Drive-through ordinance placed on second reading

Ordinance 20-08 regarding drive-through lanes was placed on its second reading during the city board meeting on April 21, as board members debated a provision of the ordinance.

The drive-through ordinance will amend Chapter 102 of the zoning code and create provisions for businesses that are seeking to put in a drive-through. However, one provision in the ordinance has sparked a debate among the board and members of the public. This provision allows buildings 20 years or older to automatically reduce the width of a drive-through lane from 12 feet to 10 feet, according to Ben Rhoads, senior planner.

The city board was divided regarding the provision with directors Brad Burns, Reid Carroll, Bob Coleman and Lesa Rissler for the provision and Mindy Hunt, Marla Sappington and Carol Smiley against it.

When it came time to vote on the motion to suspend the rules and read the ordinance by title only Hunt, Sappington and Smiley voted no, which meant the ordinance would move along to a third reading. Since the motion to suspend failed, City Administrator Phillip Patterson had to read the ordinance in full.

Carla Wasson, attorney for Wasson Funeral Home, said this provision would have allowed neighboring Taco Jake’s to place a drive-through on the funeral home’s east lot line and the funeral home would not have been entitled to notice or an opportunity for a hearing. She is asking the board to strike this provision from the ordinance.

“It’s not only a bad policy to exclude interested parties from this process,” Wasson said. “It violates due process rights that are guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.”

Taco Jake’s filed for two special-use permits to put in a drive-through. One was denied last August by the city’s board of adjustment, according to an article in the Herald-Leader on Aug. 18, 2019.

The second permit was denied by the planning commission on March 10. The permit was scheduled to go before the board on April 7, but ended up being withdrawn by the owner before the meeting.

The directors each gave differing opinions on the merit of the provision for 20-year-old buildings.

“If you tighten the restrictions and make it more difficult and lengthen the process to be able to add some better things to your business, then you’re making it harder on our business owners,” Rissler said. “And, the idea isn’t to make it harder to have business in Siloam.”

Other directors felt this provision would give a pass to businesses in older buildings who would still have to request a variance for a green space.

“I do believe with these old buildings not everyone is going to go in and expect to have a drivethrough,” Smiley said.

Smiley also said she believes that if business owners have to apply for a variance for the green space, then they should also have to apply for a variance to reduce the width of their drivethrough from 12 feet to 10 feet.

A separate motion was made by Smiley and seconded by Sappington to strike the provision from the ordinance. The motion failed 4-3.