DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: January 11, 2018 Item #: PZ2017-151 STAFF REPORT VARIANCES RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH Request: Multiple Variances for a new restaurant with drive-through facilities Project Name: Lowe s Outparcel Site Address: 4950 Peachtree Boulevard Parcel Number: 18-300-02-003 Applicant: 30AIP Chamblee, LLC, Travis Meyer Owner: Lowe s Home Centers, LLC Proposed Development: New outparcel in Lowe s parking lot for a drive-through restaurant Current 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 form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL with conditions in part, and DENIAL in part District Standards: CC Zoning District (Boulevard Street) (Storefront Street) Total FAR (max) 2.5 Front Yard Setback 20 Building Coverage (max) 80% Rear Yard Setback 20 Open Space (min) 20% Side Yard Setback 0 Building Height (min/max) 24 /60 First Floor Floor-To-Ceiling Height (min) 18 Lot Size / Lot width (min) N/A; N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone (min) 10 /10 Current Use: Surrounding Land Uses: Commercial - Lowe s home improvement store with surface parking lot West CC, Lowe s Home Improvement; Turnbury Gates Townhomes East CC, Peachtree Station shopping center North CC, Chase Bank; Exchange Apartments South CC, Restaurant with drive-through Regular City Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 1 of 5

Site Description: The subject property is an approximately 1.06 acre proposed outparcel in a surface parking lot, located at 4950 Peachtree Boulevard. The existing property that the new outparcel would be parceled off from is approximately 13.24 acres and contains a Lowe s Home Improvement store, outdoor garden center, and large surface parking lot. It is zoned Corridor Commercial (CC). The area of the proposed lot is mostly flat and level. There is currently an approximately 6 foot wide sidewalk located at the back of curb along Peachtree Blvd, a State route; and no sidewalk along the Johnson Ferry frontage. There are two curb cuts on each frontage of the larger 13.24 acre site. The only signalized curb cut is the southernmost one on Peachtree Blvd at the intersection with Peachtree Road. There is a Zaxby s restaurant adjacent to the proposed lot, located at 4906 Peachtree Blvd. It does not have a curb cut on Peachtree Blvd and is accessed from the Lowe s property. The Zaxby s property was developed in 2011 and 2012 as an outparcel to the Lowe s site, prior to the adoption of the UDO. Description of Proposed Project: The project calls for a new outparcel in the Lowe s parking lot for an approximately 4,299 square foot restaurant building with a drive-through. The proposed outparcel lot would be approximately 1.06 acres and rectangular in shape. It would share a lot line with the Zaxby s property to the southwest. The proposed lot would not have a curb cut on Peachtree Blvd, but would be accessible from the Lowe s parking lot along its rear and front lot lines, and from the Zaxby s lot. The applicant proposes to install the required streetscape along its frontage on Peachtree Blvd, and install a minimum 5 foot wide paved path to connect the restaurant to the sidewalk, as required by code. The existing parking spaces along the frontage of the lot would be removed and replaced with landscaping. The lot would provide 44 parking spaces, which is 1 more parking space than the minimum number required. The applicant has stated there is a recorded perpetual access easement agreement for the driveway along the entire Peachtree Blvd frontage of the entire Lowe s property. However, it is not clear if the applicant has made any attempts to adjust this easement to remove barriers to the project s ability to meet any requirements of the UDO. The applicant would have to show that the Lowe s site would still meet minimum parking requirements. The proposed site will have to comply with the City s stormwater regulations, and all other applicable requirements of the UDO. The applicant also requests sign variances for the location of a ground sign, number of wall signs, and size/number of menu board signs. The ground sign is required by code to be located adjacent to a curb cut. The applicant is requesting to have a monument sign on their proposed lot, which does not have a curb cut. The applicant is allowed one building sign by code, and requests a variance to allow three total building signs. The applicant also requests to exceed the menu board regulations that allow only two menu board signs of up to 8 square feet each. The applicant has submitted building elevations. The elevations, and site plan, both include the Panera logo. The project has been presented to staff as a potential Panera restaurant, however Panera is not mentioned in the application itself, and no Panera employee or other official representative has contacted nor met with staff. Regular City Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 2 of 5

