6.A. Chick-fil-A at 111 NW John Jones (Case 24-326): Consider a recommendation of approval for a resolution for a commercial site plan amendment with a variance to Section 132-115; Accessory building and structure yard regulations; pertaining to drive-thru canopies. (Staff Contact: Lidon Pearce, Principal Planner)

[6.A. Chick-fil-A at 111 NW John Jones (Case 24-326): Consider a recommendation of approval for a resolution for a commercial site plan amendment with a variance to Section 132-115; Accessory building and structure yard regulations; pertaining to drive-thru canopies. (Staff Contact: Lidon Pearce, Principal Planner)]

CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A RESOLUTION FOR A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH A VARIANCE TO SECTION 132.115.

ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE YARD REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DRIVE THROUGH CANOPIES.

THE STAFF PRESENTER, LIDON PEARCE.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

SO LIKE YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS A SITE PLAN, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.

THESE ARE GENERALLY APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY STAFF UNLESS THEY'RE ASSOCIATED WITH A WAIVER OR VARIANCE OR A ZONING CHANGE.

SO THIS ONE AS YOU MENTIONED, DOES HAVE A VARIANCE FOR A DRIVE THRU CANOPY.

ALL RIGHT. SO STAFF ENGINEERING PLANNING.

OUR NORMAL DAC WE REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO APPROVE ARE VERIFIED CHECKS.

HOWEVER, STAFF CAN APPROVE THIS ONE BECAUSE IT HAS THE WAIVER.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ESSENTIALLY, THEY'RE REQUESTING A CANOPY TO BE KIND OF BUILT WHERE THE OLD ONE THAT YOU SEE, KIND OF THAT THREE QUARTERS CANOPY THERE AND EXTEND IT FOR TWO MORE DELIVERY LANES.

SO GENERALLY, THIS IS FOR THEIR WORKERS THAT THEY HAVE OUT THERE TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE ELEMENTS.

AND, AND YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THEY HAVE FANS LIGHTS, DIFFERENT THINGS FOR THEIR WORKERS.

THERE'S SOME OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE MINOR TO THE SITE PLAN, JUST KIND OF MODERNIZING THE SITE.

IN ADDITION TO THAT WAIVER.

THEY'RE RELOCATING A COUPLE OF LIGHT POLES REORIENT THE PARKING, THE TRASH ENCLOSURE, AND THE NEW ORDER DELIVERY BOARD.

SO THIS IS A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THERE ON THE LEFT IS THE CURRENT.

THE WAY THE SITE WAS, THEY KIND OF HAD THAT TILTED IN PARKING.

THEY'VE KIND OF REORIENTED IT TO HAVE THE MORE I GUESS VERTICAL 90 DEGREE, IF YOU WILL.

I GUESS NORTH NOT UP, BUT PART OF ME THERE.

BUT THEY REORIENTED THAT PARKING SO IT'S NOT THE TILT IN THE RED OUTLINE IS KIND OF SHOWING WHERE THAT CANOPY WOULD GO.

SO THAT JUST SO YOU'RE KIND OF AWARE, IT'S KIND OF HARD SOMETIMES TO TELL, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE DRIVING IN A CAR FROM THE SITE, BUT FROM WHERE THE DRIVING TRAFFIC ON JOHN JONES TO WHERE THAT CANOPY WOULD BE IS ABOUT 20FT.

JUST FOR REFERENCE THERE.

SO YOU KIND OF CAN SEE THE SIDEWALK THERE AND THE CURB.

SO FROM THE CURB TO WHERE THE CANOPY WOULD BE, THERE'S ABOUT 20FT, I THINK IT'S LIKE 19.5 TO BE TECHNICAL.

SO THE VARIANCE THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED IS ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A ACCESSORY OR A BUILDING STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD SINCE THERE'S THIS IF YOU'LL NOTICE, THERE'S THAT SPACE ALONG WILSHIRE THERE THAT'S PLATTED SEPARATELY.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY FOR DRAINAGE.

SO, IT'S OWN LOT.

SO, THEIR FRONTAGE IS ACTUALLY ON JOHN JONES, EVEN THOUGH THE WAY THE BUILDING IS ORIENTED, YOU WOULD THINK IT'S WILSHIRE, BUT IT'S NOT.

