[CALL JOINT MEETING TO ORDER]
[Informational Update Regarding Development Regulations for Restaurants with Drive-Throughs]
[00:03:09]
UH, THERE IS ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.
SO IF A RESTAURANT WANTED TO DEVELOP IN A C TWO ZONING DISTRICT, UM, THE MINIMUM CRITERIA THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET IS THEIR, UH, SPEAKER BOX WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 20 FEET AWAY, UM, FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES OR ZONES.
UM, AND IT ALSO HAS SOME LIMITS ON HOW BIG AN OUTDOOR PATIO COULD BE WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TYPE OF A RESTAURANT.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, IN OUR C ONE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE LEAST INTENSE, UM, IT IS NOT PERMITTED BY WRIGHT, IT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH DOES GO BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND ALSO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
UM, WE, UH, EXPLORED, I BELIEVE WE SHOWED THIS, UM, INFORMATION AT THE LAST COUNCIL WORK SESSION.
UM, BUT JUST A REMINDER THAT IN ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, WE HAVE 163 DIFFERENT, UH, DRIVE-THROUGHS, UM, ON THE GROUND TODAY, UH, SPANNING A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.
UM, AND THESE DRIVE-THROUGHS CAN COME IN A VARIETY OF SHAPES AND SIZES.
SO YOU CAN HAVE A TRADITIONAL MCDONALD'S, UM, A CHICK-FIL-A THAT'S GOT A DOUBLE DRIVE THROUGH.
UM, THINK OF THE SALAD AT HARDEN AND THREE 80 WHERE IT'S AT THE END OF A STRIP CENTER AND THINGS LIKE YOUR, UM, DUNKIN DONUTS AND STARBUCKS, THOSE ARE ALL, IF THEY'VE GOT A DRIVE THROUGH COMPONENT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE SHOWING UP HERE.
SO JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE A BUNCH OF DOTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S A BUNCH OF MCDONALD'S AND JACK IN THE BOXES WITH THOSE TRADITIONAL DRIVE-THROUGHS.
THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT, UH, SCALES AND SIZES.
UH, TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL CORNERS, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE, UM, AT THOSE HARD INTERSECTIONS.
WE'VE GOT LAKE FOREST AND THREE 80, AND THEN OF COURSE HARDENED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE YOU CAN SEE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, WHEN WE HAVE ONE DRIVE-THROUGH THAT COMES THROUGH, YOU'RE GONNA SEE MULTIPLE THAT COME IN TOGETHER JUST BECAUSE THE LAY OF THE LAND, UH, IS CONDUCIVE FOR THOSE LOT SHARING AND THE DRIVE AISLES THAT ARE ABLE TO SHARE.
SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR US TO SEE MULTIPLE CLUSTERED AT, AT AN INTERSECTION.
OKAY, SO REMINDER FROM JANUARY, THE REASON THAT THAT DISCUSSION WAS BROUGHT UP IN JANUARY WAS,
[00:05:01]
UH, IN, IN RECENT MONTHS, WE'D HAD, UH, ONE OR TWO DIFFERENT, UH, PROJECTS COME THROUGH THAT I THINK RAISED SOME QUESTIONS AND CON SOME CONCERNS.SO WHEN WE PRESENTED THE INFORMATION IN JANUARY, NOT ONLY DID WE TALK ABOUT GENERAL REGULATIONS FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, BUT ALSO HOW WE REGULATE THEM FROM A SITE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIREMENT, UM, WHAT, UH, OUR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROTECTIONS WERE.
AND THEN OF COURSE, HOW WE COMPARED WITH SOME OF OUR SISTER CITIES IN TERMS OF THOSE REGULATIONS.
UM, AND FOR THE COUNCIL AND FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTACHED WITH YOUR PACKET THIS AFTERNOON IS A COPY OF THAT JANUARY WORK SESSION PRESENTATION AS WELL.
SO, UM, IF YOU CAN, YOU'RE WELCOME TO KIND OF TOGGLE BACK AND FORTH TO SEE SOME OF THAT, UH, SPECIFIC INFORMATION IF YOU NEED A, A REMINDER.
SO MOVING FORWARD, LOOKING AHEAD, UM, WHAT ARE SOME OPTIONS IF THE CITY WANTED TO PURSUE CHANGES, UM, IN HOW WE REGULATE DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS? UM, WHEN WE SAT DOWN AND STARTED TACKLING THIS AS A STAFF, WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS GIVE YOU A MIN MENU OF OPTIONS THAT WENT FROM SORT OF THE, THE LEAST IMPACTFUL TO WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER, UH, THE MOST IMPACTFUL CHANGE.
SO, UM, IN, IN, UH, ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, OPTION ONE OF COURSE IS NO CHANGE.
SO, UM, THERE COULD BE A DISCUSSION TONIGHT WHERE YOU ALL SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, UM, WE, HERE WHERE WE'RE AT, WE THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN, LET'S NOT MAKE CHANGES TO OUR CODE.
UM, AND THAT OF COURSE IS ALWAYS ON THE TABLE.
UM, OPTIONS TWO AND THREE WE'LL GO THROUGH IN MORE DETAIL, BUT THOSE LOOK AT INTEGRATING, UM, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UM, BUFFER, UM, INTO THE CODE.
