DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT MCDONALD S ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCURRENT VARIANCES

Transcription

1 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 12, 2017 Item #: _PZ _ STAFF REPORT MCDONALD S ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCURRENT VARIANCES Request: Rezone property from MU-BC to CC, and approval of six Variances Project Name: McDonald s Restaurant Site Address: 2881 Clairmont Road Parcel Number: Applicant: McDonald s Corporation c/o Kathy Zickert Owner: Triform, LLC Proposed Development: New McDonald s restaurant with drive-through facilities Staff Recommendation: DENIAL Current Zoning: Mixed Use-Business Center (MU-BC): The purpose and intent of this district is to facilitate a high-rise urban form of development with a mix of uses, open space, and a connected street and sidewalk system to support a more active multi-modal and walkable environment at all times of the day. MU-BC Zoning District Standards (Boulevard Street) FAR (Max.) 8.0 Front Yard Setback (Min.) 20 ft Impervious Surface (Max.) 80% Rear Yard Setback (Min.) 20 ft Open Space (Min.) 15% Side Yard Setback - Interior (Min.) 0 ft Building Height (Min./Max.) 24 ft/ 120 ft Side Yard Setback - Street (Min.) 6 ft 8 in Lot Size (Min.) N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone 10 ft/10 ft Lot width (Min.) N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone 5 ft/5 ft Proposed Zoning: Corridor Commercial (CC): This zoning district is intended primarily for commercial and mixed-use development and related accessory uses at a medium density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's businesses and residents with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

2 form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. CC Zoning District Standards (Boulevard Street) FAR (Max.) 2.5 Front Yard Setback (Min.) 20 ft Impervious Surface (Max.) 80% Rear Yard Setback (Min.) 20 ft Open Space (Min.) 20% Side Yard Setback - Interior (Min.) 0 ft Building Height (Min./Max.) 24 ft/60 ft Side Yard Setback - Street (Min.) 6 ft 8 in Lot Size (Min.) N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone 10 ft/10 ft Lot width (Min.) N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone 5 ft/5 ft Surrounding Land Uses: North MU-BC, Sam s Club East MU-BC, Sam s Club West City boundary, Gas station with convenience store South City boundary, Interstate 85 Site Description: The existing site consists of an approximately 1.68 acre lot located on the north side of I-85 at the intersection of Clairmont Road and Northeast Expressway. It consists of two separate parcels. The property contains a single, one-story 2,200 square foot McDonald s restaurant building constructed in 1996, with drive-through facilities and a surface parking lot containing 35 parking spaces. There is a single drive-through lane. A tributary of the North Fork Peachtree Creek is located on the adjacent lot to the east. It is classified as a stream, and State and City stream buffers apply. The lot is relatively flat, sloping gradually to the east toward the creek. The Chamblee and Brookhaven boundary line is located on the east side of Clairmont Road. The subject property is located entirely in Chamblee, and the right-of-way is located in Brookhaven. The right-ofway on Clairmont Road, and on Northeast Expressway are both under the authority of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). The property has an access easement and a curb cut with full ingress and egress to the private driveway to the north. The southern half of the lot is covered in maintained vegetation. There is some mature tree cover along the east lot line. There is a dumpster located partially in the stream buffer to the southeast of the building. The site contains outdoor tables for eating and trashcans in the grassed area to the south of the parking lot. Site History: The site was developed in 1996, and has not undergone significant change since then. There are previous zoning cases for the property from DeKalb County, however, those entitlements ceased to be valid when the property was annexed in Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a 3,800 square foot restaurant building with two drive-through lanes and 44 parking spaces. The project only requires 39 spaces. All Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

