POPEYE S 1904 E. COLONIAL DR.

Transcription

1 Staff Report to the Board of Zoning Adjustment February 24, 2015 VAR I TEM #4 POPEYE S 1904 E. COLONIAL DR. Chan s Chinese Ex-Midas E. COLONIAL DR. Dollar Tree Oriental Supermarket Office Depot Location Map S UMMARY Applicant Craig Kosuta Kosuta & Associates, Inc. Owner Chau Nguyen Tuan-Chau Colonial, LLC Project Planner Jim Burnett, AICP Updated: February 18, 2015 Property Location: 1840 & 1904 E. Colonial Dr. (south side of E. Colonial Dr., west of N. Hampton Ave. and north side of Hillcrest St.)(±1.84 acres, District 4). Applicant s Request: The applicant intends to redevelop an existing parking lot into a Popeye s fast-food restaurant with a drive-through lane, and to make improvements to the overall property, requiring several variances, as follows: A. Variance of ft. to allow the existing west side setback of ft., where the maximum setback is 25 ft. (existing Dollar Tree); B. Variance of 7.9 ft. to allow an existing front setback of 22.9 ft., where the maximum setback is 15 ft. (existing Dollar Tree); C. Variance of 27 ft. to allow a new restaurant 42 ft. from the front lot line, where a maximum 15 ft. setback is allowed (new Popeye s); D. Variance of 25 ft. (e) & 41 ft. (w) to allow a new restaurant 50 ft. from the east side lot line and 62 ft. Subject Site from the west side lot line, where a maximum 25 ft. setback is allowed (new Popeye s); E. Variance of 4.5 ft. to allow dumpster corrals & parking spaces 3 ft. from the side and rear lot lines, where a minimum 7.5 ft. buffer width is required; F. Variance to allow landscape islands to be less than minimum 10 ft. wide; G. Design variance to allow reduced transparency on the north & south elevations of the new Popeye s; & H. Design variance to allow parking on the side and in front of the existing and proposed buildings. Staff s Recommendation: Approval of variances A, B, D2 & E, Design Variances G & H, subject to conditions in this staff report, and denial of Variances C, D1 and F. Public Comment: Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the subject property the week of February 9, As of the published date of this report, staff has received one (1) from the public opposed to the request.

2 Page 2 F UTURE LAND USE MAP RES-LOW E. COLONIAL DR. ALTALOMA AVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY Z ONING MAP O-1/T/SP/AN R-1A/T/SP/AN ALTALOMA AVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY

3 Page 3 P ROJECT ANALYSIS Project Description The subject property consists of a 17,690 sq. ft. Dollar Tree store and a 150-space surface parking lot. The applicant/owner intends to restripe and landscape parking areas surrounding the Dollar Tree store and to replace some of the parking with a new ±2,500 sq. ft. Popeye s fast food restaurant with a drive-through lane. The proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which will be going to the March Municipal Planning Board (MPB) (CUP ). To effect the new construction, the applicant is applying for numerous variances, as follows: A. Variance of ft. to allow the existing west side setback of ft., where the maximum setback is 25 ft. (existing Dollar Tree); B. Variance of 7.9 ft. to allow an existing front setback of 22.9 ft., where the maximum setback is 15 ft. (existing Dollar Tree); C. Variance of 27 ft. to allow a new restaurant 42 ft. from the front lot line, where a maximum 15 ft. setback is allowed (new Popeye s); D. Variance of 25 ft. (east) and 41 ft. (west) to allow a new restaurant 50 ft. from the east side lot line and 66 ft. from the west side lot line, where a maximum 25 ft. side setback is allowed (new Popeye s); E. Variance of 4.5 ft. to allow dumpster corrals & parking spaces 3 ft. from the side and rear lot lines, where a minimum 7.5 ft. buffer width is required (both sites); F. Variance to allow landscape islands to be less than minimum 10 ft. wide (Popeye s); G. Design variance to allow reduced transparency on the north and south building elevations of the new Popeye s; and H. Design variance to allow parking on the side and in front of the existing and proposed buildings (both sites). The property is zoned MU-2/T (High Intensity, Mixed Use Corridor, Traditional City Overlay), and is designated as Mixed Use Corridor, High Intensity, on the City s Future Land Use Map. Adjacent uses, zoning and future land use designations are per Table 1 below. North Table 1 Project Context - Adjacent Properties Future Land Use Zoning Use (Across E. Colonial Dr.) Mixed Use Corridor, High Intensity (MUC-HIGH) MU-2/T/AN (High Intensity, Mixed Use Corridor, Traditional City Overlay, Aircraft Noise Overlay) Black Bean Deli, Chan s Chinese Restaurant & Retail Plaza East MUC-HIGH MU-2/T Retail Plaza South (Across Hillcrest St.) Office Low Intensity O-1/T (Low Intensity Office - Residential, Traditional City Overlay) Single-Family Homes & Offices West MUC-HIGH MU-2/T Offices & Church Previous Actions 1921: Property platted as part of East View Park Subdivision. 1958: Driftwood Cafeteria developed on the property. 1970: 17,690 sq. ft. Morrison s Cafeteria and surface parking lot constructed. 1999: Morrison s Cafeteria converted to Picadilly Cafeteria; Planning Official Determination (LDC ) issued regarding Allowable Sign Area for Piccadilly Cafeteria; Determination appealed by applicant (LDC ), MPB upheld original decision and denied the appeal. 10/2005: Cafeteria closed; site was to be redeveloped into Kobe Steakhouse, instead redeveloped into Dollar Tree retail store. 2006: Property re-platted as two (2) lot Nguyen Development Subdivision (SUB ). 7/2013: Planning Official Determination (LDC ) for an administrative Master Plan for a phased development submit ted; rolled into Variance request (VAR ) for setback and buffer/landscaping for new 7,800 sq. ft. retail building; Variances expired 7/22/2014. Conformance with the LDC As previously noted, the property is zoned MU-2/T, which allows retail and restaurant uses (drive-throughs require a Conditional Use Permit). There are no minimum lot size requirements for MU-2/T zoning. The overall site improvements will constitute a substantial improvement, thus the entire site must be brought into compliance with Code. Analysis Four (4) variances (A, B, E & H) are needed for the existing Dollar Tree store, while six (6) variances (C-H) pertain to the proposed Popeye s portion of the overall site. Generally, staff is supportive of all the variances for the Dollar Tree portion of the site but does not support all of the variances for the Popeye s portion of the site.

4 Page 4 VAR Popeye s E. E. Colonial The applicant has provided two (2) site plans. Site plan A (see page 7 of this report) is the applicant preferred version, with the proposed Popeye s located perpendicular to E. Colonial Dr. on the current parking lot. Site Plan B (see page 8 of this report) is the staff-preferred version, with the proposed Popeye s rotated to be parallel to E. Colonial Dr. Dollar Tree Variances A & B Existing Building Setbacks - The owner/applicant intends to remove an existing driveway located in front of the building and to replace the outdated angled parking on the west side with 90-degree parking and required landscaping and buffers along the west side lot line. Variances A & B reflect the existing building setbacks for Dollar Tree, as follows: A. Variance of ft. to allow the existing west side setback of ft., where the maximum setback is 25 ft.; and B. Variance of 7.9 ft. to allow an existing front setback of 22.9 ft., where the maximum setback is 15 ft. If the Dollar Tree building was being replaced, Code would require it to be closer to the street and closer to the west side lot line, with all the site parking in the rear. However, the building is remaining as is and the site improvements and new construction on the eastern portion of the site constitute a substantial improvement (building construction costs exceed 50% of the replacement building value for the Dollar Tree building). Also, the subject properties are double frontage lots and have the same frontage requirements on Hillcrest St. as on E. Colonial Dr. However, since all of the buildings on this block face E. Colonial Dr., the lot frontage on Hillcrest is viewed as a rear yard, which only requires a minimum 20 ft. setback, with no maximum setback requirement. Thus, Staff supports these two (2) variances, per the conditions at the end of this staff report. Variance E - Reduced South (and East) Buffers - Per LDC Section (a7), a minimum 7.5 ft. vehicle use buffer is required adjacent to parking lots and drive aisles. Buffers adjacent to the parking lot and dumpster corrals for both the Dollar Tree and Popeye s sites are deficient, hence the need for Variance E, to allow a minimum 3 ft. landscaped buffer along the south and east sides of the parking lot (variance of 4.5 ft.). To provide Code-compliant vehicle-use buffers would reduce the number of parking spaces for the existing and proposed retail uses and would require re-design of the drive aisles and parking lots for both uses. Staff supports this variance, for both site plans A & B. A ERIAL P HOTO Table 2 Development Standards (MU-2/T) (bold requires VAR) Principal Structure Setbacks (ft.) Front (E. Colonial) Sides (E & W) 2nd Front/Rear (Hillcrest St.) Max. ISR Maximum Required % Existing Dollar Tree (Lot 1) (w); 7 (e) 80 Proposed Popeye s (Lot 2) 42 66(w); 50(e) 127 Proposed Popeye s (Alt. Plan) <15 72 (w); 6 (e) % proposed Dollar Tree SUBJECT PROPERTY