SO IF A DRI A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH WANTED TO COME, UM, INTO A C TWO ZONING DISTRICT, UM, OR EVEN A C3 ZONING DISTRICT, WE WOULD HAVE THAT CRITERIA FOR THE 200 FOOT BUFFER.
UM, AND WE'LL EXPLORE THOSE A LITTLE BIT MORE HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.
AND THEN OPTION FOUR, WHICH IS WHAT, UM, AS A STAFF, WE KIND OF CALL THAT THAT'S THE NUCLEAR OPTION.
IT WOULD MEAN THAT EVERY SINGLE DRIVE THROUGH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET A, UM, SUP COMING IN.
IF IT WERE COMING IN FOR THAT C TWO ZONING DISTRICT.
UH, MEANING ANY RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THROUGH WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT, UM, THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
WE, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SPEND MUCH TIME ON OPTION ONE.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH.
NO CHANGE, UH, WE WOULD STAY AS IS.
ONE THING THAT WE'VE PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION IS, UH, STAFF SORT OF EVALUATION OF HOW EACH OPTION MAKES AN IMPACT ON DIFFERENT VARIABLES.
SO, UM, IF WE MADE NO CHANGE, UM, THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE OVERSIGHT THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY, EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME.
UM, WE STILL THINK THAT THAT'S PRETTY, UM, COMPATIBLE WITH OUR SISTER CITIES DOESN'T CREATE ANY NON-CONFORMING USES AND IT IS CONSISTENT ACROSS OUR UDC IN GENERAL, UM, WITH HOW WE REGULATE OTHER RESTAURANTS.
UM, SO IN ESSENCE, WE'RE TREATING ALL RESTAURANTS THE SAME.
SO OPTION TWO WOULD BE A 200 FOOT, UH, BUFFER.
IF A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT WANTED TO COME IN, UM, AND IT WAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE, UM, IT WOULD HAVE TO, UH, WELL, IT WOULD ONLY BE PERMITTED IF IT WAS NOT WITHIN 200 FEET.
SO IF IT WAS WITHIN 200 FEET, IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS YOU GOT AN SUP.
NOW WHAT I WANNA HIGHLIGHT IS THAT BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO.
TYPICALLY IN OUR ZONING CODE, UM, WHEN WE HAVE A USE BUFFER, LIKE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WE USUALLY HAVE AN EXCEPTION THAT SAYS IF THERE IS A STREET THAT IS SEPARATING SAID USE FROM AN ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE, THE 200 FOOT BUFFER DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THAT, UH, STREET IS CREATING ENOUGH OF A SEPARATION, UM, THAT IT JUST IS NOT NECESSARY.
SO THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY IF IT WAS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE, IF THERE IS ANY EXISTING STREET, WHETHER THAT BE A COLLECTOR STREET OR AN ARTERIAL STREET THAT WOULD THEN FREE UP THAT DRIVE THROUGH TO GO IN BY A STANDARD.
SO WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ON THE GROUND? HERE IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.
UM, HERE'S AN EXISTING RESTAURANT.
IT IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN ADJACENT, UM, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, WILCOX STREET RIGHT THERE IS SEPARATING IT.
AND SO THAT MEANS THAT THAT PARTICULAR DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY OTHER SPECIAL PERMISSIONS.
IT WOULD COME STRAIGHT THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS.
NOW, LET'S PRETEND THAT WILCOX STREET WAS NOT THERE AND IT WAS WITHIN 168 FEET, UM, OF THAT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, UM, THAT, UH, DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, UM, WITHIN THAT LOCATION.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER COME FORWARD FOR A REZONING OR THEY COULD PURSUE AN SUP TO SORT OF WAIVE THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS PRETTY STANDARD IN OUR CODE.
IT'S BAKER'S, ISN'T IT? UH, I DON'T, IS THAT BAKER'S? I DON'T THINK SO.
NO, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UH, BAKER'S IS A DRIVE IN RATHER THAN A DRIVE THROUGH.
IT IS A RED ON, YEAH, IT'S THE
I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY.
[00:10:01]
YEAH, BAKER'S IS A DRIVE IN, NOT A DRIVE THROUGH.AND DO WE, I BELIEVE THAT WE, AND I'M LOOKING OVER HERE AT CAMERON, WE REGULATE THEM THE SAME.
SO WE WOULD REGULATE A DRIVE IN LIKE MASON.
HE DID THE LION SHARE OF THIS WORK STUFF.
SO IN THIS CASE, UH, WILCOX STREET'S A COLLECTOR ROADWAY.
UM, IT CREATES THAT SEPARATION.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED BY WRIGHT.
AND I'M POINTING THAT OUT HERE BECAUSE THE NEXT VARIATION OF THAT, WELL, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT ACTUALLY.
SO, SORRY, I'M SKIPPING AHEAD HERE.
BEFORE I SKIP AHEAD TO THE NEXT OPTION, LET'S FINISH OUT THIS ONE.