IT'S ACTUALLY JOHN JONES.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY NEED THIS VARIANCE THEY'VE REQUESTED IT.

SO WE'VE REVIEWED IT.

ENGINEERING'S REVIEWED IT.

THEY'RE NOT VIOLATING ANY VISIBILITY TRIANGLES OR ANY SITE, YOU KNOW, ISSUES.

[00:05:04]

THEY'RE STILL GOING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SITE PLAN.

YOU KNOW, OUR LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.

SO WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE VARIANCE FOR THE CANOPY WITH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN OR THE CANOPY ITSELF.

TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES, THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE THIS EVENING, BUT I WILL DO MY BEST.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS, BILL.

ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I DROVE BY A COUPLE DAYS AGO, AND I NOTICED THAT BASICALLY ALL THE CEMENT WORK IS ALREADY DONE.

THEY HAD EXTENDED THE WIDTH, ALL THE TREES WERE REMOVED, THE SHRUBS WERE REMOVED.

SO, I GUESS IT'S JUST DOWN TO CLOSE TO THE CANOPY AND MAYBE A COUPLE OTHER PROVISIONS AS FAR AS LIGHT FIXTURES AND STUFF.

THIS MORNING, THEY WERE IT LOOKED LIKE APPEAR TO BE PUTTING IN BUSHES AND TREES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO GO THE DOUBLE WIDTH OF THE CANOPY COVERING.

ONE THING THAT THEY DID MENTION, IT WAS TO PROTECT THEIR EMPLOYEES.

ALL THE DRIVE THRUS, I GO THROUGH THEIR SERVICE THROUGH THE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW.

AS FAR AS DOING A DOUBLE WIDTH, I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME.

I MEAN, I LOVE THE BUSINESS.

THE OWNERS, I THINK THEY'RE GREAT BUSINESS PARTNERS WITH BURLESON.

I'M HAVING A REAL HARD PROBLEM WITH ALLOWING THE VARIANCE IN THE WIDTH ON THIS.

IT'S SETTING IT UP FOR OTHER BUSINESSES TO COME IN AFTERWARDS.

ALL THE ONES THAT ABIDED BY ALL THE RULES AND GUIDELINES ORDINANCES INCHES IN BURLESON WERE PUT IN PLACE BY SOMEBODY SMARTER THAN ME.

THOSE ARE SORT OF OUR GUIDELINES.

I MEAN, THEY'RE THERE TO PROTECT THE CITY GROWTH AND I BELIEVE THE EYESIGHT APPEAL, A LOT OF OTHER THINGS ARE THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESSES TO FLOURISH.

AND I JUST CANNOT SUPPORT DOING A DOUBLE WIDTH ANYTHING THAT CLOSE TO THE BOUNDARY LINE.

AND THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN MY LINE OF BUSINESS, I HAVE TO ADHERE TO WHAT CITY GUIDELINES AND ORDINANCES ARE.

I THINK EVERY BUSINESS SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME.

SO I WOULD SUPPORT A SINGLE WIDTH, POSSIBLY A LITTLE BIT WIDER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE NOW.

BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT A DOUBLE WIDTH.

SO, IF I MAY, COMMISSIONERS, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

SO THEY HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN WITHOUT THE CANOPY.

SO WHAT YOU'RE PROBABLY SEEING IS THEM COMING INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THAT APPROVED SITE PLAN.

THIS IS NOW A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH JUST A CANOPY.

SO AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THE MOTIONS YOU CAN MAKE, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, APPROVE, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED.

YOU COULD RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SITE PLAN IF THIS WAS DISAPPROVED BY COUNCIL.

THEY JUST WOULD HAVE THE SAME SITE PLAN JUST WITHOUT A CANOPY.

AND THAT WOULD REMAIN AS IS APPROVED BY STAFF.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION THERE.

YEAH, I WAS IN NO WAY SAYING I WOULD DENY THE WHOLE THING.

NO, I'M JUST I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW YOUR OPTIONS.

SO IF YOU DENIED IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND REPROPOSE SOMETHING.

AND STAFF WOULD EVALUATE THAT PROPOSAL IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE.

AS YOU MENTIONED. SO THIS WAIVER IS FOR THE, THE DEPTH OF IT.

