Laserfiche WebLink
^04-2993 <br />March IS. 2004 <br />Page 5 of S <br />Staff finds few hardships to warrant approval of the requesting building and parking <br />setback variances. A drive-through is not an automatic allowed use, but rather a use that <br />is allowed should the site be large enough and configured such that a drive-through could <br />be accommodated under the official controls of the Zoning Ordinance (i e. within <br />setbacks). Therefore, staff would not recommend approval of variances merely to <br />accommodate a drive-through facility. Staff also finds that a variance should not be <br />granted to allow parking stalls to be located up to the property line in the rear yard when <br />30’ setback should be required. The location of these stalls forces customers to either <br />cross traffic entering the stalls or backing into traffic leaving the stalls. This is due to a <br />drive aisle serving the City owned parking lot located in behind the applicant ’s property. <br />The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and his comments are attached as Exhibit K. <br />He concludes that the site “does not lend itself to a drive through operation’’. <br />Staff does find that sonic hardships may exist due to the restrictive building setbacks and <br />that part of the applicant ’s property was taken to improve the City owned parking lot. <br />which lessens the amount of buildable area on the lot. However, a building addition of <br />the same size proposed by the applicant could be constructed within setbacks, but there <br />may not be enough room to acconunodate parking. Staff w'ould recommend that the <br />applicant explore a site plan that doesn’t include a drive-through and variance requests <br />could be entertained at that point. <br />Alternative Plan <br />The applicant has included an alternative plan with a drive-through coming off of Lyric <br />Avenue and existing at the rear of the lot onto the drive isle of the City owned parking <br />lot. Staff feels that the same issues exist as far as conflicts, safety and setbacks are <br />concerned as the proposed plan. Staff originally encouraged tlie applicant that if a drive- <br />tlirough is a must, to keep it off of the Lyric Avenue side of the lot in an effort to <br />eliminate intersection safety issues at Lyric Avenue and Shadywood Road. <br />Unfortunately, neither plan achieves the safety or functionality standards the City should <br />expect with a drive-through facility. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Can the property support a drive-through? <br />2. Does the Plamiing Commission feel there is a valid hardship to waiTant approval of <br />the side setback variance to construct the requested addition? <br />3. Should the applicant consider the same use but without a drive-through? Could a <br />safer parking stall arrangement be implemented? <br />4. Does the Planning Commission feel any additional conditions must be associated <br />with approval of the proposed coffee shop/bakery/rcstaurant use? Or, is the use <br />proposed reasonable but the site plan should be revised? <br />5. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Denial of the plan as proposed. The applicant should consider revising her site plan to <br />not include a drive-tlirough, and revise the parking stall arrangem''nt so that customers <br />arc not cc .flicting with the drive aisle of the City owned parking lot.