5 Page 5 Design Variance H - Allow Parking on the West Side and in Front of the Existing Dollar Tree: LDC Section (a) requires that parking facilities shall be permitted only to the rear of the principal structure, except for large-scale retailers (of which Dollar Tree is not). Subsection (b) of the same section further states that A streetwall shall be required along the street perimeter of surface parking lots. The streetwall shall be in lieu of the requirements of Chapter 60 (Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping) for landscaping adjacent to street right-of-way. Breaks may be permitted in the streetwall to provide pedestrian access to the site and for the purpose of tree protection. The Dollar Tree already has existing parking on the west and east sides and to the rear of the building (the applicant/owner is removing an existing drive aisle located in front of the store). Thus, staff supports Design Variance H for the existing Dollar Tree minus the one space that is located in front of the front façade of the Dollar Tree store. Proposed Popeye s Variances C & D Front & Side Setbacks: As shown on Site plan A, the applicant/owner intends to place the new restaurant building on a north/south axis, perpendicular to E. Colonial Dr. Drivers would enter the queue for the drive-through on the south end of the building and would exit to the north and back onto E. Colonial Dr. Per Figure 1STD2.LDC and LDC Section , Development in Mixed Use Corridor Districts, the MU-2/T zoning district requires that buildings be located as close to the front and side lot lines as possible, with parking located in the rear, out of view from the passerby traffic on E. Colonial Dr. This design ensures a more urban look and feel, compared to a suburban, vehicle-oriented design (located further east on E. Colonial Dr., east of Bumby Ave.). As illustrated on Site plan A, front and side setbacks (both east and west) need variances. Per the applicant provided alternate Site plan B, the proposed restaurant building is rotated to be parallel with E. Colonial Dr. and is located less than 15 ft. from the E. Colonial Dr. R-O-W. Site Plan B still requires several other variances but negates the need for front and east side setback variances (Variances C & D). Therefore, staff does not support the applicant requested Variances Proposed Use Retail Sales (14,872 sq. ft.) Eating & Drinking (2,500 sq. ft.) Table 3 - Parking Requirements (per LDC Section ) Minimum Parking Ratio & Requirement 2.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area (GFA) 37 spaces 5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. GFA 12 spaces Maximum Parking Ratio & Requirement 4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. GFA = 59 spaces 20 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. GFA = 50 spaces Total 49 spaces (min.) 109 spaces (max.) Spaces 150 (existing) 89 provided C (front setback) & D (side setbacks), because Site plan B results in conforming front and east side setbacks. Staff does support a modified Variance D to allow a 72 ft. west side yard setback for the new Popeye s, where a maximum 25 ft. side setback is allowed. Variance E - Reduced South & East Buffers: Per LDC Section (a7), a minimum 7.5 ft. vehicle use buffer is required adjacent to parking lots and drive aisles. Buffers adjacent to the parking lot and dumpster corrals for both the Dollar Tree and Popeye s sites are already deficient, hence the need for Variance E, to allow a minimum 3 ft. landscaped buffer along the south and east sides of the parking lot (variance of 4.5 ft.). To provide Code-compliant vehicle-use buffers would reduce the number of parking spaces for the retail uses and would require re-design of the drive aisles and parking lots for both uses. Staff supports this variance, for both Site plans A & B. Variance F - Reduced Width Landscape Islands in Popeye s Parking Lot: Per Site plan A, two (2) rear parking islands will be less than 10 ft. wide, contrary to LDC Section A 33 ft. wide 2-way drive aisle is proposed adjacent to the westernmost landscape island, where only a maximum 24-ft. wide 2-way drive aisle is required, so it appears that the two (2) landscape islands could meet Code (at 10 ft. wide). Site plan B features a different rear lot configuration and the landscape islands appear to meet Code (no variance needed). Thus, staff cannot support the variance as requested (opting for Site plan B). Design Variance G - Transparency on Front & Rear Building Elevations (Popeye s): LDC Section requires that, within the MU-1/T and MU-2/T zoning districts, The ground floor building wall facing the street shall contain a minimum of 15% of transparent materials, located between 3 and 7 feet measured from ground level. Reflective glass and glass block are not permitted as transparent materials. Transparent materials on walls not parallel or approximately parallel to the street and on doors shall not be counted toward the minimum transparency requirement. With the Popeye s building oriented perpendicular to E. Colonial (Site plan A), there is sufficient transparency on the north and west elevations, but when the building is placed parallel to E. Colonial (Site plan B), required transparency is lacking on the north-facing elevation, requiring a design variance. Given the preference for Site Plan B, staff supports this variance, provided the applicant abides by several urban design conditions (see page 10). Design Variance H - Allow Parking on the Sides and in Front of the Existing and Proposed Buildings (both sites): LDC Section (a) requires that parking facilities shall be permitted only to the rear of the principal structure, except for large-scale retailers (of which Dollar Tree is not). Subsection (b) of the same section further states that A streetwall shall be required along the street perimeter of surface parking lots. The streetwall shall be in lieu of the requirements of Chapter 60 (Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping) for landscaping adjacent to street right-of-way. Breaks may be permitted in the streetwall to provide pedestrian access to the site and for the purpose of tree protection.