SO THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT GAS STATIONS, I BELIEVE THAT THEY CANNOT BE WITHIN SOMETHING LIKE TEN FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE.

SO GAS STATIONS DO HAVE AN EXCEPTION IN THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW THE CANOPIES STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

THEY DO HAVE TO MAINTAIN A 18 FOOT SETBACK, BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CODE PROVISION.

NOW THIS WOULD BE CLOSER THAN THE GAS STATIONS.

THIS WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN WHAT WE ALLOW BY RIGHT FOR A GAS STATION.

THAT IS CORRECT. RIGHT.

AND THAT'S WHY, LIKE I SAID, I KNOW THE CITY DOES GREAT WORK AS FAR AS STAYING ON TOP OF STUFF LIKE THIS.

AND I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR GUYS INPUT AND STAFF.

LIKE I SAID, ALL THOSE PEOPLE BEFORE ME THAT COME UP WITH THESE RULES AND GUIDELINES.

I MEAN, WE'RE A NATION OF LAWS.

WE GOT CITY ORDINANCES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

AND I AM A FULL BELIEVER ON ADHERING TO SOMETHING, MAYBE AN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCE A LITTLE BIT IF IT'S A FEW FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THE PROPERTY LINE BASICALLY.

AND WHEN I, YOU KNOW, JUST WHEN I DROVE BY, I CAN JUST IMAGINE OTHER BUSINESSES COMING FORWARD AND SAYING, YOU APPROVED THIS.

YOU ALLOWED THIS. NOW WE WANT, THE SAME MAY NOT HAPPEN, BUT IT COULD.

AND IT'S JUST I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A DOWNFALL FOR TRYING TO CONTROL LATER ON.

AND WHAT I HADN'T HEARD IS I HEARD YOUR RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT I HADN'T HEARD THE RATIONALE

[00:10:07]

BEHIND WHY A VARIANCE IN RELATIONSHIP.

SURE. YEAH, DEFINITELY.

SO STAFF LOOKS AT THE SITE PLAN ESSENTIALLY FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE.

AND THEN WE IDENTIFY SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT'S A WAIVER.

AND WE KIND OF NOTE THAT YOU KNOW, WHEN STAFF LOOKS AT THIS, WE LOOKED AT THE FACT THAT WILTSHIRE WOULD NORMALLY TRADITIONALLY BE THE FRONTAGE.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT DRAINAGE LOT, IT'S NOT.

SO WE TOOK THAT INTO OUR CONSIDERATION.

WE ALSO TOOK INTO THE FACT THAT IT'S EFFECTIVELY A FIVE LANE INTERSECTION, YOU KNOW, TWO LANES GOING STRAIGHT, ONE TURN, TWO TO THE LEFT AND ONE TO THE RIGHT.

SO IT'S ALREADY A MASSIVE INTERSECTION.

STAFF. SOMETIMES THERE'S AN ART AND A SCIENCE, AND WE KIND OF LOOK AT IT.

AND STAFF'S OPINION IN THIS CASE WAS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VISUALLY IMPACTFUL TO A WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY A FIVE LANE INTERSECTION OF WILSHIRE AND JONES WITH ALL THAT TRAFFIC.

AND THERE IS A BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK THERE.

SO WE LOOK AT EVERY CASE BASED OFF ITS INDIVIDUAL MERITS.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND SETTING PRECEDENTS, BUT WE LOOK AT EVERYONE, WE LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF SOMETIMES IT'S VERY EASY.

IT'S CUT AND DRY, MEETS THE COMP PLAN, DOESN'T MEET THE COMP PLAN.

OTHER TIMES THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE AND WHAT IS THE WRITTEN RULE OF THE CODE.

THE CODE ALLOWS THEM TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE OR A WAIVER, AND STAFF IN THIS CASE FELT WE NEEDED TO PROVIDE SOME KIND OF RECOMMENDATION TO YOU GUYS TO MAKE YOUR DECISION TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL.

OUR RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE WAS FOR APPROVAL JUST BASED OFF THIS LOCATION, THE EXISTING BUSINESS, THE SIZE OF THE LOT.

WE JUST LOOKED AT ALL THAT AND THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAME UP WITH.