SO WHAT WE LOOKED AT HERE IS IF WE DID THE 200 FOOT, UM, REQUIREMENT, HOW MANY EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE CHANGE? AND WHAT WE FOUND IS WE'VE GOT 15 EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGHS THAT WOULD NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WOULD IN ESSENCE BECOME LEGAL NONCONFORMITIES IF WE MADE THIS CHANGE TO THE CODE.
MEANING THAT, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET INDEPENDENT NOTICE FOR THE CODE CHANGE AND THEY WOULD BE DEEMED ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMITY.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHUT DOWN.
IT JUST MEANS THAT THERE ARE EXTRA LIMITATIONS THAT AN OUT WOULD APPLY TO THOSE DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS.
UM, THINGS LIKE NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPAND, UM, SOMETIMES IT DOES IMPACT THEIR, UM, INSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE THE, THE NON-CONFORMITY STATUS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE.
UM, AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT LITTLE FACTOID TO INCLUDE WITH ANY OF THESE OPTIONS.
UM, NOT TO SAY THAT WE COULDN'T PURSUE THEM, BUT WE DEFINITELY WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE IMPACT IS WHEN WE MAKE THOSE KINDS OF CHANGES.
BUT THEY CAN COME BACK, RIGHT? FOR A REZONING? THEY COULD IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? THEY COULD.
AND THEN COULD WE WAIVE THE FEES FOR EXISTING, UM, ENTITIES THAT ARE GONNA NEED THAT ADJUSTMENT? AS A STAFF, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE ON, ON THOSE SUBMITTAL FEES AND REQUIREMENTS.
AND IS NONCONFORMING USE RUN WITH THE LAND OR TRANSFER UPON SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NEW OWNER? IT WOULD BECAUSE IT, IT APPLIES TO THE USE AND THE SITE FEATURES, NOT THE OWNER.
GENERALLY IMPACT THE SELLABILITY.
JENNIFER, WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? UM, WE HAVE MCKINNEY'S RESTAURANT ROW.
WITH THE, SO THOSE SEEM LIKE THEY'RE WITH THE 200 FEET OF THOSE HOUSES TO THE SOUTH.
DO WE CONSIDER THOSE MULTIFAMILY UNITS? BECAUSE, WELL, WE WOULD, UM, IF IT'S MULTIFAMILY, THIS WOULD ONLY, I MULTI, THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY.
AND IF THERE'S A COLLECTOR ROADWAY THAT'S SEPARATING THEM, PATRICK, SHE'S NO LONGER IN PLANNING.
SO, UM, IF YOU, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, LET'S PUT A PIN IN THAT QUESTION.
CAMERON'S GONNA DO A LITTLE BIT OF DIGGING, DIGGING, DIGGING, AND WE CAN DEFINITELY BRING BACK UP AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING.
'CAUSE TO ME, I'LL JUST FINISH WITH THIS.
YEAH, THERE'S A MASONRY WALL SEPARATING THEM, BUT THERE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A STREET, JUST MASONRY WALL SEPARATING THE BACKYARD OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FROM RESTAURANT ROW.
SO, SO WE'LL HAVE TO, WE'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK ON THE BUFFER, THE 200 FOOT AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE IN FACT DESIGNATED AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND NOT SOME OTHER TYPE OF THANK YOU MA'AM.
PATRICK? I, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE CONDOMINIUMS, TOWN HOMES AND THEY'RE CHARACTERIZED AS MULTI-FAMILY.
CHARLIE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT.
TO THE EAST WOULD NOT BE THOUGH.
RIGHT? TO THE EAST, THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY WITHOUT US.
YEAH, THERE IS THAT, THAT FENTON LANE THOUGH TOO? THAT'S, THERE'S A ROAD THERE RIGHT? TO THE SOUTH.
SOUTH, BUT, BUT THERE ISN'T TO THE EAST.
LET US, LET US, LET US LOOK INTO THAT.
I KNOW CAMERON'S GOT, I'LL CHECK IN WITH YOU IN JUST A MINUTE, IS THAT OKAY? ALRIGHT, LET US DOUBLE CHECK IN ON THAT, UM, INFORMATION.
'CAUSE UH, WE, WE DON'T WANNA MISS IT.
CAN CAN I ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION? YES, SIR.
JUST VERY SPECIFIC WITH LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING MM-HMM
USE USES, BUT WE HAD THE CHURCH OVER HERE MM-HMM
AND THEN THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT SETBACKS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT LANDSCAPING BUFFERS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT PARKING.
BUT THERE'S A PROCESS FOR KIND OF BRINGING THAT FORWARD IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN.
AND IF THEY DIDN'T GO SEEK REZONING IMMEDIATELY, THAT IS CORRECT.
THEY, THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S ALWAYS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS DEPENDING ON, UM, WHAT IS EXACTLY GOING ON, ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BUT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, HAS SOME AUTHORITY, UH, TO ALLOW FOR THE REBUILDS.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, REZONING, UM, IS ALSO AN OPTION THAT WOULD MODIFY THE STANDARDS SO THAT THEY COULD REBUILD.
