[00:00:02]
THREE, FOUR, FIVE OF US. ALRIGHT. EVERYBODY READY? HERE WE GO. GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUESDAY, MAY 6TH, 2025, PROPER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. PLEASE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER JACKSON AND COMMISSIONER HARRIS ARE NOT IN ATTENDANCE, BUT ALL OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION. THOSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION MUST COMPLETE THE PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM LOCATED ON THE TOWN WEBSITE OR IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IF YOU'RE ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD CHAIR OR A STAFF MEMBER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WHEN CALLED UPON, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ITEM TWO THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IF EVERYONE WILL PLEASE RISE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ON
[CONSENT AGENDA]
OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING, EVENING. ITEM NUMBER THREE, WE HAVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. THREE A THROUGH THREE D. DID ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANYTHING OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING? AND IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER CARSON. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I THINK SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER FUREY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? THREE THROUGH 3D, SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 5 TO 0 AND APPROVAL. CITIZEN COMMENTS. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON ANY TOPIC NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. PLEASE COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM AND PRESENT IT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORMS THIS[4. Conduct a Public Hearing to consider and act upon amending Article 3, Division 1, Section 3.1.4 – Conditional Development Standards and Article 4, Division 9 - Additional and Supplemental, of the Town of Prosper Zoning Ordinance to modify requirements related to drive-throughs. (ZONE-25-0005)]
EVENING, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AMENDING ARTICLE THREE, DIVISION ONE, SECTION 3.1.4 DASH CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN ARTICLE FOUR, DIVISION NINE ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE TOWN OF PROSPER ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO DRIVE THRUS. THIS IS CASE ZONE DASH 25 0005. AND SUZANNE, I'LL LET YOU TAKE IT AWAY. THANK YOU.THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HISTORY ON THIS ITEM. ON JANUARY 9TH, 2024, THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED AN ORDINANCE THAT MODIFIED A VARIETY OF STANDARDS RELATED TO DRIVE THRUS. ONE OF THESE ADDITIONS ADDRESSED PROXIMITY REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS, AND THE STANDARD STATED RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE THRUS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED ON ADJACENT LOTS. THERE ARE DIFFERENT SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES WITH DRIVE THRUS. THE MODIFICATION AS AS STATED, ONLY ADDRESSED THE ADJACENCY OF DRIVE THRUS WITH ASSOCIATED WITH RESTAURANTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE ORDINANCE ONLY PROHIBITED DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS ON ADJACENT LOTS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD TWO DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS, IT COULD BE PERMITTED NEXT TO EACH OTHER IF ON THE SAME LOT, AND IT DID NOT GIVE ANY SPECIFICATIONS ON IF THEY SHOULDN'T BE ON ADJACENT LOTS. WHAT SHOULD BE BETWEEN THEM. FOR EXAMPLE ANOTHER BUILDING. SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO APPLY THE ADJACENCY RESTRICTIONS TO ALL USES WITH DRIVE THRUS, REGARDLESS OF SIZE. SOME EXAMPLES OF USES WITH DRIVE THRUS. AND THESE COME FROM OUR STANDARDS THAT TALK ABOUT STACKING REQUIREMENTS. SO THEY GIVE SOME EXAMPLES FOR DIFFERENT USES, SUCH AS DRY CLEANERS, PHARMACIES, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, CAR WASHES, OTHER AUTOMOTIVE USES WHERE YOU HAVE STACKING AND KIND OF A DRIVE THROUGH SCENARIO, GROCERIES WITH A DRIVE THROUGH THAT COULD INCLUDE, FOR