Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Video Transcript
Duration: 89 minutes
Speakers: 9
Alright. This meeting is called to order at 07:01PM
on
May
13.
Welcome,
everyone. The board
of zoning appeals
consists of Roswell residents, appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council.
We serve voluntarily and without compensation.
This board has a final say on tonight's applications.
We have three tonight.
Appeals must be filed within thirty days within the superior court of Fulton County.
We will have,
three applications, as I mentioned. And for each of the applications, we will have the following procedure.
The city representative
will present their report and their recommendation.
The applicant
will,
make a presentation
or any statements,
then we will have time for public comments
limited to two minutes per speaker, and please keep them relevant to the
Speakers must state their name from the public
and the address
and speak clearly into the microphone
at the lectern here.
The applicant,
if
if desired, may rebut any of the comments or address them any of the comments. And throughout any of of the comments or address some any of the comments.
And throughout any of those portions, the board members may ask questions.
The board will deliberate,
after we close out the public comments
and
vote on each of the applications,
any simple majority decides.
We will begin with the city's presentation
on our first agenda item, BZA20250844AKA230
Chickering Lake Drive.
Good afternoon, everybody.
This is Richard with, Planning and Zoning.
First case of tonight is
BZA number 20250844230
Chickering Lake Drive,
who's asking for bearings to reduce their rear setback.
Some background on the property,
it is zoned RS 18, single family residential, and is 19,000,
601
square feet.
The property is a corner lot with road frontages on Chickering Lake Drive and Chickering Parkway,
with the entrance located off of Chickering Lake Drive.
The property is part of the Chickering Subdivision
and is generally square shaped with thick vegetation screening the backyard from Chickering Parkway.
The backyard consists of a back patio
and small shrubs, which partially screen the backyard,
and the applicant intends to change the back patio into a sunroom.
Here is an aerial image. You can see the two frontages.
Here's a zoning map.
Obviously, everything around it is RS 18.
The code requirement is UDC three two three detached house, RS 18,
number one, letter g. The rear minimum setback,
for RS 18 properties is 35 feet,
and the variance request,
is the, the applicant is seeking relief
from UDC three two three to reduce the rear setback from 35 feet to 24 feet.
Here's the proposed,
site plan
where you can see the encroachment.
Hardship, the UDC grants property owners the right to the maximum usage and enjoyment of their property.
Due to the shape of the lot and the location of the house, the rear of the house is located right at the 35 foot rear setback line,
severely limiting the amount of buildable space in the backyard.
The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant as the property is a lot of record and the house
on the property is existing.
The proposed home addition encompasses the existing patio,
which encroaches 11 feet into the rear setback.
Thus, the existing encroachment into the rear setback
will not be increased.
Here is a view of the front of the house off, Chickering Lake Drive.
Here's the side of the house off of Chickering Parkway.
Here's a picture that the applicant,
provided of the existing conditions.
Here is a,
rent rendering of the proposed sunroom. Here it is from the backyard. Here it is from the backyard.
Backyard.
Here's an alternate render rendering where the,
the fireplace
is in a different location. It's in the middle of the back,
frontage.
And here it is again from the backyard.
Staff recommends approval to reduce the rear setback from 35 to 24 feet.
If approved by BZA, staff recommends that the applicant plant six foot tall evergreens
along the rear property line for screening where the existing vegetation
is sparse.
That is it.
Any questions?
No?
Okay.
Thank you.
Would the applicant,
like to make a statement or present?
My name is Jesse with North Georgia Design Build on behalf of the Listen residence at 230 Chickering Lake Drive.
Sorry.
320
Chickering Lake Drive. 230. Yes. Correct. Yeah.
Everything that this gentleman presented is accurate, and,
I don't really have anything to add other than
the vegetation
amenable to the client. So we agree with that.
Okay. Questions for me?
Okay. You may have a seat.
Any comments from the public
on two thirty Chickering?
No comments?
Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Ian Kowalski here. Richard, in your presentation,
you showed, I believe, two renditions.
One with the fireplace in the back that went by me just a little too quickly. Mhmm. So there's the one with the fireplace in the back. And where's the
alternate location? It's in the corner. Corner. Yeah. Does the the fireplace in the back encroach further over the,
20
the requested setback? It is my understanding that it does not. You've I think you've got a picture in the package just a little bit earlier. Could you put that back up for a moment? Which picture are you I'm showing the lot lines and
the request where it's going to be built and the variance.