Applicant s Requests: The applicant requests variances and waivers from the following regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Variance from Section 230-30(a)(2) to allow a drive-through facility on a Storefront Street. Variance from Section 250-2(a)(4) to provide one parking space in excess of the minimum number of required parking spaces, and it not be grasscrete. Variance from Section 250-7(a)(1) to allow parking spaces to be located between a building and a street Variance from Section 250-8(c)(1) to reduce the number of drive-through stacking spaces from 10 to 7, plus one space after the pick-up window. Variance from Section 250-8(c)(4) to not provide a bypass lane for a drive-through. Variance from Section 260-7(a)(1) to install two additional building signs. Variance from Section 260-7(a)(8) to increase the maximum aggregate menu board size from 16 square feet to 32 square feet. Variance from Section 260-6(b) to install a monument sign on a frontage without a curb cut. Waiver from Section 350-2(a)(1)(e) to have a driveway located between a building and a street Waiver from Section 320-21 to install landscape islands that are less than 10 feet in width or less than 200 square feet in area. Staff Analysis: The UDO, in Section 280-16(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. The proposed uses and associated structures are authorized in the CC zoning district. The applicant is not proposing to create a lesser lot size or greater density than is authorized in the district. The UDO, in Section 280-16(b)(2), provides the following factors for granting a variance from UDO requirements. The analysis of these factors is included below: a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography; There are no conditions extraordinary and exceptional to the site. The site is a proposed new outparcel lot that does not currently exist. Its parameters are defined only by the proposed concept site plan submitted by the applicant, by the will of the property owner to sell off an amount of property the owner sees fit, and by the regulations of the UDO. No conditions exist to support a variance to have excessive parking, or to have excessive parking that is non-impervious. The applicant claims that an existing easement represents an exceptional condition, however it is not Regular City Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 3 of 5

clear that the document presented by the applicant does in fact prevent the building from being located in the location of the driveway along the frontage of the property. Additionally, the presence of the driveway and any access rights that may accompany it do not make a case for the approval of a drive-through variance. The applicant has not stated that any conditions exist that support a variance for a drive-through. In the event that a variance to allow a drive-through is approved, the drive-through should provide the required amount of stacking spaces, and a bypass lane. b. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; The application of the zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would not create an unnecessary hardship. The applicant has not presented any case for a hardship that would be created by not granting a variance to allow a drive-through, or by not granting te other variance requests to facilitate the development of the drive-through restaurant. No hardship exists to support allowing the excess parking space to not be grasscrete, or to have two parking spaces located in front of the plane of the front façade of the building. In regards to the requests for the sign variances, staff finds that there are conditions unique to the site to justify support of such variances. A hardship exists in regards to the signs only. The proposed lot is a distance from the two curb cuts on the frontage, and placement of a ground sign on the property as proposed by the applicant is supportable. Given the multiple curb cuts that are located off-site, but nearby the proposed lot, the building sign variances are supportable. The menu board variance is not supportable, as drive-through facilities are not allowed. c. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; There are no conditions peculiar to the particular piece of property. The applicant states that an access easement prevents them from not locating a driveway between the building and the street. Staff has no clear evidence that this easement restricts the development from being developed per UDO regulations. Were such a document between the private entities to prevent removal of the driveway, that would be a private matter to be worked out between the properties. Were the document to prevent removal of the driveway, that in itself does not create a hardship to justify support of a drive-through. In regards to the requests for the sign variances, staff finds that the conditions peculiar to the site make the request for the sign variances supportable. d. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner; and Any condition of the property perceived to be unique to the property is the result of the actions of the applicant. The applicant has proposed to install a drive-through at a location that is not permitted along a Storefront Street. The applicant has created the need to request a variance from the stacking space and by-pass lane requirements by proposing to create a lot configuration that is Regular City Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 4 of 5