BUT IN, IN TERMS OF A PROPERTY LIKE THAT, WE HAVE A, A FAIRLY LARGE AMOUNT OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES ON IN TERMS OF A, A TOTAL ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO AND AGAIN, UM, THE POINT OF HIGHLIGHTING THE LEGAL NONCONFORMITIES IS
[00:15:01]
NOT NECESSARILY TO BE A SCARY FIGURE, BUT MORE TO JUST BE INFORMATIVE OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, IT DOES COME WITH AN IMPACT ON AT LEAST SOME PROPERTIES.SO ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HERE, UM, BASED ON THE RESEARCH WE'VE GOT, OF COURSE FACT CHECKING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT, UH, UH, PATRICK HAS, UH, AROUND 15 OF THOSE LEGAL NONCONFORMING, JENNIFER, ARE WE NOT ABLE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT JUST GRANDFATHERS THEM IN AUTOMATICALLY? WE, WE CAN.
AND AT THE VERY END I'VE GOT SOME, SOME HIGHLIGHTS ON THAT AS WELL.
RIGHT? WHERE DO WE MEASURE FROM, FROM THE SPEAKER TO THE PROPERTY LINE OR TO THE ACTUAL RESIDENCE? SO WE TYPICALLY, UH, DO IT TO THE, UH, FROM THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, AND NOT THE BUILT, UH, SO THE STRUCTURE OF THE RESTAURANT TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF WHERE THE SINGLE FAMILY IS.
WE DON'T GO STRUCTURED OR STRUCTURED.
WE GO STRUCTURED PROPERTY LINE.
UM, SO AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF THIS, UH, CHART TO COMPARE WHAT THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IS.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE 200 FOOT BUFFER AND LESS SEPARATED BY ANY RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AND SO WITH THAT, IN TERMS OF VALUATION CONSIDERATIONS, THE IMPACT ON OVERSIGHT, OF COURSE IT DOES, UM, IMPROVE SOME OF OUR OVERSIGHT BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER THAT WE KNOW IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE.
UM, ALIGNMENT WITH SISTER CITIES, IT DOES BRING US INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE ALIGNMENT WITH OUR SISTER CITIES.
UM, PLACES LIKE, UH, FRISCO AND PROSPER ALREADY HAVE A BIT OF A BUFFER IN PLACE FOR THEIR RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE-THROUGHS.
UM, WHAT WE'VE NOTED IS, UH, 15, UH, NONCONFORMITIES, UM, IT IS THIS APPLYING THAT 200 FOOT BUFFERS, UH, CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE WOULD APPLY IT FOR OTHER USES, UM, WITHIN THE UDC.
AND THEN THE TIME CONSIDERATIONS.
JUST AGAIN, ANOTHER UH, UH, DECISION POINT OR INFORMATION POINT IS OBVIOUSLY IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NOTICING AND, UM, EDITING PROCESS FOR THE UDC.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE THAT PROCESS BOX COMES IN.
UM, TO MAKE A ZONING CHANGE, A TEXT AMENDMENT LIKE THIS, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A P AND Z NOTICE, A CITY COUNCIL NOTICE, UM, AND MAILED NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND BUSINESS OWNER FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE, UM, BECOME LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO, AND THE MAYOR DID ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT GRANDFATHERING, AND WE DO HAVE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION HERE AT THE VERY END.
SO, UM, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION JUST ASSUMES THAT WE IN ESSENCE RIP THE BANDAID OFF FOR THE CODE AND SAY, STARTING FROM TODAY FORWARD, THIS IS WHAT IT IS.
SO THE OTHER 200 FOOT, UM, BUFFER OPTION, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN HOW WE WOULD TYPICALLY APPLY IT IN OUR CODE.
SO AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE 200 FOOT BUFFER IS TYPICALLY, UM, ONLY APPLIES UNLESS THERE IS A ROAD, ANY ROAD THAT SEPARATES YOU.
SO THIS OPTION THREE ACTUALLY SAYS, HEY, IT'S 200 FEET UNLESS YOU'RE SEPARATED BY AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY.
SO THAT MEANS A, A COLLECTOR ROADWAY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D EVER REALLY HAVE A RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY, BUT, UM, IT WOULD HAVE TO HIT THAT LEVEL OF AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY IN ORDER TO ABSOLVE THAT 200 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
AND THAT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE WOULD DO IT.
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM HOW OUR SISTER CITIES DO IT, BUT IT ADDS, AGAIN, AN AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF, UM, ASSURANCE OR PROTECTION FOR THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT MAYBE, UH, NEARBY.
UM, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS, UM, WE SAW THAT IT ACTUALLY ONLY ADDED ABOUT FOUR, UM, UH, EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGHS, UH, TO THE LIST OF POTENTIAL NON-CONFORMITY.
SO WE WOULD GO FROM 15 TO 19, UM, IF WE APPLIED IT, UM, IN THIS MANNER.
HERE'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SO IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT A, UM, A DRIVE THROUGH ON, UH, MCKINNEY RANCH AND LAKE FOREST.
IT'S WITHIN 200 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S SEPARATED BY THAT ARTERIAL.
UM, AND SO THAT MEANS THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED ANY SPECIAL PERMISSIONS.
AND AGAIN, HIGHLIGHTING THOSE SPECIAL PERMISSIONS, IF FOR SOME REASON, UH, THERE'S A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH THAT WANTED TO COME IN AND IT DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA, THE OFF RAMP THAT WE ALWAYS BUILD INTO THE CODE IS THAT SUP PROCESS.