6 Page 6 S URVEY For the Popeye s site and per Site E. COLONIAL DR. plan A, there would be parking located on the east and west sides and behind (to the rear of) the new building, but with Site plan B, some parking would still be located west of the restaurant but most would be located behind (to the rear of) the restaurant building. With Site plan A, an 8-10 ft. streetwall/false building façade with MAIN PARKING LOT doorway and faux windows would be constructed across the front, to provide a more urban appearance. The false façade would extend to the existing retail building to the DOLLAR TREE east. With Site plan B, the actual building is up front, with no need for a streetwall or false façade. Thus, staff supports Design Variance H for the limited amount of parking on the west side of the proposed Popeye s utilizing Site plan B, which negates the need for a street wall or false façade. Summary/Recommendation - In conclusion, staff prefers Site plan B in supporting variances A, B, E and design variance H for the existing Dollar Tree store, as proposed, HILLCREST ST. per the conditions on page 10, variances E and a modified D (west side yard setback for the new Popeye s), as well as design variances G & H, for the proposed Popeye s. Staff does not support variances C, D and F as proposed by the applicant (utilizing Site plan A). S ITE PHOTOS Parking lot portion of site as viewed from E. Colonial Dr. Parking lot portion of site as viewed from south (close to Hillcrest St.)

7 Page 7 A PPLICANT PREFERRED SITE PLAN A KNEE WALLS E. COLONIAL DR. Lot/R-O-W line 22.9 ft. front setback (Variance B) 42 ft. front setback (Variance C) ft. side setback (Variance A) FALSE FACADES 50 ft. side setback (Variance D) POPEYE S (new) DOLLAR TREE (existing) 3 ft. buffers (Variance E) Lot/R-O-W line HILLCREST ST. <10 ft. wide islands (Variance F) Front & Rear Building Transparency (Design Variance G) Parking in front & sides of buildings (Design Variance H)

