Laserfiche WebLink
•04-299) <br />MtrclllS.2004 <br />rtttSefS <br />Staff fin<k 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 tovc-through could <br />be accommodated under the official controls of the Zoning Ordinance (i e. wnthin <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 cither <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 some 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 parkirig lot, <br />which lessens the amount of buildablc area on the lot. However, a building addition of <br />the same sire proposed by the applicant could be constructed within setbacks, but there <br />may ix)t be enough room to accommodate parking. Staff would 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 «• n • <br />The applicant has included an alternative plan with a drive-through coming off of L>tic <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 the applicant that if a drive- <br />through 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 />Imucs for CoMidcration <br />1. Can the property support a drive-through? <br />2. Docs the Planning Commission feel there is a valid hardship to warrant 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. Docs the Planning Commission feel any additional conditions must be ^ociated <br />with approval of the proposed coffee shop'bakery/resuuranl use? Or, is the use <br />proposed reasonable but the site plan should be revised? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Rcconiincodation <br />Denial of the plan as proposed. The applicant should consider revising her site plan to <br />not include a drive-through, and revise the parking stall arrangcmcnl so that customers <br />are not conflicting with the drive aisle of the City owned parking lot.