SO THERE WOULD STILL BE A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO DO IT.
UM, THIS ONE MOVES THE NEEDLE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TERMS OF, UM, IMPACT ON OVERSIGHT.
UM, I THINK IT BRINGS US A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH OUR SISTER CITIES.
WHILE THE BUFFER, UM, IS PRETTY COMPARABLE, HAVING THAT TRIGGER OF AN ARTERIAL IS A LITTLE BIT MORE STRINGENT THAN OUR SISTER CITIES REQUIRE.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THE TIME AND CONSISTENCY CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL.
UM, WE LOVINGLY CALL THIS A NUCLEAR OPTION.
THIS WOULD MEAN, UM, ANY DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT WITHIN A C TWO ZONING DISTRICT WOULD GO FROM BEING PERMITTED WITH CRITERIA TO REQUIRING AN SUP.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS A RESTAURANT
[00:20:01]
WITH DRIVE-THROUGH WOULD HAD TO GO THROUGH A ZONING PROCESS TO COME IN, UM, INTO, UM, A NEW SITE, UM, WITHIN THE CITY.THE IMPACT OF THIS, UH, PARTICULAR CHANGE IS, IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
UM, BECAUSE WE DO NOT, AND WE HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY REQUIRED SUVS FOR DRIVE-THROUGHS IN THAT C TWO ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, ESSENTIALLY, UM, ALL OF THE, THE EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGHS THAT WE HAVE ON THE GROUND WOULD BE RENDERED, UH, NON-CONFORMING USES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE SUVS.
SO THE IMPACT OF THAT ONE IS 131, UM, EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGHS.
THIS IS WHY WE CALL IT THE NUCLEAR OPTION, RIGHT? AGAIN, NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING, BUT THE IMPACT TO EXISTING, UH, DRIVE-THROUGHS IS DEFINITELY MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THE OTHER OPTIONS.
ANOTHER, UH, ONE OF THOSE VISUAL EXAMPLES, UM, WHERE THIS PARTICULAR, UH, DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT MAY HAVE MET ALL OF THE OTHER CRITERIA.
UM, BUT BECAUSE THAT SUP IS REQUIRED, UM, SOMEBODY WHO WANTED TO GO IN RIGHT THERE WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO COME FORWARD FOR P AND Z AND COUNSEL CONSIDERATION IN ACTION.
OVERSIGHT THERE IS HUGE, YOU'D SEE EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT CAME THROUGH.
UM, TIME CONSIDERATIONS ARE ALSO PRETTY SIGNIFICANT JUST BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF, UM, IMPACTED PROPERTIES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO NOTIFY.
SO JUST TO RECAP, THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE'VE, UH, LOOKED AT, UM, AS A STAFF, AGAIN, GOING FROM ORDER OF IMPACT, UM, THE LEAST TO THE MOST.
SO WE DID TALK, UM, QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, UM, HOW CAN WE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THESE THINGS? AND I KNOW WHEN I WAS HERE, UM, BACK IN JANUARY, YOU KNOW, MICHAEL CAME UP AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE DATE, UM, OR BUILDING IN SOME, UM, TIMESTAMPS FOR THIS.
AND THAT IS STILL AN OPTION AS A, AS A STAFF.
UM, WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL, UH, AS A STAFF THAT ADMINISTERS THE CODE, THOSE LOCK-IN DATES OR EFFECTIVE DATES, UH, THEY CAN GET CHALLENGING TO MANAGE OVER TIME.
UM, IF WE'RE ONLY DOING ONE OR TWO EVERY SO OFTEN, IT'S A LITTLE EASIER.
BUT, UM, WHEN WE START MAKING CHANGES TO THE CODE AND USING THOSE EFFECTIVE DATES, UM, IT ADDS JUST MORE LAYERS OF, UM, REGULATION AND REVIEW THAT A STAFF HAS TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING EVERYTHING CORRECTLY.
UM, SO OUR, UH, RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, UH, ESSENTIALLY RIP THE BANDAID OFF IF THERE IS A DESIRE, UM, TO MAKE THE CHANGES TO THE CODE.
UM, WE FEEL THAT WE'RE IN A BETTER POSITION WITH, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS TO NOTIFY THEM, LET THEM KNOW THAT UH, THEY'VE GOT A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS AND WE CAN ALWAYS HELP THEM GO THROUGH THE PROCESS IF THEY WANNA GAIN FULL COMPLIANCE, UM, AS OPPOSED TO THAT EFFECTIVE DATE.
UM, WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, WITH RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW, I THINK FROM THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WE ARE REQUIRED AS A STAFF, IF WE'RE MAKING CHANGES THAT IMPACT OF PROPERTY OWNERS LAND USE RIGHTS, WE DO HAVE TO GIVE THEM MAILED NOTICE.
SO, UH, PREVIOUSLY WE DID NOT HAVE TO DO THAT.
AND SO, UM, PEOPLE WILL DEFINITELY GET NOTICE BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE BUSINESS OWNER, UM, THAT CHANGES ARE COMING THAT WILL IMPACT, UM, THEIR, UH, PROPERTY RIGHTS.