insufficient to accommodate those features. The applicant could rework the site plan so that the additional parking space is either removed or is made grasscrete, and the applicant could reposition the building so that no parking spaces are located in front of the plane of the front façade of the building. e. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. The UDO has twelve stated purposes. Relief, if granted would impair the following stated purpose: Encourage the most appropriate use of land, buildings, and other structures throughout the City. In 2016 the City adopted an amendment to the UDO to disallow drive-through facilities from Storefront Streets. The reasons for this can be found in the record. Peachtree Boulevard is the City s most prominent, most heavily-trafficked thoroughfare. For the many drivers who commute daily through Chamblee, Peachtree Boulevard may be the corridor of the City they experience most. It is a corridor susceptible to proliferation of drive-through facilities, and as such, they are permitted only at the discretion of City Council. Relief from these regulations would not cause substantial detriment to the public good. The current use of the subject property is a surface parking lot for a large commercial retail business. The parking lot is underutilized by the account of staff and applicant. The site, nearly entirely impervious asphalt, is currently a large contributor of storm water runoff, the heat-island effect, and is lacking aesthetic contribution to the surroundings. Any development on the site that is appropriate by UDO standards or by the will of City Council would be an improvement to what is there today. The project requires approval of waivers with respect to the requirements of the UDO. Only in situations as described in Section 300-13, where, because of severe topographical or other conditions peculiar to the site, strict adherence to the provisions of Title 3 of the UDO would cause an unnecessary hardship that is not caused by the owner, the Mayor and City Council may, after considering the written recommendation of the Development Director, authorize a waiver from the terms of Title 3 only to the extent that is absolutely necessary and not to an extent which would violate the intent of Title 3. Waiver from Section 350-2(a)(1)(e) to have a driveway located between a building and a street. The applicant proposes to have a driveway between the building and the street. The request is made to facilitate the desired drive-through. Customers exiting the drive-through would turn onto the driveway in the front to exit the site. Having a driveway located between the building and the street, particularly one that would have vehicular traffic concentrated on it from vehicles leaving a drivethrough, creates a less pedestrian-friendly development. No hardship exists. Regular City Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 5 of 5

Waiver from Section 320-21 to install landscape islands that are less than 10 feet in width or less than 200 square feet in area. Landscape islands are required at the end of each row of parking and where necessary to break up rows of parking spaces so that there are no more than ten consecutive parking spaces in a row. The minimum size for such islands is 200 square feet and ten feet in diameter. The parking lot features nine total landscape islands. Five of the islands are deficient in size. The site could be reconfigured so that all landscape islands are compliant and parking minimums are still met. No hardship exists. Staff Recommendations: Based on the analysis of this application, using the standards and criteria found in Chapter 280 of the UDO, staff recommends APPROVAL of the following variances in application PZ-2017-151. Variance from Section 260-7(a)(1) to install two additional building signs. Variance from Section 260-6(b) to install a monument sign on a frontage without a curb cut. Subject to the following exhibits and conditions: Exhibit A: Site Plan, dated received December 12, 2017 Exhibit B: Elevations labeled Proposed Exterior Changes, dated received December 12, 2017 1. Placement of proposed signs shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit A: Site Plan, dated received December 12, 2017. 2. Location of the building signs shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit B, Elevations labeled Proposed Exterior Changes, dated received December 12, 2017 Based on the analysis of this application, using the standards and criteria found in Chapter 280 and Chapter 300 of the UDO, staff recommends DENIAL of the following variances and waivers in application PZ-2017-151. Variance from Section 230-30(a)(2) to allow a drive-through facility on a Storefront Street. Variance from Section 250-2(a)(4) to provide one parking space in excess of the minimum number of required parking spaces, and it not be grasscrete. Variance from Section 250-7(a)(1) to allow parking spaces to be located between a building and a street. Variance from Section 250-8(c)(1) to reduce the number of drive-through stacking spaces from 10 to 7, plus one space after the pick-up window. Variance from Section 250-8(c)(4) to not provide a bypass lane for a the drive-through. Variance from Section 260-7(a)(8) to increase the maximum aggregate menu board size from 16 square feet to 32 square feet. Waiver from Section 350-2(a)(1)(e) to have a driveway located between a building and a street Regular City Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 6 of 5

Waiver from Section 320-21 to install landscape islands that are less than 10 feet in width or less than 200 square feet in area. Should Council motion to approve any of the other requested variances and waivers, staff also recommends that it be conditioned to substantial compliance with the following exhibits and conditions: Exhibit A: Site Plan, dated received December 12, 2017 Exhibit B: Elevations labeled Proposed Exterior Changes, dated received December 12, 2017 1. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformity with Exhibit A: Site Plan, dated received December 12, 2017 2. The building shall be in substantial conformity with Exhibit B: Elevations labeled Proposed Exterior Changes, dated received December 12, 2017, with changes as necessary to meet the code requirements of the UDO. 3. The applicant shall install a paved walkway through the landscape strip adjacent to the drive-through to provide a safe path from the rear parking lot to the entrance of the building. The walkway shall consist of contrasting materials from the parking lot surface. Attachments: Attachment 1 Exhibit A: Site Plan, dated received December 12, 2017 Attachment 2 Exhibit B: Elevations labeled Proposed Exterior Changes, dated received December 12, 2017 Attachment 3 Old Site Plan Attachment 4 Old Elevations Attachment 5 Application and Letter of Intent Attachment 6 Easement Documents Attachment 7 Location Maps Regular City Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 7 of 5