04-26-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M)4-2993 April 13.2004 Page 3 of 4 Because the drive-through aisle is brought around the front of the lot, an additional variance is required. A front yard parking setback variance is needed to al.ow the drive- through aisle to be within 10 ’ of the front property line. Under Zoning Ordinance regulations, a 20 ’ unobstructed front yard is normally required. Lastly, a hardcover variance is also required under this plan. Attached are the proposed hardcover calculations, amounting to nearly 56% when 35% is normally permitted in the 500 ’-1000 ’ zone. POSITIVES From the applicants’ standpoint, a functional drive-through facility can be utilized on the site. Staff is satisfied that the layout of the drive-through will work, as far as vehicle maneuvering, and that curb and gutter are proposed to control drainage on the site. The applicant has also proposed to extend the grassed yard to the rear property line in an effo.t to gain some of the rear yard back from the City owned parking lot. HARDSHIPS The Planiting Commission should weigh the positives and the negatives of the plan and determine if hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested variances. It is staffs opinion that no hardships exist and that variances should not be granted on the basis of accommodating a drive-through facility. Drive-through facilities should be permitted only if the site can support them. Site Details of Non-Drive-Through Plan NEGATIVES From staffs perspective a negative of this plan is the 3 parking stalls that will be forced to back into traffic when leaving the site, however it is difficult to design it any other way. To meet parking requirements the applicant has rights to use the main City owned lot. Elevations showing proposed exterior finishes have also been provided. The applicant is proposing white chilton stone and hardy board plank siding. Hardy board plank siding is not spccifica'ly allowed under the B-1 standards, therefore the Plaruiing Commission should discuss if they want to permit it using their ability to permit exterior finishes which are not specifically noted in the Ordinance. Lastly, the applicant would like to keep the 3-season porch if a drive-through is not approved. Staff feels it would be best for the site if it is eliminated because it adds to the excessive non-conformity of the side street building setback when coupled with allowing the building addition. It should be noted however, that hardcover and structural coverage requirements can be met allowing the porch remain. POSITIVES Staff feels the overall site layout achieves the goals of a property zoned B-1. The proposal needs approval of a building setback variance to Lyric Avenue and a parking setback variance for the rear yard, which the Planning Commission at the March meeting agreed with in concept. The applicant has incorporated a walk-up vvindow and a sidewalk where patrons can park their vehicle and access the walk uj* window. The . > I > 1 » «1 t i I \ r ’ I ' f I * II ;l luli!!,