UM, STATE LAW HAS BEEN GRACIOUS AND GAVE US EXACTLY WHAT TO PUT ON THE NOTICE.
UM, SO IT WILL DEFINITELY, UH, RAISE SOME FLAGS FOR THEM.
UM, BUT WE FEEL LIKE IT'S BETTER TO LET THEM KNOW UP FRONT THAT THAT'S WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENING, UM, WITH THE CODE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IS MY LAST SLIDE, SO IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF CAMERON WAS ABLE TO FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT ON YOUR QUESTION.
UH, COUNCILMAN CLAUDIER ON THE DRIVE-THROUGHS THERE AT EL DORADO.
JENNIFER, I HAVE ONE QUESTION AS HE'S COMING.
SO IS THERE A MINIMUM DISTANCE THEN THAT'S REQUIRED IF FOR THE ONES WHERE IT IS JUST THE RIGHT OF WAY, NOT WHERE IT'S OPEN, BUT CURRENTLY NO, THERE'S NOT ONE.
SO IS THERE SOME SORT OF A HYBRID THAT WE CAN DO THAT SETS A MINIMUM STANDARD IF YOU'RE CROSSING, BECAUSE IT COULD BE 80 FEET, RIGHT? TECHNICALLY? UM, WELL, IF THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH.
IF THERE'S A ROAD THAT SEPARATES IT, THEN THEY'RE ABSOLVED ESSENTIALLY OF THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER.
UM, AND YOUR SUGGESTION MIGHT BE THAT IF, IF SEPARATED IT'S 200 FEET, BUT IF IT'S SEPARATED BY A ROAD, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 80 FEET AWAY FEET OR WHATEVER.
YEAH, I, I THINK WE CAN BUILD THAT, THAT KIND OF, UM, TRIGGER INTO THE CODE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANNA PURSUE.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAGICAL NUMBER SHOULD BE ON THAT DISTANCE, IF IT IS ACROSS THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT I'D LIKE SOME INPUT ON THAT.
BUT WOULD THE, WOULD THE, UM, WOULD THE IDEA BEHIND A ROAD ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR THE BUFFER BE BECAUSE ROAD NOISE IS GREATER THAN THAT.
SO THE THOUGHT I WOULD IMAGINE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AGAINST A SPEAKER BOX.
AND ROAD NOISE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SIGNIFI SIGNIFICANTLY LOUDER.
DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU ARE THOUGH.
IT'S GONNA GET UP TO 60, 70 DB.
THERE'S, OF COURSE THERE'S ROAD NOISE, BUT ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, A TYPICAL COLLECTOR ROAD IS WHAT, SIX, WHAT'S THE WIDTH? 60 FEET.
[00:25:01]
60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.UM, SO YOU'RE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA GET AT LEAST 60 AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A LAND USE BUFFER AND TYPICALLY A BUILDING SETBACK.
AND SO I THINK THE IDEA IS YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ROAD NOISE, YOU'RE ALREADY GONNA HAVE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF THAT 60 FOOT FOR THE COLLECTOR.
UM, AND THEN WHATEVER EFFICIENCIES THAT DEVELOPER IS GONNA NEED FOR PARKING DRIVE AISLES AND THAT BUILDING SETBACK.
SO, AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT THE NUMBER WAS FOR THE BAKERS RIGHT THERE IN WILCOX.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT FOR ME? 1 68? MM-HMM
FOR, FOR ME, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME SORT OF A STANDARD SET, EVEN IF IT IS ACROSS THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AND YOU, I KNOW A LOT OF THIS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE ONE DEVELOPMENT AND I FORGET TAYLOR BURKE UP ON TAYLOR.
AND I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY FEET THAT WAS, BUT ALSO WE'RE CROSSING THE RIGHT OF WAY THERE.
IT WAS STILL A CONCERN, UH, FOR THE RESIDENTS HAVING A SPEAKER BOX THERE.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REGULATE THAT KEY PORTION AS WELL, THAT COMPONENT FOR SURE.
HELLO CAMERON CHRISTIE PLAYING FOR CITY MCKINNEY.
UM, REGARDING THE, UH, THE THREE RESTAURANTS, UH, ON EL DORADO, THERE'S A WHATABURGER MM-HMM
A CHICK-FIL-A AND A TACO BELL.
THEY ACTUALLY ALREADY HAVE SUVS, UH, BECAUSE THE CURRENT PD ZONING FOR THAT LOCATION REQUIRES SUVS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS.
SO SINCE THEY ALREADY HAVE AN SUP, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GET A NEW SUP EVEN IF THE REGULATIONS WERE CHANGING.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE 200 FEET FOR ARTERIAL? I THINK EVEN IF YOU HAVE AN ARTERIAL.
WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE MINIMUM ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY? UM, A FOUR LANE ARTERIAL IS 124 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
AND A SIX LANE ARTERIAL CAN RANGE ANYWHERE FROM LIKE 1 48 TO 1 60, 1 64, 1 40 IS HIGHEST.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION.
UM, WE ARE, UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO COME BACK AGAIN, UM, IF WE WANNA KIND OF MASSAGE SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS.