Yes, that one.
So it appears that if that were drawn in, that would not be closer. That would still be within the 24 foot requested setback.
That is my understanding.
Thank
you.
Any other questions from the board?
Yep. Mister Seager, you recognize.
Yeah.
Richard, I just have one question. Have you received anything from the homeowners that have bought up this property whether they have any objection to it or not?
I did receive a letter of support
from 220
Chickering Lake Drive,
but nothing, in opposition.
Okay.
And where is that in relation to the property?
I'll just slide to the east.
Okay. Next door. Next door. Mhmm. Yeah.
Yeah. I
are we also,
so part of my concern is also
the side
exposure.
So I know staff is recommending,
evergreens
in the back. I know that there is some quite heavy vegetation
on the side as well.
Would the applicant be amenable
to, side screening as well
if if we go in that direction?
Yeah. Okay. I see some nodding.
Alright. Do we have a motion? I think we've been
asking questions.
Yeah. Go ahead, mister Seager. You recognize?
Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to approve the applicants.
I'd like to make a motion to approve the applicants request to reduce the rear minimum setback from 35 to 24
feet. Would you also,
add the conditions that the staff recommends or is that
I was not gonna add that. I didn't really see that it was necessary. Fair.
Fair. Do we have a second?
Mister Huey, you recognize? Brock Huey. Second the motion. Alright.
Alright.
Any
any discussion?
Will we take a vote? Yep. Go ahead, mister Kowalski.
Can you put up the current pictures, the side view
from the street?
Yes.
So that is well screened
when the leaves are on, but I'm thinking
not so well when the leaves come down.
But any evergreen back there is going to be in pretty full shape.
Yeah. Yeah. That's precisely my point. This picture looks it's not current because I think there's more exposure even right now.
Right. Right. Yeah. This is an eight old picture. Okay.
Okay. Any other discussion items before we take a vote?
Alright.
All in favor, raise your right hand.
Alright. We have
five.
One, two, three, four, five. Okay.
Five.
And opposed?
Mister Schumacher opposed?
Alright. It's approved.
We can
move to the next agenda item, which
is 1027
Alpharetta Street.
Alrighty. So for our,
second case,
BZA number 20251262,
1027
Alfredo Street.
They're asking for a variance to remove an exterior door on the primary street road frontage.
So background on this case, the building
is part of the Southern Post mixed use development
and is located on the east side of the entrance to the southern to southern post off Alpharetta Highway.
The building is, 1372
square feet and has a height of, 19.8
feet.
The building is located partially below grade and is accessed via a door along Alpharetta Street and a door in the courtyard area on the opposite side of the building.
The Alpharetta Street facade includes three storefront window units with a door in the far right unit.
From the Alpharetta Street entrance, once inside, you immediately walk down a short flight of stairs to the Main Floor of the tenant space.
Tenant space.
The rear of the building faces a courtyard, which other businesses also face,
but also faces the parking deck and apartments within the Southern Post development.
Building has three large storefront window units with the second entrance door on the left inside the left unit. And currently, the building is vacant.
Here's an aerial map I,
outlined in red. The building is quite small.
Here's a zoning map. As you can see, the entire area is owned,
downtown mixed use.
The code requirement,
UDC five three eleven.
Single story shop front number four letter c,
entrance facing the primary street is required.
The applicant is seeking relief
from UDC 53114
C to remove the required entrance facing the primary street.
Here's the proposed site plan, and this is of the entire Southern Post,
development.
Here's a,
zoomed in picture of the building.
Hardship.
The building sits several feet below grade,
thus requiring the building to have an interior stair, which decreases the already limited
usable square footage of the building.
Other businesses within DX have either a larger building square footage
or are located at grade.
This variance would allow this building to have
the same pedestrian access as the second,
pod building because there are there are two of similar,
size on the property,
increasing the homogeneity of Southern Post.
Most other businesses within DX are set back from the right of way enough so that the grade change is external and not in internal requiring stairs.
The existing entrance is very close to the intersection of Alpharetta Street and the entrance of Southern Post.
