Commission approves drive‑through restaurant and landscaping exception at 220 Main St.

The Planning & Zoning Commission on Dec. 10 recommended approval of an alternative landscaping compliance request and a specific use permit to allow a restaurant with drive‑through service at 220 Main St. in Buda.

Planner Tyler Frost told commissioners the roughly 1.6‑acre site currently contains an oil‑change business and a car wash that will be demolished; the proposed building is about 2,236 square feet with 21 parking spaces on the restaurant side and a drive‑through lane designed to queue about 11 vehicles. Frost said the developer will reduce the western driveway from about 100 feet to 30 feet to meet the Unified Development Code and align with the city's Main Street expansion CIP.

“Based on a cost sharing calculation proportional to the traffic generated by the subject development, the applicant will provide a pro rata share of 2.2% to the construction of the future signal, which amounts to a contribution of $12,650,” Frost said. Staff also noted the project reduces impervious cover from 73.2% to 71.9%, replaces an undersized PVC culvert with a properly sized box culvert, elevates the driveway and regrades the receiving channel to address frequent ponding on the eastern driveway.

The applicant requested alternative compliance for required shade trees because a 30‑foot public utility easement on the property prevents planting in the front 30 feet. Frost said the city’s proposal would group the required number of trees just outside the easement and that the plan meets the intent of the landscaping requirements. Staff recommended replacing proposed honey mesquite trees—listed as an exempt species under the UDC—with a non‑exempt shade tree, and conditioned approval on that change and final site‑plan adherence to the UDC.

Residents and commissioners asked technical questions about drainage modeling, the existing regional detention basin, and whether the modest decrease in impervious cover would meet standards. Staff and a consultant explained that the city’s code requires water‑quality and detention facilities only for developments that increase impervious cover and that the project ties into a larger detention system; the engineering submittals and TIA were accepted by staff.

The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the alternative compliance request (conditional on SUP approval) and then unanimously approved the SUP with the three staff‑recommended conditions: completion of final site‑plan review for UDC conformance, substitution of honey mesquite trees with an approved shade tree species, and insertion of the updated landscaping plan into the site plan set.

The commission’s action is a recommendation to city council; final permits and any building site work will require separate plan and permit approvals.