INSTANCE, BIG BOX THAT HAS A PHARMACY, POSSIBLY A PHARMACY, AND EVEN A DRIVE THRU FOR OR A RESTAURANT THAT'S PART OF THE GROCERY STORE. AND THEN ALSO KIOSKS. PART OF THE PROPOSAL ALSO IS TO RESTRICT DRIVE THRUS FROM BEING ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER, REGARDLESS OF LOT LINES. ADJACENCY COULD BE SIDE BY SIDE, BEHIND OR IN FRONT, AND IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO, AS MENTIONED, A GROCERY STORE OR BIG BOX. WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH. THE OTHER PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD CLARIFY THAT A BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THROUGH IS REQUIRED TO BE BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS WITH DRIVE THRUS. SORRY, I HOPE I READ THAT CORRECTLY. SO YOU WOULD ALWAYS
[00:05:05]
HAVE IF YOU HAD A BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU AND ANOTHER BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THROUGH, YOU'D HAVE SOMETHING BETWEEN THEM THAT DID NOT HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH. SOME TIMES. AND I HAVE NOTED HERE SOME DEVELOPMENTS MAY HAVE TWO DRIVE THRUS CURRENTLY THAT HAVE A SEPARATION BY PARKING OR DETENTION POND, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITH THIS NEW REQUIREMENT IN THE NEW LANGUAGE. SO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE INCLUDE ONE. REMOVING THE STRIKING THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESTAURANTS OR THE DRIVE THROUGH SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED ON ADJACENT LOTS, AND THEN ADDING A SECTION THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL DRIVE THRUS THAT STATES BUILDINGS WITH A DRIVE THROUGH, REGARDLESS OF THE USE OR SIZE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH, SHALL NOT BE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. THERE SHALL BE A BUILDING WITHOUT A DRIVE THROUGH BETWEEN ANY TWO BUILDINGS, WITH A DRIVE THROUGH, AND WE DID NOTICE THIS. WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. AND WHAT I'VE DONE IS I JUST HAVE TWO EXAMPLES HERE. JUST AERIALS FOR POINT OF DISCUSSION. THERE'S NOT ANYTHING PARTICULAR SPECIAL ABOUT EITHER OF THESE. IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO LOOK AT WHILE WE DISCUSS THE REQUIREMENTS. THIS ONE IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE. AND THIS ACTUALLY WAS AN EXAMPLE THAT WE SHOWED BACK WHENEVER THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED ABOUT A YEAR AGO. AND THEN JUST THIS IS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DNA AND FRONTIER WITH THE H-E-B DEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN I CAN ENTERTAIN YOUR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSS THE ITEM. WELL, THANKS FOR THE REVIEW AND BRINGING THIS UP. THIS IS REGULAR AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. AND SO JUST TO CLARIFY HERE, IF ANY QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF, THESE TWO PICTURES YOU JUST SHOWED WITH THE NEW ORDINANCE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THERE.THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFICATIONS FOR BOTH OF THEM. YEAH. OKAY. CAN YOU CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT OTHER IMAGE RIGHT THERE. SO IN THIS EXAMPLE WHERE THERE'S A DRIVE THROUGH POTENTIAL ON EACH SIDE OF THAT BIG BOX BUILDING AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE IT FROM FRONT TO BACK. SO WOULD THAT MEAN THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DRIVE THRUS ON THE DALLAS TOLLWAY AND NONE ON FRONTIER PARKWAY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE BUILDING THAT HAS IT. SO ALL POTENTIAL DRIVE THRUS IN THOSE TWO MAIN ARTERIES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. CORRECT. IF THIS WERE THE FIRST BUILDING DEVELOPED WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH. ALL OF THESE LOTS ARE ADJACENT TO IT, SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS, NOT EVEN LOTS, BUT THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THIS BUILDING AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DRIVE THROUGH. AND HAVE WE LOOKED INTO DISTANCE? I GUESS, TO AS A MODIFICATION OF THIS, SO THAT IN THIS SCENARIO, WHAT I THINK I'VE HEARD FROM US IN THE PAST IS WE DIDN'T WANT TO DRIVE THRUS LIKE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, LIKE