3 structures and pervious surfaces will be removed from inside stream buffer and the stream buffer will be restored as required by code. Because the applicant will be completely razing the structure and proposes a structure and use not allowed in the MU-BC district, the property must be rezoned to a district that does allow it. Variances are also requested, concurrently. Applicant s Requests: The applicant requests the property be Rezoned from Mixed-Use Business Center (MU-BC) to Corridor Commercial (CC), which allows the restaurant with drive-through use. The applicant requests the following concurrent Variances: Variance from Sec to reduce the 20 ft required streetscape to retain the existing streetscape with current varying widths; Variance from Sec to reduce the minimum building façade height from the required 24 ft to 18 ft; Variance from Sec (a)(2) to allow parking in the front yard Variance from Sec (a)(1) to allow parking between the building and the street; Variance from Sec (b)(2)(d) to allow a drive-through service window to be located between a building and the street; Variance from Sec (b)(2)(a) to allow 2 building signs to be located on one façade along a frontage with one curb cut; Variance from Sec (a)(8)(b) to allow an increase in menu board signage area from 8 square feet to 16 square feet. The applicant has submitted a separate application petitioning City Council to amend the Future Development Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant s Zoning Map Amendment Request Staff Analysis: According to Section (a)(3) of the City of Chamblee Unified Development Ordinance, No zoning map amendment shall be considered if it is not consistent with the future development map. Rezoning the subject property from MU-BC to CC would not be consistent with the Future Development Map of the Comprehensive Plan, because the character area the property is located in, Century Center Office Park, does not identify CC as an appropriate zoning district. In order to be found compatible with the Comprehensive Plan the Mayor and City Council would need to re-evaluate the Vision for this area and then amend the Future Development Map or likewise amend the text of the Century Center Office Park character area to make the CC zoning district an appropriate district in the character area. Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

4 This analysis is based on an assessment of the 12 zoning proposal review standards established in Section 280-5(b)(2) of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance. The Development Director and the Mayor and City Council shall consider the below listed standards governing the exercise of the zoning power whenever deliberating over any zoning decision pursuant to the ordinance: 1. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property. All adjacent properties within the City are zoned MU-BC. I-85 is located immediately to the south, and property across I-85 located in DeKalb County. A gas station and Waffle House restaurant are located in Brookhaven to the west. They are of a commercial zoning. The property is enveloped to the north and east by the Sam s Club property. Further north and east is low, mid and high-rise offices, and a high-rise hotel. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. The subject property is zoned MU-BC and it is not shown in any economic study or market analysis that this zoning lessens the property value of the subject property compared to the CC zoning that is requested. Additionally, the MU-BC District allows the development of sites with a much higher FAR, (8 for MU-BC vs. 2.5 for CC), and allows for buildings to be a maximum of 120 feet in height by right, whereas CC only allows for a maximum of 60 feet in height. The applicant states, It is to the benefit for the continued growth of the Century Center Office Park Character area to allow the redevelopment of the existing restaurant into the proposed larger modern restaurant prototype so that it may continue to serve the needs of the surrounding businesses and residents. 3. The extent to which the possible reduction of property values of the subject property promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. In the current situation the MU-BC zoning district serves to promote density and connectivity, walkability, multi-modal transportation and a mix of uses to include a residential use in each development. The proposed plan includes a strictly automobile oriented development with no proposed changes to the existing streetscape along Clairmont Road. The health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public is not substantially impacted by a possible reduction of property values by maintaining the existing zoning classification. 4. The relative harm to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner. In the staff s view the most significant sources of potential harm come from a continued and likely increase in vehicle trips coming into and out of the site, and continued lack of adequate pedestrian facilities through the lot and in the right-of-way. In addition, this parcel is a gateway into the City and a development that does not meet the vision of the community in this area could be considered harmful to the public. The applicant states, The relative harm to the public is minimal, if not nonexistent, compared to the hardship imposed on the Applicant. The Subject Property is currently developed as drive-through restaurant use and this use will not change in the proposed condition. Therefore, there will be no change in use to affect the general public and the general public will be better served by the increased capacity of the larger restaurant. Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

5 5. The suitability of the subject property for the zoning proposed. The subject property is relatively level and has adequate infrastructure. There has been little redevelopment activity around it, to date. CC is not an appropriate use in the Century Center Office Park character area. 6. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context of land development in the area in the vicinity of the property. The property has been occupied by McDonald s, continuously, since it opened in Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property. The subject property is not well integrated with the urban landscape of surrounding properties on the east side of Clairmont Rd. It is closest to the Sam s Club property, and is accessed off of its driveway, but due to the presence of the stream, which is partially piped in this area, the two properties exist in isolation of each other, except for shared use of the driveway. There is the possibility that one day the two properties would be developed as an assemblage for a large-scale mixed-use project. The fact that the open channel of a stream exists there is not cause to think it would not happen, as such hydrologic and topographic features are fairly common and often not a barrier to development as evidenced by numerous developments around the City. 8. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property. The proposed zoning district CC, would affect the existing use or usability of adjacent and nearby properties. CC allows a far greater number of uses than MU-BC, and a greater number of uses than Village Commercial (VC), which is the only zoning district other than MU-BC that is allowed in the subject character area. Many of the uses allowed in CC do not achieve the vision for the character area. If the applicant were to find it not feasible to develop within the requirements for MU-BC, which requires a residential component, then the applicant could apply to rezone the property to VC, which would allow for a number of standalone uses and small scale mix of uses. 9. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. The property does have a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. The existing building and property, operating as a legal nonconforming use and structures, is usable and said by the applicant to be successful in its current nonconforming state. 10. Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools. Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