UM, THAT SAID, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY WERE TRYING TO UM, HIT AFTER THE LAST DISCUSSION WAS TRYING TO GET, IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO MAKE A CODE CHANGE, TO DO IT WITH THIS SEATED COUNCIL BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONES THAT, UM, DEFINITELY WANTED TO DRIVE THAT.
SO, UM, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION IF I MAY, BUT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
UM, WAS THIS GENERALLY MOTIVATED BY THE, UH, MCDONALD'S UP ON HARDIN? YES.
WELL, THERE WERE TWO, I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE AT VIRGINIA.
AND THEN THERE WAS ONE AT TAYLOR BURKE.
UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE CROSS STREET IS.
WE DIDN'T APPROVE ONE ON HARD OR ON VIRGINIA.
VIRGINIA, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY WE DIDN'T CATCH THAT WHEN WE WERE REVAMPING OUR, UM, CODES.
AND SO I I'M SAYING IT'S MY ERROR OR NOT YOUR SURE.
GRAY, WHY DON'T YOU START THE DIALOGUE 'CAUSE THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO, I WOULD LIKE TO SET A MINIMUM, UH, YOU KNOW, FEET, EVEN IF IT'S ACROSS FROM ARTERIAL.
I'M NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT THE WEST SIDE, BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE EAST SIDE WHERE WE HAVE STILL A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT THAT'S COMING AND WE HAVE PROPERTY THAT'S STILL UNDEVELOPED AND THOSE ARTERIALS ARE A LOT MORE NARROW THAN WHAT WE SEE ON THE WEST SIDE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING THE RESIDENTS ON THIS SIDE AND INJUSTICE BY NOT REQUIRING SOME SORT OF A MINIMUM DISTANCE.
HOW'S EVERYONE ELSE FEELING? THAT I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
I, WITHOUT THAT COMMENT, I WAS LEANING TOWARD OPTION TWO.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE, BUT I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT.
BUT THAT, I MEAN, THAT WOULD PUT US STRICTER THAN ANY SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
WITH, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AS YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M THINKING A HUNDRED, IF THIS IS 168, I WOULD SAY 150 FEET YEAH.
WOULD BE SOMETHING REASONABLE.
I I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SUPER STRICT, BUT OKAY.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT I WANNA MAKE SURE I DOUBLE CHECK WITH MY TEAM IS THAT, UM, WHEN WE ADD THAT MINIMUM, UM, REQUIREMENT MM-HMM
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY GONNA IMPACT THE EXISTING ONES.
I KNOW BECAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GO THROUGH AND SCRUB THE DATA WE HAVE SO THAT WE CAN GET THE NOTICES OUT.
'CAUSE THE WORST CASE FOR US IS THAT WE MISS A NOTICE.
UM, I, I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE CREATED OUR DATA SET IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH RELATIVE EASE.
I GOT A THUMBS UP SO IT SHOULD BE GOOD.
SO LET'S SAY SOMEBODY CAME IN AND IT WAS UNDER THAT DISTANCE MM-HMM
THEY COULD STILL GO THROUGH P AND Z AND CITY COUNCIL YES.
AND GET A VARIANCE, RIGHT? THEY COULD.
[00:30:01]
ME SOUND BETTERUH, THE NEW STARBUCKS ON ARE HIGHWAY FIVE.
IS THAT CONSIDERED A SPEAKER BOX THAT THEY HAVE OUT THERE? YES SIR.
SO WHAT ARE THE DISTANCES THERE? UM, I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE SITE PLAN, BUT, UM, IT SHOULD BE THE 20, UH, 20 FEET.
NOW THE ONE DIFFERENCE ON THAT PARTICULAR, UM, PROPERTY IS, AS YOU KNOW, UM, THERE WAS AN OLD CHICKEN EXPRESS, I THINK IT WAS A CHICKEN EXPRESS THERE MM-HMM
UM, AND SO THERE ARE, THEY DID HAVE SOME ABILITY TO REBUILD.
UM, THEIR SITE PLAN REALLY DIDN'T CHANGE, SO I THINK THEY MAY HAVE HAD SOME EXTRA ABILITY TO REBUILD EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD.
UM, BUT I CAN HAVE CAMERON AGAIN 'CAUSE HE'S THE ACTUAL GUY THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING.
IT SHOULD, SHOULD HAVE BEEN 20 FEET, UM, DISTANCE FOR THOSE SPEAKER BOXES.
SO, BUT THE CHICKEN EXPRESS WAS BUILT BEFORE THE NEW UDC.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT STANDARD PRIOR TO THAT IS SO YEAH.
WELL, AND, AND, AND THAT IT'S ON, IT'S ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND SO THAT MAY VERY WELL BE BECAUSE CHICKEN EXPRESS WAS BUILT BEFORE THE UDC, UH, IN INTRODUCE THAT 20 FOOT STANDARD.
UM, AND BECAUSE STARBUCKS WAS REBUILDING EXACTLY THE SAME FOOTPRINT, UM, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO REBUILD EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
SO JENNIFER, 150 FEET'S BEEN THROWN OUT.
HOW DO, WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE, HOW DOES THAT FEEL TO YOU? OR IS A HUNDRED SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH? IS IT 200? I WOULD SAY THERE REALLY IS NO MAGIC NUMBER.