8 Page 8 S TAFF PREFERRED SITE PLAN B A H Lot/R-O-W line B H D2 H G POPEYE S (new) G E C D1 DOLLAR TREE (existing) H H F E E Lot/R-O-W line E E Variance Requirements with Alternate (more Code-compliant) Site Plan A. Variance of ft. to allow the existing west side setback of ft., where the maximum setback is 25 ft. (existing Dollar Tree) (Variance still required); B. Variance of 7.9 ft. to allow an existing front setback of 22.9 ft., where the maximum setback is 15 ft. (existing Dollar Tree) (Variance still required); C. Variance of 27 ft. to allow a new restaurant 42 ft. from the front lot line, where a maximum 15 ft. setback is required (new Popeye s) (Variance not needed, Code-compliant); D. Variance of 25 ft. to allow a new restaurant 50 ft. from the east side lot line, where a maximum 25 ft. setback is required (D1) (new Popeye s) (Variance needed for west side setback (D2)); E. Variance of 4.5 ft. to allow dumpster corrals & parking spaces 3 ft. from the side and rear lot lines, where a minimum 7.5 ft. buffer width is required (both sites) (Variance still required); F. Variance to allow landscape islands to be less than minimum 10 ft. wide (Popeye s) (Variance not needed, Code-compliant); G. Design variance to allow reduced transparency on the front & rear elevations of the new Popeye s (Variance needed for alternate site plan unless elevation is re-designed); and H. Design variance to allow parking on the side and in front of the existing and proposed buildings (both sites) (Variance still required).

9 Page 9 VAR Popeye s E. E. Colonial P ROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS Note architectural embellishments (Facing E. Colonial) (Facing west (Dollar Tree) (Facing South (Hillcrest)) Note architectural embellishments

10 Page 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCES FOR REDUCED SETBACKS, BUFFER WIDTHS, TRANSPARENCY, ETC (Utilizing Site Plan B) A. Variance of ft. to allow the existing west side setback of ft., where the maximum setback is 25 ft. (existing Dollar Tree)(per Chapter 58 Figure 1STD2.LDC); B. Variance of 7.9 ft. to allow an existing front setback of 22.9 ft., where the maximum setback is 15 ft. (existing Dollar Tree) (per Chapter 58 Figure 1STD2.LDC); C. Variance of 27 ft. to allow a new restaurant 42 ft. from the front lot line, where the maximum setback is 15 ft. (new Popeye s)(per Chapter 58 Figure 1STD2.LDC); D. Variance of 25 ft. to allow a new restaurant 50 ft. from the east side lot line, where the maximum setback is 25 ft. (new Popeye s)(per Chapter 58 Figure 1STD2.LDC); E. Variance of 4.5 ft. to allow dumpster corrals & parking spaces 3 ft. from the side and rear lot lines, where a minimum 7.5 ft. buffer width is required (both sites)(per LDC Section (a7)); F. Variance to allow landscape islands to be less than minimum 10 ft. wide (Popeye s)(per LDC Section (a2)); G. Design variance to allow reduced transparency on the front and rear elevations of the new Popeye s (per LDC Section (b)); and H. Design variance to allow parking on the side and in front of the existing and proposed buildings (both sites)(per LDC Section (a)). Staff Recommendation: A. Dollar Tree - Approval of variances A, B & E, based on the finding that these variances meet the six (6) standards for approval of a variance; and approval of design variance H, based on the finding that said variance meets at least 51% of the design variance criteria; subject to the conditions below; and B. Popeye s - Denial of variances C, D1 & F, based on the finding that these variances fail to meet the six (6) standards for approval of a variance; approval of variance D2, based on the finding that the variance meets all six (6) standards for approval of a variance; and approval of design variances G & H, based on the finding that said variances meet at least 51% of the design variance criteria; subject to the conditions below: 1. Development shall be in strict conformance with all conditions and the site plans and elevations found in this report, subject to any modification by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) and/or City Council. Minor modifications to the approved variance may be approved by the Zoning Official. Major modifications, as determined by the Zoning Official, shall require additional review by the BZA. 2. All applicable City, county, state or federal permits must be obtained before commencing development. Urban Design 3. All ramping up to the building or stairs/railings shall not encroach into the City R-O-W (dedicated as such on the plat recorded in 2006) or interrupt the pedestrian sidewalk (per Lauren Torres, City Transportation Engineering). railings on the ramp and stair shall be decorative and compatible with the building % of the front building wall shall meet the maximum front setback, which shall be taken from the front property/r-o-w line. Site plan may be adjusted in order to allow for the ramp and outdoor seating area, but front setback shall not exceed 15 ft. 5. The street wall at the front property line may be solid masonry up to a maximum of 3 ft. tall from the street side grade elevation (per LDC Section ). Open picket decorative railings may be permitted on top of the wall, if required by the grade change. 6. The building shall be oriented east-west, with the principal façade facing north toward E. Colonial, as provided on Sheet A.103 and AS.101. The Drive-through side shall be the south façade facing the rear parking lot. A building entrance oriented toward E. Colonial Dr. is required (to meet LDC Section ). 7. The ground floor building wall facing E. Colonial shall contain a minimum of 15% transparent materials located between 3 and 7 ft. measured from ground level. Thus, ±44 sq. ft. of transparency area is required [ (4 x 72 ) x.15 = 43.2 sq. ft.] The proposed north elevation (facing E. Colonial Dr.) is meeting this requirement with two (2) - 5 x 6 windows and glazing in the entrance doors. The windows shall be clear glass or Low-E glazing with a minimum 60 % transmittance. 8. The north building façade shall incorporate architectural treatments, including architectural materials that express the base, middle, and top, as well as shutters and false window treatments as proposed. 9. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be completely screened on all sides (per LDC Section ). 10. A direct pedestrian path (sidewalk & crosswalk) shall be provided to the principal building from both E. Colonial Dr. and Hillcrest St. Pedestrian crosswalks at the driveway curb cuts and crosswalks shall be constructed with pavers and/or textured/ colored concrete (or similar) to clearly identify the pedestrian path through the property.