This is a high traffic area, and having an entrance so close to an intersection increases the chance of car pedestrian
of a car pedestrian accident.
Here's the, current conditions along Alpharetta Street. You can see the door on the right side. That's the,
pedestrian
light. Forget the name.
Right there.
Here's the opposite side, the courtyard side. You can see the other door on the left side. The applicant is proposing to
add a door
on the far right side inside of the, window there. So there will be two entrances.
Here's,
current elevation along Alpharetta Street.
Here's what's proposed along Alpharetta Street.
Here's a proposed interior layout. You can see the two doors there, which would be facing the courtyard.
This is in the historic
district, so I had to go to, the historic preservation committee for a recommendation
to the board of zoning appeals.
HPC thought the requested variance would not negatively
affect the character of the historic district and supported moving the Alpharetta Street facing entrance
to the courtyard side of the building to increase pedestrian safety.
Staff recommends approval of the request to remove the exterior door on the primary street road frontage.
Questions for staff?
Yes. Mister Seager, you're recognized. Yeah. Dan Seager.
Did this question with the door sitting below grade,
come up
during
the design review of that whole complex?
I mean, this is this is a current structure. Right?
Correct.
So
the issue surrounding having a entrance come in from the primary street,
this was not raised during
the whole design process.
This has come up since the building was built.
Neither Richard or I I'm sorry. This is Jeannie Peyton, planning and zoning director. Neither Richard or I were, here as part of that development process, but it's my understanding that the developer and,
is was a different entity than those who are trying
conversation
as they,
failed to be able to rent the space because the amount of space that the stairs took up really limited the square footage.
So it became a discussion at that point. I don't know of any discussion prior to that. Okay.
Okay.
Would the applicant
like to present as the applicant here? Okay.
I'm Matt Ganey. I represent the developer.
To your point, yeah, it was, developed to the t,
for the specs from HBC and other reviewers of, permit,
drawings. This came up afterwards, challenging
space to rent and lease,
with the current stairwell in place.
We had a tenant in place, and they have since relocated to another location on-site.
So again, remove over the door in the stairwell or to increase the rentable and usable square footage within the space.
Questions? Any other questions?
Mister Kowalski, you recognize?
Yeah. Ian Kowalski, about how much square footage is lost to that internal staircase and landing area? Roughly 60 to 70.
Square feet?
And does that, count for the fact that people, when they come down the staircase, then have to you can't put things there. You have to stop, turn around, decide where you're going. Right. Correct. There's a landing at the bottom of the stairwell as well.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Yep. Mister Seager.
Yeah.
So you're gonna have two rear entrances and that's it. Right? That you're not gonna move that door around to the side?
We would remove the one on the main, you know, on Alpharetta Street, relocate
so that you would have two hinges on the pedestrian On the rear side.
Correct. Okay. On the east elevation.
Yeah. That's shown there. Is that acceptable to the city to have those just those two exit points?
Yes. It's not, a decision point that is made by planning and zoning. It's it's done through review, and fire department did
have a conversation of, you know, like, a review of this and approved
egress egress.
K. You may have a seat.
Any comments from the public?
Okay.
Do we have a motion from the board?
Oh,
oh, okay.
We are closing this agenda item for public comments.
Alright. Do we have a motion? Mister Seager, go ahead.
Yeah. I make a motion to approve the applicant's request
for relief from UDC
five point three point one one point four point c to remove the required exterior entrance facing the primary street.
We have a second. Yes. Mister Hanna seconds.
Any discussion?
Yes. Mister Schumacher.
You know, looking through
the criteria
for the code for a hardship, I just don't see how
this creates a hardship for this property.
I just don't see it.
Mister Kowalski, you had a comment?
This was a comment to mister Seager. The I believe the motion
just that he made and was seconded
just deals with the removal of the front door doesn't, address adding a back an additional back door.
So what word do we want removed?
It's an addition to say that in removing the front door, we're adding a back
door. K. Would you like to amend your motion or, well, withdraw your motion? That that wouldn't be necessary. Okay. The door along the the front pedestrian access is what is regulated in the code. It's been So just been seconded. Right? Okay. Yeah. So I wouldn't I
wouldn't change it.
Okay.