6 The proposed structure would be larger and would have an additional drive-through order lane, but still have one pickup area. An increase in vehicular traffic on and off of the site is to be expected. The proposed development is even less pedestrian friendly than the existing development. It is not possible for a pedestrian to enter the building without walking between cars in the drive-through. 11. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of the future development map. The proposed zoning classification is not an appropriate zoning district in the character area, and would be non-compliant with the Comp Plan. The rezoning request will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map. The character area calls for density and mixed-use. The proposed use is not in compliance. Additionally, the property could be used as a restaurant without a drive-through without amending the Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map by rezoning to VC. 12. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal. The Peachtree Creek Greenway, a 12 mile multi-use trail connecting from Doraville to the Atlanta Beltline is proposed to be located along the creek just north of the property s lot line, on the other side of the Sam s Club driveway. Pedestrian scale uses and development and pedestrian friendly uses are encouraged and appropriate in proximity to such trails. Additionally, the Comp Plan calls for development along Boulevard corridors that is multi-modal and pedestrian in scale. This proposal does not achieve that. Applicant s Variance Requests Staff Analysis: The UDO, in Section (b)(1), provides that no variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a lesser lot size or greater density of development that is authorized in the applicable zoning district of such development. Assessment of requests for concurrent approval of variances: The project requires approval of variances with respect to the requirements of the UDO and the following review and approval criteria described in Section (b)(2): a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography; b. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; c. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

7 d. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner; and e. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Variance from Sec to reduce the 20 required streetscape to retain the existing streetscape with current varying widths; There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The property, at 1.68 acres, is not particularly small. A portion of the property lies within the 50 foot and 75 foot stream buffers, but not to the extent that it prohibits development of the site in compliance with the requirements of the UDO. The extra drive-through lane is 10 feet wide. In all, the depth of the lot from the front lot line to the rear lot line contains 68 linear feet of space that is utilized as either driveway or drive-through. The configuration of the proposed restaurant with two drive-through lanes does not justify grant of a variance to not install the required streetscape. Relief, if granted, would be an impediment to the City s implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the installation of large sidewalks and planter zones to help comfort pedestrians traveling along heavily trafficked corridors on Boulevard streets. The site is also designated as a Gateway Area on the Streetscapes and Gateways Map. The Plan states that these areas, when on Boulevard streets and primary corridors, should be the target of streetscape improvements. Gateway areas are the first impressions of the City an outsider gets when entering from a surrounding jurisdiction. Variance from Sec to reduce the minimum building façade height from the required 24 to 18 ; There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The application of the zoning ordinance would not create a hardship. The applicant is proposing to construct a new, one-story single-use building. The applicable code section is form-based, and intended to create a desired scale to accomplish the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with the 24 foot height requirement is not unique to the subject site. The current configuration with the drive-through lane and window between the building and the street, and the double drive-through lanes are a poor utilization of space on the site. Variance from Sec (a)(2) to allow parking in the front yard; The need for this variance for parking spaces along Clairmont Road is due to the desire to construct a larger restaurant with drive-through lanes, and the desired placement and configuration of those structures and features. There is no hardship. There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. 39 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing to install 44 spaces. The existing site currently has 32 spaces for the smaller building. The site could be developed outside the stream buffer without the need for the variance, however a need is created due to the area taken up by the drive-through lanes and the placement of the building between two driveways. Relief, if granted, would be an impediment to fulfilling the vision of the City for a pedestrian friendly Boulevard corridor. Parking should not be placed along the Clairmont Road frontage. Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

