FAQs Related to the Zoning Amendment
Does the developer have a tenant in tow?
No, the developer does not have any tenant committed to or even considering the proposed change of use.
Why did the developer decide to amend the existing approved use?
The foundation of the amended use was an effort to design and build a use that would have the smallest parking footprint, as well as the lowest daily trip counts. The other factor was for Novak to control the design detail, build, and ultimate experience for the new use.
Is the developer considering the possibility of traffic queuing up on Rivery, Hintz, and in the north lot?
Traffic impact and analysis studies show that 60% of customers choose not to get into a line longer than 8 cars and that percent grows exponentially as the line grows. There are very few non-nationals branded drive-throughs that queue more than 8 cars. Our planned queue holds 10 people inside the boundaries of the site.
Is there a chance that the building built on this site will be on par with the design standards of the rest of our commercial and retail buildings?
If Novak sells the site, the new owner only has to build to the current guidelines. Novak’s budgets are typically approximately $300/sq. ft., while a traditional budget is typically $150/sq. ft. This doesn’t mean the new owner will build to the lowest standard allowed, but it does mean they will be allowed to without protest.
Will a drive-through use exposed dumpsters in the north parking lot?
Novak originally planned, and currently uses, enclosed compactors that do not leak or have any scents associated with them. No additional dumpsters are planned for our community or on this site.
Why hasn’t the developer put a crosswalk between the two parking lots to provide a safer crossing on Hintz?
These are city streets. Novak requested a four-way stop; however, our city traffic engineer determined it is too close to the entrance to install a stop sign. Novak also requested blinking pedestrian crossing lights. However, these could potentially be installed a bit farther down Hintz—not at the intersection of the parking lots, as they are intended for mid-block crossings.
Is Novak keeping the big oak tree next to the commercial lot?
Yes, we have planned to build a deck with overhead party lights around the oak to be used as outdoor seating for the customers of the new users.
What are some concepts that Novak would approve for the amended use?
Novak prefers a concept that caters to morning services such as a coffee or bagel shop, a local bakery, or similar. We have and will continue to focus on local entrepreneurial businesses for development.
Does the proposed amendment allow Novak to put in a Chick-fil-A®, Taco Bell® or similar establishment?
Novak is happy to use deed restriction or conditional city council approval to ensure that these types of fast food establishments are not built. The city can distinguish between different types of uses based on form, function, and purpose, but distinguishing based upon ownership scheme or method of food preparation can be inappropriate in a zoning ordinance. Novak will define the use of the proposed drive-through to bakery, hot/cold beverages, sandwiches, pizza, ice cream and snacks. Our building plan accommodates two tenants with a maximum size of 2,200 sq. ft. (850 sq. ft. conditioned) and the lot is 0.25 acres. As a point of reference, McDonald's requires a 1.14-acre site and a minimum 4,000 sq. ft. building size. Chick-fil-A® requires a minimum 1- to 2-acre site and a minimum 4,500 sq. ft. building. A KFC® lot must be a 0.45-acre to 1.15-acre site. Taco Bell® requires a minimum 0.50-acre to 1.2-acre lot. The narrative that we plan to build a national fast food chain restaurant is not only not our intention but an impossibility for this site.
Is Novak willing to deed restrict the property to exclude national uses that we all know are not a good fit?
Novak has offered to deed restrict McDonald's®, Chick-fil-A®, Starbucks™, Whataburger®, Taco Bell®, and similar establishments. Novak is willing to deed restrict all brands that do not fit the vision for our community. *This was offered as a simple solution in our meeting and declined by John Roth. (John represents in his actions that he is the voice of all the signatures on the petition).
If the proposed amendment does not pass, what is Novak, or the new owner of the site, allowed to build with the current entitlements?
The following are allowable:
- Restaurant, General
- Bar, tavern or pub
- General office
- Medical facilities
- General retail
- Personal services
- Parking garages
Does the proposed amendment and plan create more traffic and less parking than the current approved entitlements?
Novak’s plan and the amended use would create fewer trip counts per day and require fewer parking spots than the current approved uses. This use creates a safer option than our currently approved use as it relates to trip counts and traffic in our community.
Does the developer have the ability to make the intersection of Hintz and Rivery safer?
Because these are city streets, Novak met with the city again the week of 09/06/21 to ask for a potential solution to make this a safer exit. (This belongs in the city’s jurisdiction, not the developer). We discussed the possibility of a "right-in and right-out." They are concerned that this potential solution would force all southbound traffic on Rivery to the Rivery/Wolf Ranch traffic light to turn left into the development and cause more significant issues. This increased southbound traffic could create a longer queue than the existing left turn lane allows. This could also increase u-turns at that intersection by traffic attempting to reach the north parking lot for Orangetheory®, restaurants, etc. The city is confident that their recently redesigned Rivery Blvd. and traffic plan is the most advantageous plan for entrance and exit of our development.