11 Page 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) 11. All parking spaces shall be located behind the principal façade of each building along E. Colonial Dr., and shall be screened with a streetwall and landscaping (this will result in the loss of two (2) parking spaces that are located in front of the Dollar Tree front façade). Parking spaces adjacent to Hillcrest shall be screened with streetwall and landscaping per LDC requirements. 12. Any substantial changes (as determined by Urban Design staff or the Zoning Official) to the elevations of the building shall require an Appearance Review through a determination prior to building permits being issued. 13. Cross-access to parking lots to the east and west shall be provided and shown on the site plans for each/total site. Note to Applicant: The proposed variances only address the Land Development Code standards expressly represented in this staff report and any relief to such standards as approved. The relief granted through the variances is restricted to the subject property as noted in the staff report and is not transferable to other parcels of land. The next step in this variance request is City Council consideration of the Board of Zoning Adjustment's recommended action (provided it is not appealed) at an upcoming City Council meeting. Possible City Council approval of this variance request does not constitute final approval to carry out the development proposed in this application. The applicant shall comply with all other applicable requirements of the Land Development Code, including any additional review requirements, and shall receive all necessary permits before initiating development. Please contact the Permitting Services Division of the City of Orlando to inquire about your next steps toward receiving a building permit. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is still required for the subject site, which will be proceeding to the Municipal Planning Board (MPB) in March 2015, with subsequent City Council approval of the MPB minutes in April A Building Permit cannot be issued for this project until the City Council approves the MPB minutes.

12 Page 12 S TANDARDS FOR V ARIANCE APPROVAL Special Conditions and Circumstances Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Zoning violations or nonconformities on neighboring properties shall not constitute grounds for approval of any proposed Zoning Variance. Not Self-Created The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. A selfcreated hardship shall not justify a Zoning Variance; i.e., when the applicant himself by his own conduct creates the hardship which he alleges to exist, he is not entitled to relief. V ARIANCES A & B: ALLOW INCREASED F RONT AND WEST SIDE SETBACKS FOR E XISTING DOLLAR TREE STORE The total property consists of an existing Dollar Tree Store and 45-degree parking on an interior double-frontage lot on E. Colonial Dr. The property is being partially redeveloped to convert some of the parking to a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through, which will reduce the overall parking for both uses such that the property will no longer be overparked. Meets Standard Yes No The site has been developed with either a restaurant or retail use since The Dollar Tree was converted from a former Morrison s Cafeteria. The owner did not create the existing conditions and circumstances of the property and is seeking to bring the site into Code compliance. No Special Privilege Conferred Approval of the Zoning Variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variances as requested would not confer a special privilege, based on the special conditions and circumstances of the property. Deprivation of Rights Literal interpretation of the provisions contained in this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Financial loss or business competition shall not constitute grounds for approval of any variance. Purchase of property with intent to develop in violation of the restrictions of this Chapter shall also not constitute grounds for approval. Denial of the variances would deprive the owner/applicant of rights enjoyed by others in a similar circumstance, in that other sites (depending on when constructed/developed or redeveloped) often have the luxury of greater allowed building setbacks, especially when not located within the Traditional City Overlay. Minimum Possible Variance The Zoning Variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Meets Standard Yes No The variances requested are the minimum possible variances to allow the continued Dollar Tree or other retail use on the property. Purpose and Intent Approval of the Zoning Variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and such Zoning Variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variances as requested would be viewed as being harmonious with the purpose and intent of the Code. Continued use of the property within Code requirements will promote the appearance and character of the immediate neighborhood. Granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the immediate neighborhood.