AS FAR AS GIVING YOU A TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR.

AND THERE'S NOT I MEAN, IT IS A SCIENCE AND ART, I GUESS.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

WE APPROVE THIS.

MR. COMMISSIONER, DO YOU MIND GIVING YOUR WIFE THE BENEFIT OF THE RECORDING? I DON'T THINK YOUR RED PART IS GOOD, BUT IT IS ON.

I THINK YOUR MARK IS ON. IT'S JUST THE.

NO, I DON'T, BUT IT SHOWS THAT IT'S ON.

OKAY, I'M LOOKING FOR THE RED LINE.

WE APPROVE THIS THREE YEARS FROM NOW, SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN WITH AN APPROVAL, AND WE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR, AND WE DENY IT.

DOES THAT OPEN THE CITY? NO. I MEAN.

YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENT.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

BUT EACH PARCEL AND PIECE OF LAND IS DIFFERENT.

AND SO THE FACTS ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENT.

AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PRECEDENT.

IN YOUR REASONING, BUT I THINK, AS LIDON POINTED OUT THIS IS A REAL UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S UNIQUELY ORIENTED, THAT'S AT A SPECIFIC INTERSECTION.

I THINK A LOT OF THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE HARD TO DUPLICATE IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY. YOU KNOW, UNLESS IT WAS ON THIS LOT AND SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THANK YOU.

SO, FOR CLARIFICATION, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THIS PICTURE IS ALREADY APPROVED WITHOUT NEEDING US, THE ONLY THING WE'RE DECIDING IS WHETHER TO ALLOW A CARPORT, BASICALLY TO COVER THE CARS DRIVING THROUGH HAND IN THEIR FOOD TO BE A LITTLE WIDER, TO BE A LITTLE DEEPER THAN THAT.

THAT'S THERE. ONE LANE DEEPER.

RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THE GENESIS, THEY SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN ORIGINALLY WITH THIS.

IT'S BEEN OVER A YEAR.

JP WAS THE CASE MANAGER AND HE'S BEEN GONE FOR ABOUT A YEAR.

WE TOLD HIM THEY WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE WAIVER PROCESS.

THEY DECIDED, AFTER MUCH DELIBERATION, TO REMOVE THE CANOPY.

WE APPROVED THE SITE PLAN WITHOUT THE CANOPY.

THEY HAD SOME TIME TO RECONSIDER.

THEY DECIDED, HEY, WE ACTUALLY REALLY WANT THE CANOPY.

SO THEY CAME BACK WITH A NEW SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN APPROVED IN A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVAL THAT DID NOT REQUIRE PNC OR COUNCIL ACTION, BUT TO DO THE CANOPY, THEY HAD TO SUBMIT A NEW SITE PLAN.

SO IF THIS WERE DENIED, EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAW, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, WOULD BE ON THE GROUND, THE TWO LANES, ALL THE CHANGES JUST WOULDN'T HAVE THE CANOPY. AND IF I MAY ADD, COMMISSIONERS AS YOU TRAVEL THROUGH THE STATE, YOU'LL SEE QUITE A FEW CHICK FIL A'S THAT ARE BEING REMODELED. THIS SEEMS TO BE THEIR PROTOTYPICAL CHANGE FOR EXISTING STORES AND NEW STORES.

SO WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY IN REGARD TO THEIR ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AT MOST SITES

[00:15:02]

THAT ARE EXISTING AND FUTURE SITES.

I THINK WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THIS IS A BUILDING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THEM ACCEPTING THIS AS THEIR PROTOTYPICAL STORE.

BUT NOW THEY ARE DOING A DOUBLE DRIVE THRU STACKING AND DELIVERY OF THAT FOOD.

SO IF THIS WAS A NEW STORE, THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT BUILDING BACK AND ACCOMMODATE THAT.

SO THIS IS ATYPICAL FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S AN EXISTING STORE THAT THEY'RE REMODELING WITH THIS NEW PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN.

BUT IF YOU GO THROUGH THE STATE, THROUGHOUT THE STATE, NOT JUST IN BURLESON, THIS SEEMS TO BE THEIR PROTOTYPICAL APPROACH TO THEIR.

I GUESS IT'S A GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE WITH STACKING AND QUEUING FOR THE VEHICLES.

