Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Drive Through topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Boerne council tables decision on SoBo drive‑through special‑use permit after traffic, walkability debate

3764421 · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Boerne City Council on June 10 voted 4‑0 to table for two weeks a decision on a special‑use permit request to allow a drive‑through at a planned retail building in the South Boerne (SoBo) overlay district.

The Boerne City Council on June 10 voted 4‑0 to table for two weeks a decision on a special‑use permit request to allow a drive‑through at a planned retail building in the South Boerne (SoBo) overlay district, after extended debate about traffic, precedent and the walkable vision for the area.

Planning staff presented the application for a roughly 1‑acre site at the northeast corner of Gallant Fox and Herff Road, describing an approximately 6,300‑square‑foot building with two tenants — a coffee tenant identified as Starbucks and another retail tenant. Nathan Crane of city planning told council the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval June 2, 4‑2, subject to four stipulations: completion of a future connection (either to Gallant Fox or to a new cul‑de‑sac) prior to certificate of occupancy, a third‑party traffic analysis to evaluate a required deceleration lane on Herff Road, directional signage and UDC‑compliant landscaping.

The application prompted lengthy comments from council members and the applicant. Developers and the site owner said the lot is a previously approved master‑plan location that includes a preapproved right‑in/right‑out curb cut; the applicant said that if that curb cut were revoked the developer would withdraw the SUP. Justin (applicant/landlord) said, “If it’s revoked, then I will withdraw our application,” and Bill Walters, the property owner, said, “Under no circumstances will that right in right out be removed.” Both were present during the hearing and answered technical questions.

Council members voiced a range of concerns. Several members said the original 2009 master plan envisioned a walkable, live‑work‑play environment and that direct curb cuts onto Herff Road risked creating the same traffic and stacking problems seen at some other local drive‑through sites. Council discussion focused on the driveway configuration and precedent: allowing a right‑in/right‑out on Herff Road, several council members warned, could lead to additional direct cuts and multiple deceleration lanes along that corridor as development continues.

City engineering staff and the applicant’s traffic consultant addressed mitigation and site capacity. Planning and engineering staff explained that under current (2022+) UDC standards a deceleration lane could be required if peak‑hour vehicle counts reach a threshold (staff described a trigger of roughly 50 inbound right turns in the peak hour). Cheryl (city engineering) noted that because the project is vested to an earlier plan (February 2009) it did not automatically meet today’s deceleration‑lane trigger; the council could still make a stipulation requiring the lane as part of an SUP approval.

The applicant said the site plan includes 36 on‑site parking spaces, six designated mobile‑order pickup stalls and internal drive‑through stacking for roughly six to 11 cars in the queue, and that the design also incorporates rainwater collection for landscape irrigation. Mark Santos of LJA Engineering said the master plan and prior traffic impact analysis account for multiple curb cuts and that the design was intended to disperse traffic off Herff Road.

After public testimony and multiple council exchanges, Council moved to table the SUP for two weeks to allow staff to provide more engineering detail and legal guidance on options related to driveway access and required improvements. The motion to table passed 4‑0 (one council member absent). The applicant and owner said they were willing to meet with staff and council prior to the next meeting; they also warned that removing the preapproved curb cut would jeopardize the Starbucks lease and the current deal for the project.

The council did not approve or deny the SUP; the item will return to a future regular meeting with additional engineering analysis and potential stipulation language for council consideration.