04-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m4-m3 AprU13.N04 Paft2of4 PcrtiDiot Zoaiog Ordioanct Sections Sec. 784S42. Pcimit application. All applications for a building permit in any B-1 retail sales business district shall be reviewed by the council and may be referred to the planning commission for review. Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (c) Frontyar^. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. (d) Rear yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet, a side yard adjacent to any R district shall be 1S feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shall be ten feet (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, IS feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; except abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. Sec. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditional use permit: (3) Restaurant (class I), in which food is served to customers while seated at counter or table, or cafeteria, in which food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumptioa Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in class I restaurants. Background This applicadoD was originally heard before the Planning Conunission at the March 15, 2004 meeting. The applicant presented three plans, all with drive-through facilities, one of which was passed out at the meeting. Staffs recommendation was for the applicant to work on a plan that doesn’t incorporate a drive through, which is presented as the alternate plan in this report. The applicant still is pursuing a drive-through and has presented a plan that hu been reviewed by an engineer per staffs recommendation (see Exhibit D). The details of both plans are discussed below. The applicant also met with Building Official Lyle Oman to discuss the issues of converting the residential use to commercial. No issues, other than the handiciq) ramp, were fretors to be considered when approving the specifics of the site plan. The applicant also met with the Miruiehaha Creek Watershed District, which is not requiring any on-site mitigation for storm water. Site DetaUs of Drivc-Throu^ Plan NEGATIVES The same safety and functionality issues still exist with tlus plan, although at a lesser extent than the previous plans. The exit for the drive-through aisle remains very close to the intersection of Lyric and the City owned parking lot’s drive aisle (15’). Under this plan the applicant is proposing 2 parking stalls, which are forced to back into traffic when leaving the site. •04-2995 A9rilll,20(M Pat*3of4 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 allow 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 h^cover variance is also required under this plan. Attached are the proposed hardcover calculations, amounting to nearly 56% when 35% is normally permined 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 effort to gain some of the rear yard back from the City owned parking lot HARDSHIPS The Planning Commission should weigh the positives and the negatives of the plan and detennine if hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested variances. It is staff’s 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 DetnUs of NoB-Drivc-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 diff„;ult 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 prov' '*ed. The applicant is proposing white chilton stone and hardy board plank siding. Hardy board plank siding is not specifically allowed under the B-1 standards, therefore the Planning 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 to remain. POSITIVES Staff feels the overall site layout achieves the goals of a property zoned B-1. The proposal needs ^proval 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 window and a sidewalk where patrons can p^ their vehicle and access the walk up window. The i,U