THEY SEEM TO DO A LOT OF BUSINESS, AND THIS IS THEIR ONE OF THEIR ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ALL OF THOSE VEHICLES GETTING THAT TRAFFIC THROUGH AND SAFELY THROUGH.

JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.

LYDON, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SORRY. YES, SIR. I JUST BECAUSE I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S A DRAINAGE LOT, INSTEAD OF IT BEING PART OF THE CHICK-FIL-A LOT WITH AN EASEMENT, IT'S ACTUALLY A COMPLETELY, I GUESS, SEPARATE LOT ON THE PLAT IF IT WAS PART OF THAT LOT.

LET'S SAY THERE WAS JUST A DRAINAGE EASEMENT INSTEAD OF BEING A SEPARATE LOT.

AND THE FRONTAGE THEREFORE WOULD BE A 174.

WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO BUILD THE CANOPY BY RIGHT AT THAT POINT? SO IF THEY HAD THAT LOT, YOU COULD SEE KIND OF THAT RED FAINTLY OUTLINE THAT LOT IN FRONT OF THEM.

IF THEY HAD THAT LOT, THEN THEIR FRONTAGE, SO TECHNICALLY THEY'D HAVE A DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT.

SO THERE'S STILL SOME NUANCES THERE, BUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BEING NOT IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH WOULD AT THAT POINT BE WILTSHIRE.

THEY'RE ALLOWED IN THE SIDE, AND THEY'RE ENCOURAGED IN THE SIDE IN THE REAR YARD.

THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET SETBACKS, SO THEY WOULD STILL BE COMING WITH A WAIVER.

IN THIS INSTANCE. BUT IN OTHER INSTANCES, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT ON HOW THAT ORIENTATION LAYS OUT.

BUT IF YOU I THINK EVEN IF YOU LIKE MR. SANCHEZ WAS SAYING IF YOU WENT TO CLEBURNE'S, I THINK THEY HAVE A RELATIVELY NEW CHICK-FIL-A, IT'S JUST THEIR MODERNIZATION PROCESS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH AND TRYING TO MODERNIZE ALL THESE.

THAT'S GOING TO GO FROM A ONE.

IT'LL STAY ONE LANE TILL IT REACHES UP CLOSE TO THE WINDOWS WHERE IT'LL SWITCH TO TWO.

DID I CATCH THAT RIGHT? YEAH. SO YOU'LL HAVE IT'S A LITTLE CONVOLUTED HERE, BUT YOU SEE THIS IS ONE LANE.

CAN YOU SEE MY CURSOR. SO ONE LANE AND THEN HERE IT SPLITS INTO TWO AS OF RIGHT NOW WHERE IT'S ONE.

SO THIS IS IN LARGE PART TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BACKING UP ONTO JOHN JONES AND THE HEB.

THE PEOPLE THAT COME THROUGH THAT WAY, IT'S CHICK-FIL-A'S MODEL TO REDUCE SOME OF THAT PEAK HOUR STACKING ON SITES THAT ARE PROBABLY TOO SMALL TO BEGIN WITH FOR THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME THAT THEY NOW DO THAT MAYBE THEY DIDN'T DO 20 YEARS AGO OR 15 YEARS AGO.

RIGHT? WHAT IS THE ACTUAL WIDTH FROM THE BUILDING OUT TO THE EDGE OF WHAT WILL BE THE CARPORT COVERING? SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU A LIE.

SHOOT FROM THE HIP HERE. I CAN TELL YOU FROM WHERE THE CANOPY IS.

TO THE ROAD IS ABOUT 19.5FT FROM THE CANOPY TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS ALMOST FOUR FEET, THREE FEET, AND SOME CHANGE AS FAR AS FROM THE BUILDING.

TWO LANES WIDE PLUS 20FT.

I SORRY, THAT'S NOT A TECHNICAL.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY IF YOU ASSUME THEY'RE EACH PROBABLY ABOUT 8 TO 9FT WIDE.

YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT ABOUT 38FT.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD SAYING THAT OFFICIALLY.

BUT YEAH, I ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE ON OR ABOUT 38FT.