SHARING A SAME PARKING LOT, LIKE AND THIS THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF SPACE BETWEEN THAT BIG BUILDING AND POTENTIALLY ALL THESE OTHER LOTS. HAVE WE LOOKED INTO A SPACE SEPARATION TO ALLOW IT, OR DO WE KNOW OF ANY OTHER NEARBY CITIES OR TOWNS THAT HAVE A REQUIREMENT ON DRIVE THRUS? THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING? I GUESS THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AS A MAYBE AS A POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICE. THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. WE'VE NOT LOOKED AT THAT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? CAN YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS PICTURE? SURE. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT IN THIS IS NOT COMPLIANT? ARE WE REFERRING TO THE DRIVE THRUS BEHIND THE BANK? YES I BELIEVE THIS HAS A DRIVE THROUGH. DOES NOT. YES. SO BUT THESE THREE WOULD ALSO NOT BE COMPLIANT BECAUSE THIS HAS A DRIVE THROUGH. IT'S A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT. THE BANK HAS A DRIVE THROUGH AND THE CAR WASH HAS A DRIVE THROUGH. SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE. THE MIDDLE ONE, FOR INSTANCE, WOULD HAVE TO NOT BE A DRIVE THROUGH. BUT THEN AGAIN, THIS HAS A DRIVE THROUGH IN THE BUILDING BACK HERE. SO THIS IT WOULD BECOME A PROBLEM. ONE OF THESE TWO WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. SO GO BACK GO TO THE OTHER PICTURE NOW. SO THE ONE THAT YOU DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION IS THE I BELIEVE THAT'S FUEL PUMPS ALONG THE FRONTIER. IS THAT CONSIDERED A DRIVE THROUGH I. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M NOT TRICKING YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OR NOT. I DID DRIVE THROUGH. I DID CROSS MY MIND. BUT BECAUSE I THINK OUR ORDINANCE SAYS AUTOMOBILE USES AND THERE IS STACKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GAS STATION TO ENSURE YOU HAVE ENOUGH SPACES FOR, FOR STACKING. SO OKAY, I'M JUST LEARNING. THANK YOU. THE
[00:10:04]
DISCOUNT TIRE THERE ALONG 380 WOULD BE A DRIVE IN, NOT A DRIVE THROUGH. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S THE NEXT ONE OVER FROM THE CAR WASH. THIS ONE HERE. YEAH. IT DOES REQUIRE STACKING. YOU'RE NOT DRIVING THROUGH THE BUILDING BUT IT DOES REQUIRE STACKING. SO I THINK THOSE ISSUES AND THOSE CLARIFICATIONS I MEAN CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL FOR STAFF TO KNOW WHAT IS A DRIVE THROUGH THAT WOULD REQUIRE BE SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE. BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, SOME THINGS HAVE STACKING.THEY MAY NOT BE A DRIVE THROUGH THOUGH. CAN I ASK A HYPOTHETICAL REAL QUICK? IF YOU GO BACK TO THE H-E-B DEVELOPMENT? SURE. SO LET'S HYPOTHETICALLY, LET'S SAY THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED AS PRESENTED. SO THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. COULD IT JUST THEN BE WHEN IT COMES TO PNC AND COUNCIL, COULD IT JUST BE OVERRIDDEN ESSENTIALLY IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH THE PARTIES FELT LIKE IT SHOULD BE? NO, EVEN IF IT'S UNLIKELY, WE'D EVEN BRING A PD ORDINANCE TO THAT WAS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL HAD JUST CHANGED. AND SO THIS EXISTING ONE, IF YOU RECALL, THE TOP RIGHT, IS MCDONALD'S. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE FUEL ISLANDS AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A BANK AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A FAST FOOD CHICK FIL A, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT AN EMPTY LOT. SO THAT EMPTY LOT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE ANYTHING THAT HAD A DRIVE THROUGH, EVEN IF YOU PASSED IT NOW. AND THE ONES AT THE TOP MAYBE MAY BECOME NONCONFORMING. AND SO THAT'S PART OF WHAT THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION IS, IS WHAT IS THE INTENT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ABOUT WHY WE'RE LIMITING THESE DRIVES AND THESE DRIVE THRUS? IS IT BECAUSE OF A DISTANCE THING WHERE WE ALREADY ACTUALLY HAVE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT IN OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS? THERE'S ONE FOR INTERSECTIONS, THERE'S ONE FOR DRIVE SEPARATIONS, THERE'S ONE FOR MEDIAN OPENINGS.
