Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Feasibility study for Jack in the Box accepted; council told drive‑through use may require special‑use permit
Summary
Council accepted a utility and economic feasibility study for a proposed Jack in the Box at FM 105 and FM 149; the franchisee argued the site requires a drive‑through to be viable, while planning staff said the drive‑through is an accessory use that may require a special-use permit and review by the planning commission and TxDOT.
The Montgomery City Council accepted a utility and economic feasibility study Tuesday for a proposed Jack in the Box restaurant on the southeast corner of FM 105 and FM 149 and heard legal and planning staff explain that a drive‑through on the site may require a special‑use permit.
Mark Holmes, who identified himself as representing KHR Properties and as a Jack in the Box franchisee, told the council a denial of a drive‑through would undermine the property’s economic viability: "Denial of a drive through on this property would cause an economic economic hardship, Virtually making the property unsuitable for the intended use." Holmes urged the council to consider how other fast‑food businesses in the city had been permitted.
City staff presented the feasibility study and told council members that the site is already zoned commercial but not yet platted. Staff summarized the utility impact: the development would generate roughly 1,200–1,300 gallons per day of water and sewer use and would not require major water or sewer extensions because service exists near the tract. Staff estimated impact fees at roughly $50,000 for this development based on meter sizing, and, using the city’s assessment methodology, projected a modest ad valorem tax contribution from the completed site.
Planning staff member Tilly explained the zoning determination and the path forward on the drive‑through question. Tilly said that while a restaurant is permitted in the city’s B commercial district, a drive‑through is an accessory use that is not explicitly listed in the table of uses and therefore typically requires a special‑use permit: "restaurant with the drive thru service serves customers without them leaving their vehicles." Tilly said the developer may appeal the determination to the planning and zoning commission and be heard on conditions, including whether conditions should be placed on a special‑use approval.
Traffic and drainage issues were raised: staff said TxDOT will review the driveway access and require a traffic impact analysis that examines queue length for the drive‑through and any impact on turn lanes on FM 149 and FM 105. The developer and representatives said they had begun obtaining the access easements and had submitted plans to TxDOT for driveway approvals and underground detention.
After receiving presentations and questions, council voted to accept the feasibility study; the acceptance does not constitute a permit or development agreement. Tilly and staff described the next steps: either the developer may seek a special‑use permit and planning‑commission review, apply for a development agreement and platting, and then submit final engineering and site plans for approval and TxDOT driveway permits where applicable.
The council’s vote accepted the feasibility study; further land‑use approvals will follow the city’s established review process.