13 Page 13 S TANDARDS FOR V ARIANCE APPROVAL Special Conditions and Circumstances Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Zoning violations or nonconformities on neighboring properties shall not constitute grounds for approval of any proposed Zoning Variance. Not Self-Created The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. A selfcreated hardship shall not justify a Zoning Variance; i.e., when the applicant himself by his own conduct creates the hardship which he alleges to exist, he is not entitled to relief. V ARIANCES C & D1: A LLOW INCREASED FRONT & SIDE YARD B UFFERS FOR NEW DRIVE-THROUGH R ESTAURANT This portion of the property consists of an existing 45-degree parking lot on an interior double-frontage lot on E. Colonial Dr. The property is being partially redeveloped to convert some of the parking to a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through, which will reduce the overall parking for both uses such that the property will no longer be overparked. Meets Standard Yes No While the owner did not create the existing conditions and circumstances of the property, he is seeking to place a new fast-food restaurant with drive-through on the property that does not meet Code in terms of front and side yard setbacks. An alternate staff-preferred site plan would not need a front setback variance but would need a west side yard setback. No Special Privilege Conferred Approval of the Zoning Variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variances as requested would confer a special privilege, in that the new restaurant can be oriented in a more Code-compliant manner. Deprivation of Rights Literal interpretation of the provisions contained in this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Financial loss or business competition shall not constitute grounds for approval of any variance. Purchase of property with intent to develop in violation of the restrictions of this Chapter shall also not constitute grounds for approval. Denial of the variances would not deprive the owner/applicant of rights enjoyed by others in a similar circumstance, in that other sites within the Traditional City Overlay have the same or similar setback requirements. Minimum Possible Variance The Zoning Variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Meets Standard Yes No The variances requested are not the minimum possible variances to allow redevelopment of the property for a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through. An alternate site plan reduces the need for one variance altogether. Purpose and Intent Approval of the Zoning Variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and such Zoning Variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variances as requested would not be viewed as being harmonious with the purpose and intent of the Code, specifically the Traditional City portions of the Code. Continued use of the property within Code requirements will promote the appearance and character of the immediate neighborhood. Granting of the variances could be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the immediate neighborhood due to inconsistent development patterns.

14 Page 14 S TANDARDS FOR V ARIANCE APPROVAL Special Conditions and Circumstances Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Zoning violations or nonconformities on neighboring properties shall not constitute grounds for approval of any proposed Zoning Variance. Not Self-Created The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. A selfcreated hardship shall not justify a Zoning Variance; i.e., when the applicant himself by his own conduct creates the hardship which he alleges to exist, he is not entitled to relief. V ARIANCE E: A LLOW REDUCED PARKING LOT BUFFERS FOR E XISTING DOLLAR TREE & NEW DRIVE- T HROUGH RESTAURANT The property consists of an existing retail store and 45-degree parking lot on an interior double-frontage lot on E. Colonial Dr. The property is being partially redeveloped to convert some of the parking to a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through, which will reduce the overall parking for both uses such that the property will no longer be overparked. Landscaping and buffers are also being implemented throughout the development. Meets Standard Yes No The site has been developed with either a restaurant or retail use since The Dollar Tree was converted from a former Morrison s Cafeteria. The owner did not create the existing conditions and circumstances of the property and is merely seeking to bring the site into Code compliance as much as possible. No Special Privilege Conferred Approval of the Zoning Variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variance as requested would not confer a special privilege, based on the special conditions and circumstances of the property. Deprivation of Rights Literal interpretation of the provisions contained in this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Financial loss or business competition shall not constitute grounds for approval of any variance. Purchase of property with intent to develop in violation of the restrictions of this Chapter shall also not constitute grounds for approval. Denial of the variance would deprive the owner/applicant of rights enjoyed by others in a similar circumstance, in that other sites (depending on when constructed or developed) may have the luxury of wider parking lot buffers. Minimum Possible Variance The Zoning Variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Meets Standard Yes No The variance requested is the minimum possible variance to allow retention of redeveloped parking and buffers on the total property (both lots). Purpose and Intent Approval of the Zoning Variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and such Zoning Variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variance as requested would be viewed as being harmonious with the purpose and intent of the Code. Continued use of the property within Code requirements will promote the appearance and character of the immediate neighborhood. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the immediate neighborhood.