I MEAN, ALL THOSE THINGS, THERE'S ALREADY STANDARD MINIMUMS THAT, EXCUSE ME, ARE DISTANCE REGULATED. IF WE ADDED ANOTHER DISTANCE REGULATION THAT SAID YOU CAN'T HAVE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS WITHIN 200FT OF EACH OTHER, THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE THE ACTUAL DRIVES THEMSELVES DISTANCES, BUT IT WOULD SEPARATE THE BUILDINGS THAT HOUSE THOSE DRIVE THRUS, SO TO SPEAK. AND SO I GUESS, NUMBER ONE, WHY WOULD WOULD THIS NEED TO BE DONE, OR SHOULD IT BE DONE? OR DO WE WANT IT TO BE DONE? WHATEVER. AND THEN SECOND, HOW DO WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN? AND WE GOT HERE BECAUSE WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS DONE, IT ONLY TOOK CARE OF THE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. AND QUESTIONS HAVE COME UP ABOUT, WELL, WHAT ABOUT ALL THESE OTHER DRIVE THRUS AND ALL THESE OTHER TYPES OF FACILITIES? AND AS YOU SAW THE LIST, AS WE START GOING DOWN THAT LIST, IT BECOMES A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. AND SO WE FELT LIKE THE EASIEST WAY TO ADDRESS IT IS LET'S START AS STRICT AS IT IS OR COULD BE, SO TO SPEAK, AND THEN WORK BACKWARDS FROM THAT. IF Y'ALL WANT TO, SO TO SPEAK. NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD OR YOU SHOULDN'T, JUST SAYING HERE'S THE CHOICES AND HERE'S WHAT THE END RESULT IS GOING TO BE. IF YOU UTILIZE ALL THESE CHOICES OR IF YOU WANT TO MODIFY IT, TAKE IT OUT WHERE IT'S ONLY DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS AND ONLY, I DON'T KNOW, DRUGSTORES, THEN THOSE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THIS SEPARATION REQUIREMENT, BUT THE OTHERS WOULD BE FINE. SO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD LIKELY NOT PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF CODE. I SUPPOSE THAT WAS A BIT OF A SILLY QUESTION, BUT. SO LET'S TAKE THE CHICK FIL A, FOR INSTANCE, THAT WAS APPROVED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REGARDING THE DRIVE THROUGH RIGHT ALONG THE TOLLWAY IS A POTENTIAL IF THE INTENT IS TO HAVE AN INCREASED AMOUNT OF TOUCHPOINTS ON DRIVE THRUS, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT THE TOWN WANTS THROUGH THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES, IS THE SOLUTION TO HAVE VERY STRONG RESTRICTIONS WITH THE ABILITY TO ISSUE ISSUE SUPS FOR DRIVE THRUS SUBJECT TO APPROVALS. IS THAT
[00:15:04]
THE WAY NOT ALLOWING THE FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE THEM IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU YOU ARE ASKING IF WHAT I THINK I HEARD IS, WOULD WE JUST HAVE NO REGULATION AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE IS CONCERNED, BUT HAVE A REGULATION THAT IF YOU HAD A DRIVE THROUGH, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING OR IS THAT WRONG? MY QUESTION I, IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO RESTRICT DRIVE THRUS, BUT, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY NOT PRACTICAL TO TOTALLY RESTRICT THEM, THEN HAVING AN OUT WHERE IF THERE IS A DRIVE THROUGH THAT'S PROPOSED OR NEEDED OR WANTED, THAT IT CAN BE GOT RECEIVED THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RATHER THAN BEING IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF CODE. SO BASICALLY VERY RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT THAT CAN GET OUT OF THAT RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE AND MAKE IT ALLOWED, TYPICALLY THE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS A PERMITTED USE IN THE PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE SUP JUST ALLOWS YOU TO PUT SOME SECONDARY TERTIARY, SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THERE IN THE REGULAR ORDINANCE UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE. AND THAT'S BECAUSE SOME THINGS DON'T FIT IN THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL. YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE AN WHATEVER THE BUSINESS IS. I WON'T NAME NAMES, BUT BUT WHATEVER THE BUSINESS IS MIGHT