. Now they just have to find someone to develop it that way, who is willing to spend his or her money on a project and design and build it according to JoCo specs. In a sense, the developer loaning JoCo $50 million so it can be developed like the long range forcasters want. Not gona happen. Say Fred owns those 10 city blocks. He sells them to Sam for $10 million. Now Sam wants to come in and put up condo's and office space. JoCo says...nope. 15 years ago we designated this as a Silicon Valley project. You have to build and develop it the way we want it. Sam is gona say...um no. We'll check ya. Course, Sam would have done his homework to begin with and he knew JoCo wanted Silicon Valley so Sam never would have bought to start with. Now Fred owns 10 city blocks that he cant do a thing with until if and when the right person comes. Could be a long wait.
I see Sonics all over the country, and my wife stops by them 2 or 3 times a week in North Carolina, did a franchisee own both these stores and fail?
I suppose good planning is kind of like pornography then, we know when we see it? I see what you're saying, but regardless of what the UDO says there has got to be some limits JoCo can impose regarding density and/or frequency. Like you said, ToC has been known to turn down projects due to poor fit.