15 Page 15 S TANDARDS FOR V ARIANCE APPROVAL Special Conditions and Circumstances Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Zoning violations or nonconformities on neighboring properties shall not constitute grounds for approval of any proposed Zoning Variance. Not Self-Created The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. A selfcreated hardship shall not justify a Zoning Variance; i.e., when the applicant himself by his own conduct creates the hardship which he alleges to exist, he is not entitled to relief. V ARIANCE F: A LLOW REDUCED PARKING LOT ISLAND W IDTHS BEHIND NEW DRIVE-THROUGH R ESTAURANT The property consists of an existing 45-degree parking lot on an interior double -frontage lot on E. Colonial Dr. The property is being partially redeveloped to convert some of the parking to a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through, which will reduce the overall parking for both uses such that the property will no longer be overparked. Meets Standard Yes No While the owner did not create the existing conditions and circumstances of the property, he is seeking to place a new fast-food restaurant with drive-through on the property that does not meet Code in terms of required parking lot island sizes. An alternate staff-preferred site plan would not need such a variance. No Special Privilege Conferred Approval of the Zoning Variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variance as requested would confer a special privilege, in that the new restaurant can be oriented in a more Code-compliant manner to remove the need for a variance. Deprivation of Rights Literal interpretation of the provisions contained in this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Financial loss or business competition shall not constitute grounds for approval of any variance. Purchase of property with intent to develop in violation of the restrictions of this Chapter shall also not constitute grounds for approval. Denial of the variance would not deprive the owner/applicant of rights enjoyed by others in a similar circumstance, in that other similarly zoned sites have the same or similar interior parking island requirements. Minimum Possible Variance The Zoning Variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Meets Standard Yes No The variance requested is not the minimum possible variance to allow more Code-compliant interior parking lot islands. The alternate site plan negates the need for the variance. Purpose and Intent Approval of the Zoning Variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and such Zoning Variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Meets Standard Yes No Approval of the variance as requested would not be viewed as being harmonious with the purpose and intent of the Code. Continued use of the property within Code requirements will promote the appearance and character of the immediate neighborhood. Granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the immediate neighborhood.

16 Page 16 S TANDARDS FOR D ESIGN VARIANCE A PPROVAL Conformance to the Code and the GMP D ESIGN VARIANCES G & H: ALLOW REDUCED T RANSPARENCY IN FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS & A LLOW PARKING IN FRONT AND SIDE YARDS The proposed building transparency is consistent with the Code, while the proposed parking location is inconsistent with the Traditional City Overlay of the LDC. Logic of Design Exterior Space Utilization The proposed transparency is typical to and in keeping with design elements of the proposed restaurant building based on the staff alternate site plan. Side-loaded parking already exists for the Dollar Tree store. The placement of parking spaces between the Dollar Tree store and the proposed restaurant is, in this instance, an acceptable use of exterior space for a mixed use. Attractiveness The proposed building transparency and parking space layout, per the alternate staffpreferred site plan, will be attractive. Materials Selection The materials to be used to provide adequate transparency and parking in the side yard will compliment the proposed restaurant building. Compatibility with Surrounding Properties The proposed restaurant, using the staff-preferred alternate site plan, will be compatible with the adjacent retail uses to the east and west, which are already similarly configured. Circulation & Parking, Vehicular & Pedestrian Accepted Architectural Principles Protection of Property Values The proposed side yard parking will not create sight visibility issues for area pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The proposed transparency and parking lot layout adheres to accepted architectural styles and elements of the MU-2/T zoning district. Implementation of building transparency and side parking should not adversely affect neighborhood property values. Revitalization of Depressed Areas While not a depressed area, the redevelopment will spur additional revitalization of the Colonialtown East neighborhood.

17 Page 17 A PPLICANT S RESPONSES FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS P1

18 Page 18 A PPLICANT S RESPONSES FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS P2