FIT PERFECTLY WELL IN ONE LOCATION BASED ON ALL OF THE SURROUNDINGS. BUT THAT SAME BUSINESS, SAME FOOTPRINT, SAME EVERYTHING IN ANOTHER LOCATION MIGHT NOT. BUT THE SUP ALLOWS YOU TO FIX WHATEVER IT IS THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT FIT THERE. SO IT'S ALREADY A PERMITTED USE, SO I'M NOT SURE. I'VE NEVER SEEN IT DONE. ATTORNEY MAY STEP IN IF YOU WANT SOME. WOULD WE COULD WE HAVE JUST A BRIEF STANDING IF WE DON'T LIKE IT PASS IT UP OR YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY. I WOULD WANT TO TAKE A FURTHER LOOK AT IT, OBVIOUSLY, BEFORE WE PURSUE THAT OPTION. BUT HAVING AN SUP WOULD ESSENTIALLY GIVE THIS BODY AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF APPROVAL. SO THEY COULD SAY, WELL, MAYBE, YES, A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT OR A FAST FOOD, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS OR WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, GENERALLY SPEAKING. BUT MAYBE THERE'S ALREADY 12 IN A ROW AND WE DON'T NEED A 13TH ONE RIGHT THERE. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD AN SUP WOULD ALLOW. SO THERE WOULD BE A BIT MORE DISCRETION AND AUTHORIZING THAT. AND THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, CRITERIA FOR US TO CONSIDER. SO AGAIN, IT WOULDN'T JUST BE COMPLETELY RANDOM, COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK INTO DOING, IF THAT'S WHAT WAS THE WHAT THE WHAT THIS BODY AND WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO PURSUE. I CERTAINLY THINK THAT THAT'S A CREATIVE SOLUTION. LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN THAT'S ON THE PAGE, AS AN EXAMPLE, YOUR DRIVE THROUGH FOR THE GROCER IS ON THE FAR EAST, YOUR DRIVE THROUGH FOR THE RESTAURANTS ON THE FAR WEST, AND WE'LL JUST USE THAT ONE. TO ME, THAT'S NOT OFFENSIVE OR OUT OF BOUNDS FOR THE GENERAL DISTRICT, AS YOU KIND OF JUST SAID. SO THAT FEELS LIKE AN INSTANCE WHERE YES, PER PLAN AND PER ORDINANCE, IT MAY BE RESTRICTED, BUT I THINK LOGIC COULD PREVAIL, THAT IT DOES WORK. IF THERE'S AN AVENUE THAT MAKES SENSE. I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT FOR SURE. ONE QUESTION, I THINK THAT WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IS LIKE YOU ASKED LIKE, WHAT'S THE REAL PURPOSE? BUT THE WAY I LOOK AT THESE AND CLARIFY AND I'D LOVE, LOVE COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH IN, I MEAN, THE TO ME, TRAFFIC IS A BIG FUNCTION. THE MORE DRIVE THRUS YOU HAVE, THERE IS A BIT OF A TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT'S HIGH IMPACT TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT DRIVING SITTING DOWN IN A RESTAURANT AND THEN LEAVING. YOU'RE ALWAYS HAVING CARS. SO TO ME, TRAFFIC, IT MAY NOT PROVE UP TO BE A HUGE IMPACT, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPACT. AND I THINK THE QUALITATIVE SIDE OF IT OF JUST WHAT HOW DOES THAT VISUALLY LOOK FOR OUR RESIDENTS, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY ON THE SECOND PART. THE FIRST ONE IS WHAT IT IS, BUT THE SECOND PART, COULD WE GET I WANT TO GET TO CREATIVE, BUT IS THERE A WAY TO ADD ADDITIONAL SCREENING OR SOMETHING TO HELP, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE CONCERN OF THE QUALITY SIDE OF IT? HOW DOES IT LOOK? HOW DOES IT FEEL AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN IN THIS INSTANCE FRONTIER? IS THAT A ROUTE PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THE ON THE QUALITY SIDE? COULD WE SOMEHOW SCREEN IT OR PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, ETC. SOMETHING TO CONTEND, MUCH LIKE[00:20:05]
