2015-07-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

c. The proposed use is not in conflict with any City Code requirements. The City Planner has 49 worked with owner and applicant on their proposal to convert the single tenant building into 50 a multi-tenant building, and for that proposal to address some design standards listed in 51 Section 1005.02 of the Zoning Ordinance, where such improvements are not required. 52 d. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public 53 facilities. Planning Division staff does not expect this drive-through to create an excessive 54 burden on parks, streets, or other public facilities, since the proposed use and drive-through 55 are typical and are allowed uses within the Community Business zoning district. 56 e. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively 57 impact traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and 58 general welfare. Planning Division staff anticipates that if the drive-through is approved, it 59 will add additional vehicle trips to the local road network each day. Additional traffic would 60 not impose an excessive burden on the public street infrastructure. Staff believes that a 61 drive-through in this location would not have a noticeable effect on the value of nearby 62 property as the area even though that area is a mix of residential, office and commercial uses. 63 RSCUC: Section 1009.02.D.13 of the City Code, 64 EVIEW OF PECIFICONDITIONALSERITERIA establishes additional standards and criteria that are specific to drive-throughs; the Planning 65 Commission and City Council must also find that the proposal does or can meet the additional 66 pertinent standards. This section of the ordinance includes several requirements, but the 67 applicable ones are as follows. 68 a. Drive-through lanes and service windows shall be located to the side or rear of buildings 69 and shall not be located between the principal structure and a public street, except when the 70 parcel and/or structure lies adjacent to more than one public street and the placement is 71 approved by the Community Development Department. The proposed drive-through, with its 72 single lane and service window proposed along the south side of the building between the 73 building and a public street has been reviewed and approved by the Community 74 Development Department. Given the subject parcel is a corner property and Rice Street 75 deemed the primary street and the public street to avoid, the south side of the building 76 becomes the side suitable for a drive-through in order to afford proper stacking of vehicles 77 and proper vehicle turning movements. 78 b. Points of vehicular ingress and egress shall be located at least 60 feet from the street right- 79 of-way lines of the nearest intersection. The subject parcel has two accesses to public 80 streets; one near the southwest corner approximately 250 feet from the intersection of County 81 Road B2 with Rice Street and one, a shared access with the neighboring multi-tenant 82 commercial property, approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of Rice Street with 83 County Road B2. The Public Works Director has reviewed the proposed drive-through and 84 existing access, and supports the proposal based on the type of use being sought for the 85 endcap and drive-through. However, should the type of use be such that stacking and traffic 86 through the drive-through complicates or compromises the current efficiencies, the applicant 87 understands that the CU could be revoked if the situation cannot be resolved. Evidence of 88 situations that could be candidates for revocation would include, but not limited to, vehicle 89 stacking that backs onto public streets or evidence of significantly elevated traffic accident 90 data related to the drive-through. 91 PF15-012_RPCA_070115 Page 3 of 6