8 Variance from Sec (a)(1) to allow parking between the building and the street; There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The need for this variance for parking spaces along Clairmont Road is due to the desire to construct a larger restaurant with drive-through lanes, and the desired placement and configuration of those structures and features. There is no hardship. 39 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing to install 44 spaces. The site could be developed outside the stream buffer without the need for the variance, however a need is created due to the area taken up by the drive-through lanes and the placement of the building between two driveways, which are costly in terms of utilizing space. Parking should not be placed along the Clairmont Road frontage. Relief, if granted, would be an impediment to fulfilling the vision of the City for a pedestrian friendly Boulevard corridor. The property also has frontage on Northeast Expressway. The driveway to the north is a private drive and parking is allowed to be located between the building and that driveway, as it is not a street. Variance from Sec (b)(2)(d) to allow a drive-through service window to be located between a building and the street; The existing building is compliant with this code section, as the window is located between the driveways to the north, which is not a street. The proposed larger building features a drive-through pickup window that faces Clairmont Rd. The site could be developed so that the drive-through window faces either the driveway to the north, as it does now, or faces the interstate. Clairmont Rd. is the least desirable direction for the pick-up window to face, despite that the applicant proposes to plant trees in the landscaped area on the property between Clairmont Rd to help screen the drive-through pickup window. A grant of the variance would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. However, a hardship is not identified. As with some of the other requested variances, staff finds that the site could be configured so that a variance is not needed. The desire to have two drive-through lanes appears to create some of the compliance issues. A second drive-through lane is not a UDO requirement. Variance from Sec (b)(2)(a) to allow 2 building signs to be located on one façade along a frontage with one curb cut; There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The site is in an unusual and somewhat unique situation. It appears to have street frontage where the curb cut is to the north, however, what appears to be a street is actually a driveway located on the Sam s Club property. McDonald s has an access easement for its use. The UDO only allows a wall sign to be located on a façade that faces a public or private street with a curb cut. A hardship exists. A variance to allow a building sign on the façade facing the driveway to the north would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Variance from Sec (a)(8)(b) to allow an increase in menu board signage area from 8 square feet to 16 square feet. Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

9 There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography to justify a larger menu board size. The applicant is allowed to have two menu board signs of eight square feet in size each. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would not create an unnecessary hardship. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance, as the menu boards would face the rear of the property that consists of mature vegetation ad tree within a stream buffer, and a large surface parking lot for a commercial use on the adjacent property. Staff Recommendation: The proposed requests are in conflict with the City s Comprehensive Plan and do not meet the standards for zoning map amendments established by the UDO. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of the request to rezone the property from MU-BC to CC, and DENIAL of all Variance requests. If the Mayor and City Council decide to approve the request to rezone the property from MU-BC to CC, staff recommends the following conditions: 1 Approval of a Variance from Sec (b)(2)(a) to allow 2 building signs to be located on one façade along a frontage with one curb cut; 2 Denial of a Variance from Sec (a)(2) and Sec (a)(1) to allow parking between the building and the street; 3 Denial of a Variance from Sec (b)(2)(d) to allow a drive-through service window to be located between a building and the street; 4 Denial of a Variance from Sec to reduce the minimum building façade height from the required 24 feet to 18 feet. 5 Denial of a Variance from Sec (a)(8)(b) to allow an increase in menu board signage area from 8 square feet to 16 square feet. 6 Denial of a Variance from Sec to reduce the 20 foot required streetscape to retain the existing streetscape with current varying widths. 7 The applicant shall submit a revised site plan, concept plan, pedestrian circulation plan and landscape plan meeting the requirements of the UDO, with the exception of any Variances granted by the Mayor and City Council, for review and approval by the Development Director prior to submittal of any permits. 8 The dumpster enclosure shall not be located between the building and the private driveway on the Sam s Club property. 9 A minimum of five outdoor seating structures with table, and one adjacent trash can, shall be provided, to replace the existing ones. Shade trees, as deemed appropriate for planting by the City Arborist, or umbrellas shall be installed to provide shade at the location of each table. Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10

10 Attachments: Attachment 1 Exhibit A: Site Plan, dated August 31, 2017 Attachment 2 Exhibit B: Landscape Plan, dated August 31, 2017 Attachment 3 Application and Letter of Intent Attachment 4 Location Maps Attachment 5 Comprehensive Plan Documents Regular City Council Meeting: 10/17/ of 10