WE DID WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH AND THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS, WHICH HELPED, I THINK COUNCIL AND PNC GET COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. JUST AN IDEA. SO I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS HERE. I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, I TOTALLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL AS IT'S PRESENTED TONIGHT IN EVERY ASPECT. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING IN IT THAT I LIKE. SO I SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I AM. I THIS, THIS HAS SO MUCH POSSIBILITY OF, OF BAD RESULTS. YOU KNOW THIS THIS PICTURE WITH HEB IS JUST A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW, HOW CRAZY THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL WOULD BE. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT, IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE TO WHERE WHAT WE NEED TO DO, I THINK TO ME, THE REASON TO RESTRICT DRIVE THRUS AT ALL WOULD BE TWO REASONS. TRAFFIC. AS YOU MENTIONED, TRAFFIC IS PROBABLY THE NUMBER ONE REASON TO MAKE SURE THAT TRAFFIC HASN'T BUILT UP. YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE. AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY I THINK AN SCP IS SO IMPORTANT, SO THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH STACKING OFF THE ROAD STACKING, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE THAT. AND IF YOU GOT MULTIPLE DRIVE THRUS TOGETHER, THEN OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING TO START HAVING MORE AND MORE TRAFFIC STOPPING TO GO THROUGH THAT. AND SO IT'S THERE'S A REASON TO HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A DISTANCE OR, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THING. THE, THE BUT THE PROBLEM TOO IS YOU GOT A LOT MORE DRIVE THROUGH IN A RESTAURANT THAN YOU DO IN A BANK. YOU KNOW, A BANK'S NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MUCH STACKING HAPPENING, AND BACKUP IS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. THE, THE. A THE PHARMACY HERE AT HEB, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MUCH STACKING USUALLY PROBLEMS AND THEIR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. SO I THINK THERE'S THE REASONABLENESS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OKAY, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER THE TRAFFIC SITUATION IS, IS VALID OR NOT FOR A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH. AND THEN THERE IS THE ESTHETICS ASPECT OF IT OF JUST A WHOLE LIST OF DRIVE THRUS TOGETHER. MIGHT MIGHT START LOOKING ESTHETICALLY DISPLEASING. I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE ORDINANCES IN PLACE FOR AT LEAST RESTAURANT DRIVE THRUS OF LANDSCAPING AROUND THEM AND TRYING TO BLOCK THOSE A LITTLE BIT FROM THE STREET AND STUFF.SO I THINK THAT'S ALREADY EXISTS. WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT MANY TIMES ALREADY, SO THERE MAY ALREADY BE ORDINANCES TO THAT EFFECT. I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. OTHER THAN THOSE REASONS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND A REASON TO ADD THESE RESTRICTIONS TO DRIVE THRUS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT TO THIS DEGREE AT ALL. SO I COULD, I COULD, I COULD CONSIDER A DISTANCE KIND OF REQUIREMENT, YOU KNOW, A MINIMUM DISTANCE THAT IS BASED UPON CONTROLLING TRAFFIC. YOU KNOW, WE NEED THE HELP OF STAFF TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH DISTANCE YOU NEED BEFORE TRAFFIC IS STARTING TO GET IMPACTED ON A MAJOR ROAD, LIKE 380 OR TEAL OR, OR, YOU KNOW, OR TOLLWAY OR WHATEVER. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I AM. I, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE. THIS IS WAY TOO RESTRICTIVE. SO I THINK WHERE THAT LEADS US AND APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. AND I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID AS WELL. SO BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY OTHER COMMENTS AND IF NOT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD. THIS IS REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING OR ANYONE THAT WANTED TO COMMENT AT ALL ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR? AND WE DO NOT. SO I THINK ONE THING WE MIGHT DO WHILE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND MAYBE THROW IT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE AGAIN, I DO AGREE WITH GLENN.