Oh, I see. Yeah. I see your point. It's the UDC only
front entrance,
the fire codes, and everything else deals with the addition of the secondary
egress. Yeah. Okay.
Got it. I understand.
Mister Seager, you were you were 100% correct.
Any other comments,
anyone want to address mister Schumacher's statement or anything like that
before we vote?
Alright.
Alright. Let's, let's have a vote then.
All in favor, raise your right hand.
Right. We have four
four and,
all against?
K. We have one against
and mister Hannah
is not participating. Okay.
Got
it. Okay. So,
the motion's passed for the the second application,
but, four to one.
And,
moving along
to 202505291335
Holcomb Bridge Road.
We can have the staff present first.
Okay. So the last this is Richard, planning and zoning.
The last case for tonight
is BZA number 20250529.
Address 1335
Holcomb Bridge Road.
They're asking for four variances
for a proposed,
lot subdivision.
So there will be two lots. The first lot would contain a Fifth Third Bank. The variances
are,
to 60% building width requirement within the build to zone,
the max parking,
and landscape open space requirement.
The other proposed
lot, would contain a quality service restaurant,
and the variance is to the landscape open space requirement.
Some background on the property.
It is a currently a 1.19
acre
lot located at the intersection of Holcomb Bridge Road and Market Boulevard.
The lot has two entrances,
slash exits off Kings Lane, which is a private road.
And much of the lot is composed of a parking lot and a commercial building that will be,
is planning to be demolished.
There is a thick line of vegetation and large retaining wall which screens a lot from the adjacent lot to the east,
which the the lot to the east is a McDonald's and BP gas station.
Behind,
the lot in question
to the south is, the 28.3
acre Kings Market shopping center.
The applicant plans on subdividing the lot into two parcels,
a,
2,490
square foot Fifth Third Bank lot,
on the proposed western,
point five two acre parcel and a,
I'm sorry, two two thousand four hundred ninety square foot building. That's the the third bank building
on the point five two acre parcel and a 2,320
square foot QSR building on the eastern point six four acre
lot. The applicant is requesting four variances in order to build a Fifth Third Bank and a QSR
on the subdivided lot.
The Fifth Third Bank would be located on the western side of the lot where there is currently a parking lot, and the QSR would be located near the existing
building location.
Here's an aerial image.
Here's a zoning map. You can see all adjacent properties are,
zoned commercial corridor, c c.
Across the street, there is c c and a little,
part of an office park,
office park zoning and commercial mixed use zoning.
The code requirement,
requirements,
are the first is UDC four three nine, single story shop front, letter f.
Building in Primary street B T Z,
minimum percentage of lot width for C C, which is the commercial corridor, is 60%.
The second code requirement is to is UDC ten one five, vehicle parking maximums, letter b. Surface parking spaces cannot exceed a 133%
of the required minimum vehicle parking.
Parking spaces provided in an underground or structured parking garage do not count toward the maximum number of spaces permitted.
And the third, UDC
two two six landscape open space, letter c,
redevelopment
that does not meet the minimum landscape open space percent requirement shall meet the greater of their current percent of landscape open space or
15%
as the required minimum percent.
The variance request for the Fifth Third Bank lot,
the first is the applicant is requesting relief from UDC 439
F
to reduce the building with requirements within the bill
to zone for the Fifth Third Bank building from the required minimum 60 to 45%.
The second variance, the applicant is requesting relief from UDC 1015
to increase the maximum allowed parking for the Fifth Third Bank parcel
from a 133%
of the required minimum vehicle parking to a 175
of the required minimum vehicle parking.
The third variance for Fifth Third Bank, the applicant is requesting relief from UDC two two six c to reduce the minimum landscape open space percentage
from 32%,
which is what's existing,
to 26.4%.
The variance request for the quality control restaurant
is, the applicant is requesting relief
from UDC two two six c to reduce the minimum landscape open space percentage from the existing 34%
to 24%.
Here's the existing,
site plan
that's currently there.
Here's the proposed site plan, of the two lots.
Again, the,
if you're looking at it, the left lot is the Fifth Third Bank,
and the right is the,
QSR.
Here's a,
enlarged version.
Fifth Third Bank hardship review,
variance to the build to zone.