UM, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WHEN WE DID OUR RESEARCH WITH THE SISTER CITIES, IT RANGED FROM ONE 50 TO 200.
UM, I THINK THE, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE CITY THAT WE SAW, UM, WAS IN THE 200 RANGE, THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE OF COURSE WAS THE ONE 50.
HOW IS EVERYBODY ON 150 FEET? IS THERE A CONSENSUS ON THAT? YEAH.
JUSTIN, HOW ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT? I, I THINK SO I WANT TO, I'M STILL TRYING TO THINK THROUGH DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND I MEAN FROM A, FROM A NEW DEVELOPMENT, FROM A GREENFIELD PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT APPLIES.
BUT, UM, I GUESS MOST OF THE STUFF ALONG HIGHWAY FIVE WOULD WOULD BE C ONE.
AND SO IT'D NEED AN SUP ANYWAY.
UM, AND TO BE HONEST, MOST OF THE INFILL SITES ALONG HIGHWAY FIVE ARE GONNA NEED REZONING IN GENERAL BECAUSE THE SITES ARE SO SMALL THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY, THEY STRUGGLED TO MEET A LOT OF DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
AND, AND SAME FOR THREE 80 AS WELL.
I MEAN, JUST ANYWHERE IN OLD MCKINNEY IS GONNA HAVE SOME CONSTRAINTS, BUT I, I SO I I I AGREE CREATING SOME PROTECTION THERE, BUT ALSO WE DON'T, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO TO COME THROUGH US ANYWAY.
AND WE JUST NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF PROTECTING AGAINST THAT, WHETHER IT IS THROUGH AN SUP.
'CAUSE YOU CAN COME IN WITH AN SUP AND OR A PD AND YES.
SHORTEN IT TO 20 AND THAT IS, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
SO, UM, IF YOU AREN'T ABLE TO MEET IT, YOU CAN COME THROUGH AN SUP PROCESS AND BE 10.
I, I'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT ORDINANCES THAT THE PEOPLE OF MCKINNEY DESERVE THE VERY BEST AND, AND I WANT 200 FEET IF WE CAN GIVE IT TO 'EM.
'CAUSE THEY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND ASK FOR AN SUP.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 20 OR 30 FEET IS ENOUGH SEPARATION FOR SLEEPING CHILDREN WITH A CRANKY MOM LIVING NEXT DOOR TO THAT.
AND SO, FAIR ENOUGH, THE MORE YOU CAN GIVE TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF MCKINNEY, THE HAPPIER I WOULD BE.
AND ON THE EXAMPLE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AT RIDGE AND EL DORADO MM-HMM
I MEAN WE CONSIDER THAT IT IS A, IT IS AN SUP SAID IT DOES HAVE AN SUP BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WE CONSIDER THAT TOWNHOME STRUCTURE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT DOESN'T APPLY EVEN THOUGH IT STILL HAS THE SAME PEOPLE POTENTIALLY THE SAME INVESTMENT.
AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND I'M GLAD YOU ASKED IT SO THAT WE CAN CLARIFY THAT.
SO TOWN HOMES, UM, ARE STILL CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE, IF NOT FOR THE PD ZONING THAT JUST REQUIRED THE SUP, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
UM, IT IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES OR ZONES.
SO THAT WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED OR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED IN THE FORM OF A TOWN HOME.
WHAT IT WOULD NOT, UH, TRIGGER WOULD BE, UM, MULTIFAMILY.
EVEN THE MULTI-FAMILY THAT'S BUILT TO LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY.
SO THINK OF THE A VILLAS, UM, THAT OF THE WORLD, THOSE WOULD STILL BE TREATED AS MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS FAIRLY COMMON.
UM, ACROSS THE BOARD AS YOU DO SEE HIGHER INTENSITIES TYPICALLY ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY.
SO I THINK THE CONSENSUS THOUGH WAS ONE 50.
IS THAT THE CONSENSUS? IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO,
[00:35:01]
WE HAVE ONE AT 200.IS THERE ANYONE ELSE AT 200 OR IS 1 5300 GET AT ONE 50? I GOT ONE 50 GOING ONE TIME.
SO YOU HAVE CONSENSUS AT ONE 50.
SO 200 FOOT BUFFER WITH A ONE 50 MINIMUM.
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? OKAY.
EARLIER, I BELIEVE COUNCIL HAD SAID THAT IF THIS GOES THROUGH THEN PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP, IT WOULD CONVEY IF THE OWNERSHIP CHANGES.
BUT IN THE EVENT SOMETHING HAPPENS WHERE SAY THE CHICKEN EXPRESS WERE TO BURN DOWN AND THEN WHOEVER COMES IN, THEY DON'T REFILL ON THE EXACT SAME FOOTPRINT, THEY BUILD SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEY HAVE TO COME FOR P AND Z.
OR WOULD THAT STILL CONVEY? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
IN GENERAL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME, IF THEY WANTED TO BUILD A DIFFERENT FOOTPRINT, THEY WOULD LOSE THOSE PROTECTIONS AND UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET NEW APPROVALS.
THANK YOU JENNIFER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I KNOW THEY NEED TO TURN OVER FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
YOU GUYS NEED TO ADJOURN? MM-HMM.
ADJOURN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.