THIS IS WAY TOO RESTRICTIVE. I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, JUST LIKE HE SAID, THE REASONS WHY WE'RE BRINGING THIS UP. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO TAKE SOME OF THAT FEEDBACK BACK TO THE STAFF FOR PLANNING. AND I WOULD CONSIDER IF SOMEONE WANTS TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE MAY 20TH MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE OUR NEXT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS, AND THEN WE COULD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT TIME IF WE HAD A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. IF THAT'S SO MOTION, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER MOTION. SO CAN I ASK A PROCEDURAL QUESTION? IF WE MAKE SIGNIFICANT ADJUSTMENTS TO IT, DO WE JUST HAVE TO CAPTURE THAT IN THE MOTION IN THE FUTURE? OR IF IT IS THERE A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT YOU CAN MODIFY THE DOCUMENT WITH FEEDBACK, SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN NOTICED AND PUBLIC HEARING, DOES THAT MAKE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS LIKE IT'S THE PUBLIC
[00:25:02]
HEARING IS WHAT GETS NOTICED. NOT SO MUCH THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT ITSELF. AND SO AT THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS IS WHERE WE PRESENT THE PROPOSED DOCUMENT, AND THEN WE DISCUSS ANY CHANGES TO IT. AND SO THE FINAL VOTE HERE AND AT THE COUNCIL WOULD BE FOR WHATEVER THAT DOCUMENT IS. THANK YOU. AND TO THAT POINT, I THINK THE THING IS, THE REASONS THIS CAME TO US TO BEGIN WITH, I GUESS, AND I THINK WHAT GLENN SAID, A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. BUT THEN I THINK THE REASON BUT I'M JUST GUESSING AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS WITH THIS TERM ADJACENT, WHICH IS VERY BROAD AND NORTH TO SOUTH AND EAST TO WEST, I THINK IT WAS REALLY BACK TO BACK TO BACK DROP THOSE LINED UP ON A SINGLE ROAD. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HORIZONTAL ADJACENCY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BUT THAT'S SOME IDEAS IF ANYTHING'S REWORKED MOVING FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A MOTION WHILE WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING OPEN OR NOT. WAS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE MAKING THIS MOTION? I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE TO NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE. I'LL MAKE A COMMENT. I MEAN, I, I DO AGREE THAT AS PRESENTED IT'S TOO RESTRICTIVE. BUT I THINK THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO, IF WE IN THE COUNCIL ARE GOING TO CODIFY SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN PERHAPS WE WANT. SO INSTEAD OF LESS LIKE, I WOULD LEAN TOWARD MORE RESTRICTIVE WITH THE ABILITY TO ISSUE AN SUP RATHER THAN SOMETHING LESS RESTRICTIVE THAT MIGHT WE MIGHT END UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY WANT. THAT'S MY ONLY MY ONLY COMMENT. OKAY. AND I, I LIKE THE IDEA OF LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING A NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY IS DOING WITH IN REGARDS TO DRIVE THRUS THAT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT SOLVE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT NOT WANTING, LIKE IN THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OF LAND WITH THE BIG BOX AT THE BOTTOM AND ALL THESE OTHER LOTS. WE TECHNICALLY DON'T WANT 12 DRIVE THRUS, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY WRAPPED AROUND. AND I THINK THAT'S THE ESTHETICS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. SO IT'D BE GOOD TO KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY THAT WE COULD PIGGYBACK UPON. AND BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD HAD SOMETHING TO ADD HERE. AND WELL, I ALSO WANTED TO ADD, YOU KNOW, AND I'M OKAY. YOU KNOW, I LIKE THE SUP PROCESS, WHICH I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE FOR RESTAURANTS, RESTAURANT DRIVE THRUS ANYWAY.BUT I BUT YOU PRESENTED LIKE OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN PROHIBITS DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS ON ADJACENT LOTS. CORRECT. BUT IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS ON THE SAME LOT. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND MAKE SURE WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE REALLY WANTING. THAT'S WHY I THINK A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT MAY BE MORE, MORE WORKABLE, AS LONG AS IT'S TIED IN WITH WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE. AND AGAIN, TO ME, TRAFFIC IS THE BIGGEST ONE. I THINK ESTHETICS ARE TAKEN CARE OF BY BY THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND SO FORTH. BUT, YOU KNOW, SO DISTANCE IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT I WOULD THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT MAYBE IN ADDITION TO DISTANCE, ALSO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, MAYBE BECAUSE LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BIG BOX, HAVING A DRIVE THROUGH, BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE BIG BOXES HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH ON EACH SIDE, SOME HAVE A PHARMACY ON ONE SIDE AND A BARBECUE RESTAURANT PER SE ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SIZE OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL. WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD CAPTURE WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO SAY TOO, IS KIND OF THE IMPACT. I THINK THE INTENT AS WRITTEN IS VERY RESTRICTIVE OF DRIVE THROUGH OF ANYTHING.
AND WE JUST TALKED THROUGH DOES THAT MEAN GAS PUMPS, DOES THAT MEAN ATM, DOES THAT MEAN PHARMACY? DOES THAT MEAN RESTAURANTS? I MEAN THERE'S THAT'S JUST THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEMAND, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO. AND SO I IF THERE'S A AVENUE. I LIKE THE PATH WE'RE ON FROM. OKAY. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. SO WE CAN EITHER CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR CLOSE IT. AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR TILL 520 AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THAT DATE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MAY 20TH, 2025. NEXT, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND, FROM COMMISSIONER BLANSETT MOTION, COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE MAY 20TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 5 TO 0. GOOD
[5. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.]
DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE REVIEW ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TOWN COUNCIL AND POSSIBLY DIRECT TOWN STAFF TO SCHEDULE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE MEETING.ALL RIGHT. AT THE PREVIOUS TOWN COUNCIL ON APRIL 22ND, THE CONSENT AGENDA. THEY HAVE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ORDINANCE FOR THE CHICK FIL A DRIVE THROUGH THAT WAS APPROVED, AS
[00:30:03]
WELL AS THE NOTICE OF APPEALS FOR ANY PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS AND SITE PLANS. FUTURE TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. THERE WILL CONSIST OF NOTICE OF APPEALS FOR THINGS ACTED UPON TODAY FOR THE SITE PLAN, AND THEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR THE DRIVE THRUS THAT YOU CONSIDERED HAS BEEN NOTICED FOR THAT MEETING AS WELL FOR DISCUSSION. FUTURE PRNS ITEMS, CONSENT AGENDAS TO BE DETERMINED, AS WELL AS THE REGULAR AGENDA. HOWEVER, THIS ITEM THAT YOU JUST TABLED WOULD BE ON THAT REGULAR AGENDA. AND THEN THE UDC WORK SESSION FOR MODULE TWO REVIEW, WHICH IS CHAPTERS THREE, FOUR AND 15. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR TOWN STAFF? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. SO REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX MOTION TO ADJOURN. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HAMILTON TO ADJOURN. DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CARSON? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO ADJOURN, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.THE MOTION CARRIES 5 TO 0, AND WE ARE ADJOURNED AT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.