Nonconforming
lots that were built before the current UDC regulations were implemented
are permitted until the lot is redeveloped,
at which point the new development must adhere to the current EDC regulations.
The requested variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the UDC, which is to ensure that the vision set forth in the comprehensive plan is implemented.
The special circumstances
are the result of the actions of the applicant as they are proposing to divide the existing lot and build a structure that does not comply with the UDC.
The variance requested is not the minimum variance that will make possible the proposed use of the
land, building, or structure
as the applicant could either design the bank in a way that adheres to the build to zone or choose not to subdivide the existing lot.
Partship review for the variance to max parking.
Every property within the CC Zoning District must adhere to the maximum required parking for their lot.
The applicant
has not provided data showing how they determined their anticipated parking needs.
The applicant has not shown an adequate hardship as to why they need for more parking spaces.
By increasing the maximum required parking for this lot, there is a potential
for an increase in congestion
and pollution within the lot and the surrounding area while reducing potential open space.
The vision for the comprehensive plan for this area is to promote multimodal transportation and pedestrian access, which this request does not promote.
The special circumstances
are the result of the actions of the applicant as they are proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two smaller lots with limited building space and construct a building that does not comply with the UDC requirements.
Hardship review
to, the landscape open space variance request.
Every property that is being redeveloped within the CC Zoning District must adhere to the minimum required landscape open space percentage for their lot.
The requested variance will not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the UDC as it could be a threat to environmental, economic, and social sustainability for Roswell citizens.
By decreasing the minimum landscape open space requirement,
the amount of impervious surface will increase,
which would increase water runoff along with increase in pollution within the lot and the surrounding area.
The vision for the comprehensive plan for this area is to preserve existing green space, which this request does not promote.
The special circumstances
are the result of the actions of the applicant as they are proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two smaller lots with limited building space and construct a building that does not comply with UDC requirements.
Quality service restaurant hardship review,
for the variance request to landscape open space.
Every property that is being redeveloped within the Cc Zoning District must adhere to the minimum required landscape open space percentage for their lot.
The requested variance will not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the UDC as it could be a threat to environmental,
economic, and social sustainability for Roswell citizens.
By decreasing the minimum landscape open space requirements, the amount of impervious surface will increase, which would increase the water runoff along with an increase in pollution within the lot and the surrounding area.
The vision for the comprehensive plan for this area is to preserve existing green space which this request does not promote.
The special circumstances are the results of the actions of the applicant as they are proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two smaller lots with limited building space and construct a building that does not comply with UDC requirements.
Okay. So here is,
a view of the current building on the lot,
and that's the screening between,
the current building and the McDonald's and BP,
next to it.
Here's a larger road, view of the road frontage on Holcomb Ridge Road.
Here's the corner of Holcomb Bridge Road and Market Boulevard.
Here is the, frontage off of Market Boulevard.
Here's the first entrance off Kings Lane.
Here is the frontage off of Kings Lane of the entire lot.
And to the right, that's the retaining wall,
and,
vegetative screening that screens it from McDonald's and BP.
Here is the second entrance off King's Lane.
Inside the lot, this is the west side of the lot. As you can see, it's mostly parking,
and,
green space.
Here is looking at the east side of the lot where you can see,
the the current building.
This is,
the
McDonald's and BP property next door looking at the lot. As you can see, you can, it's screened. You can see the very top of the existing building.
Alright. Staff recommendation.
For the Fifth Third Bank proposed
lot,
variances, staff recommends denial to reduce the building with requirements within the build to zone for Fifth Third Bank from the required minimum 60% to 45%.
Staff recommends denial to increase the maximum allowed parking for Fifth Third Bank from a 133%
of the required minimum parking,
vehicle parking to a 175%
of the required minimum vehicle parking.
Staff recommends denial to reduce the minimum landscape open space percentage from 32%
to 26.4%.
In regards to the quality service restaurant,
lot, staff recommends denial
Can you go back to
the second variance
where the staff in the staff report,
the bullets that you had there
for fifth, third?
Yeah. Right there.
The second to last bullet, what does that mean?
You're talking about the vision of the comprehensive plan? Yeah. Multimodal transportation. Oh, by the way, this is Jahangir Jibar. Okay.