YEAH. BECAUSE I ASSUME THAT THE WIDTH TO COVER THE TWO LANES WITH THE PROPOSING IS SOMETHING AROUND 20FT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HALF THE WIDTH OF THIS ROOM. IT'S QUITE A BIT. IT'S ABOUT FROM ME TO YOU.

IT'S PRETTY WIDE STRUCTURE.

AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN THROUGH QUITE A FEW DRIVE THRUS.

NOT AS MANY, YOU KNOW, IN RECENT MONTHS, BUT THERE ARE SOME THERE ARE OTHER LOCATIONS IN BURLESON HAS A SINGLE LANE OF COVERAGE. THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PUT A SECOND LANE IN THERE DUE TO PARKING IN A PASSAGE.

EMERGENCY VEHICLES. IF THERE HAPPENED TO BE A FIRE, A CAR HAPPENED TO CATCH ON FIRE UNDERNEATH ONE OF THESE CARPORTS.

COULD A FIRE TRUCK GET TO IT? YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO OFF TOPIC ON OTHER CASES, BUT I THINK IF YOU WENT AND SURVEYED PROBABLY 95% OF DRIVE THRUS FOR BANKS, RESTAURANTS THERE IS NO FIRE ESCAPE LANE, CANOPY OR NOT.

THIS MEETS OUR CURRENT CODES AS FAR AS WHAT'S REQUIRED.

AS FAR AS FIRE LANES AND ALL THAT, THOSE ARE STILL MET.

BUT, YEAH, IF A CAR BROKE DOWN IN THE LANE, LIKE THESE CAR WASHES.

[00:20:03]

AND SO, WHAT, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SIT IN LINE FOR A LONG TIME? BUT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, TO BE TECHNICAL, THIS MEETS WHAT THE CITY OF BURLESON REQUIRES FOR FIRE LANES AND EMERGENCY ACCESS.

AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THIS AND STUFF.

AND IF I WAS TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, I WOULD AGAINST THE VARIANCE.

IT WOULD, I WOULD APPROVE WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT NOT WITH THE DOUBLE WIDTH.

A SINGLE LANE IS WHAT I WOULD BE WHERE I WOULD SET MY BOUNDARY ON THAT.

YEAH. I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT YOUR MOTION SHOULD BE, BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT'S VERY EASY TO APPROVE OR DENY SINCERITY OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN.

I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS.

YOU. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD EITHER BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AS PRESENTED OR TO DENY IT, AND THEN THEY'LL RESUBMIT IF THEY WANT TO GO BACK TO A THREE QUARTERS HALF WHATEVER, BECAUSE STAFF WOULD NEED TO EVALUATE.

THAT MAY STILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE DEPENDING ON THE NUMBERS.

ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

ARE THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 24 326 AS PRESENTED.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

ALL RIGHT. HAVE A MOTION BY MIKE.

A SECOND BY CLINT.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS.

OKAY. ALL AGAINST.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM 6.B CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDER SETTING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025.

[6.B. Consider approval of a minute order setting the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates for calendar year 2025. (Case 24-355) (Staff Contact: Emilio Sanchez, Development Services Assistant Director)]

CASE 24-355.

STAFF PRESENTER'S EMILIO SANCHEZ.

GOOD EVENING.

CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS.

IT'S THAT TIME OF THE YEAR THAT WE NEED TO PRESENT TO YOU THE 2025 CALENDAR YEAR FOR YOUR MEETING DATES.

THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO EITHER APPROVE AS PRESENTED OR APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS.

I THINK YOU GUYS HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS LAST YEAR IN REGARD TO THE CALENDAR WITH SPRING BREAK.

I AVOIDED SPRING BREAK THIS YEAR.

LUCKILY, THAT FELL THE SECOND AND THE FOURTH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH FELL AFTER SPRING BREAK OR RIGHT BEFORE SPRING BREAK, SO IT WAS PERFECT TIMING ON THAT PART. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN, THOSE ARE THE HOLIDAYS THAT WILL BE OBSERVING FOR THE CITY THIS YEAR.

AND THEN THIS IS THE APPROVED COUNCIL DATES IN YELLOW AND THE PROPOSED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATES IN GREEN.

AND I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION.

AS I STATED EARLIER, MARCH THE 17TH THROUGH THE 21ST IS BURLESON ISD'S SPRING BREAK FOR NEXT YEAR.