Yeah. In the comprehensive
plan,
there are character areas for the for future development
that, for the city of Roswell.
In this specific area,
I believe the name of it is major activity area.
There's a list of what city council
wants for the future of that area.
One of these,
bullet points is to promote multimodal transportation and pedestrian access. Multimodal
transportation meaning different types of transportation
like bicycling and,
buses,
potentially Mardo
train, which I doubt,
other than vehicles.
Question.
Okay. Yeah.
I get the the background. I don't know what that has to do with this
application,
but
it's fine. Okay.
Alright. Any questions
for staff?
Alright. Would the applicant
like to present?
Good evening, board. Name is Gideon Lee. 505
Tatum Drive,
Alpharetta, Georgia 30022.
First of all, I would like to thank this planning staff here, Jeanie and Richard. They've been working with us on our site planning, you know, recommendations and guidance thus far.
And, we
told wholly respect and understand their, stance tonight.
We we wish to work with the board here and the planning staff further.
For the sake of brevity, I'll dive in.
Does Richard has
done a great job of expanding on the project overview? I won't touch on that.
The existing conditions as well.
One couple of things to note here. I just wanted to point out there is 15 feet of grade change. Sorry if it's loud or if I'm too close, but,
there is 15 feet of grade change from Holcomb Bridge Road down to Kings Lane.
And also to,
we I think some of the the board or maybe all of you know that there is a DOT project going on in Georgia 400 that bleeds out into this frontage.
So we have planned for that. So we've kind of shortened the depth to our property,
to plan around that.
And, you know, as you see, Holcomb Bridge, Market Boulevard, and Kings Lane are our three frontages.
And then we do not have direct access to Holcomb Bridge Road. Just so just wanted to set the stage there.
And this
variant site plan, I just wanted to, you know, just visually paint the picture of the three variances on the bank
open space for the QSR.
In in our stance, the QSR and the bank share that open space because we are subdividing the lot. It's one variance, but two,
really two variances because of the subdivision.
And the access points really remain the same. Circulation is somewhat the same.
We are introducing a new access cut on King's Lane
down the middle just from a circulation perspective. So you do have, you know, an isolated QSR on the right and isolated bank on the left while still having cross access.
And we did run this by surge,
from the DOT
side of things, just from a preliminary feedback, and he was good with this approach.
Moving on from a variance justification standpoint,
the build to zone width, I'll start there.
So the current lot today,
as you can kind of see on this plan, we have, I mean even on the survey, we have about 230
linear feet of property frontage.
Meaning we need approximately 100, 137
feet of building width.
Which short of a strip retail, there's not that many tenants that would meet whether you subdivide or not.
So all that to say is we would still need a variance with two buildings,
two national tenant buildings
of this scale, QSR and and or bank or what have you.
So if you subdivide,
we are
relieving the QSR
of not needing a build to zone width, but we still need that 60 to 45%
reduction on the bank side.
And we believe that this would be the minimum variance needed with the two stand alone buildings from a circulation perspective, fire access, and functionality.
And both the buildings combined alone,
they amount to about a 125
linear feet, which isn't far off from that 137
mark, given the property frontage,
and some of our site constraints here.
And some notable
comparable variances that have been granted in the last,
five or six years, by this board.
You know, the McDonald's was reduced to 26%,
Chick fil A at 27%,
Chase at 37%,
and entire discounters
Holcomb Bridge Road corridor.
And moving on to the maximum parking.
So our tenant, Fifth Third Bank,
they need three to five staff parking at all times of the day,
on top of the customer parking. So their prototype really requires 16 spaces.
So we are having a variation,
you know, to go to under
their
quote unquote code. But we understand that the city of Roswell,
that that is the code, 133.
So, you know, if you consider having the 11 spaces by right, that would mean we'd only have four non ADA spaces for customers to park in,
assuming that staff parks on-site in their designated parking spots.
So this would be, you know, what we considered
the minimum variance that we would need for Fifth Third Bank.
And again, Chase is a good example. They were granted
17 spaces from 15. And that just goes to show, you know, from a bank perspective, that's you know, pretty market on what they would need as far as parking needs. I have a question Sure. For this one.
What you're saying is of the fourteen,
five would be staff,
so I'm left with five.
I'm left with nine.
And then now go back to your Yep. I'm not that good at math, man. So so you go from 14.
So staff take up five, so now you're down to nine. Mhmm. And then you're saying out of the nine,
five would be handicap spots?
No. So they would need two ADA stalls.
What I was saying, the 11 spaces that's permitted by right, that would be the maximum allowed by code. In that scenario,
the two ADA spaces plus the five,
employee spaces would mean that there'd only be four non AD spaces left. So Thank you. Yeah. Because, like, that's a double if
you're the handicapped ones are Exactly. Exactly. For two. Okay. Thank you. Yep. You got it.
And then moving on to the open space. Again, you know, they're in my mind, one in the same variance, but because we are subdividing, unfortunately, it is two
variances that are counted.
And you know, to me, it's kind of a sliding scale. You have the built to zone width of a 137
feet,
which maximizes a lot of the impervious with circulation,
with asphalt, with sidewalks and the like.
So it's kind of a balancing act really. You know, we're increasing the amount of impervious with our building
activation
with the circulation again.
So we feel that this would be the minimum variance needed with these two buildings.
That doesn't even quite meet
the 137
feet of of, building width required.
And we, you know, obviously, it does meet the 15%,
but it just doesn't meet the existing what's on-site today, which is, you know, 33% of blended rate between the two sides.
And then
we would be
beefing up the landscaping and enhancing that. So it's a beautiful
entry into the corridor.
Adjacent
similar
developments
you know, within the last five years, you're looking at anywhere from 18 to, you know, 28%
open space for these newer developments.
So we'd be in that range,
I I would say. So.
And then from a comprehensive plan alignment perspective,
you know, we feel that this would enhance the visual character,
at that gateway location.
We're about Parcel 3 as you come off of 7
A. And obviously, revitalizes an aging asset that is the AGM,
sales lot. The owner is here today with their attorney as well, and they're very excited about, you know, our proposed project.
And they would agree that this would be
definitely a face lift for the city.
And again, it's at a key intersection. You have Kimberly Clark to the North, and then Bricksmore Publix to the South
with
Holcomb Bridge onward to the east and and west.
So and, you know, this would maintain the current configuration
more or less, just introducing
a separate tenant.
And, you know, a fresh set of blue chip tenants, if you will.
And we believe that this would align with the city's goal for redevelopment.
And if you look at the Holcomb Bridge Strip from Highway 9 to,
let's call it Spalding Drive,
I looked on LoopNet the other day, and I believe there are about
18 or so shop spaces that are currently vacant and on the market. So going back to the, you know, the 137
linear feet of building width,
I believe that would meet the intent or or the code by right. But again, that would mean we would need to propose trip retail, which, you know, has its,
you know, downfall, so to speak. But again, it it works in certain areas, but we believe that these two blue chip standalone tenants would would work best in this corridor,
would would be our opinion and stance.
And then on this last point, we strongly believe this this would support economic development,
visual cohesion, and long term investment along this corridor.
And to wrap things up, this proposal
obviously creates a premium gateway experience as you come off the exit.
You know, it's better than what what's there today. And we we think that we're enhancing that corridor,
with with those two blue chip tenants.
And then, you know, we we really strongly believe that these variances are modest,
just given the relief that was granted in the past.
I was here, you know, just shortly before COVID for a legal grocery store. We were granted about four variances, which, you know, wasn't uphill, but at the same time, you know, we we got it done with the help of staff and, you know, the board in front of us here today,
and and along with, you know, Chick fil A's, the the McDonald's, and the like.
So
and we believe that this design preserves the core layout and character needs of the existing site,
while introducing the modern tenant needs.
So with that, we respectfully
request approval of all four variants to enable this investment into the city. And before I let you all go, I'd gladly welcome any feedback on our site plan.
You know, staff has done a great job on providing feedback, but we'd love to to hear the board's feedback.
And if we get to a point where you're leaning one way or the other, we'd love to come back with a, you know, hearing your feedback before we, you know, end tonight, if that makes sense. So
Any questions
from
mister Seager? You recognize?
Could could you put the,
that variance plan back up the proposal? There it is.
What what is the
traffic flow around the Fifth Third Bank?
Yes. So great question. So
ideally, they would come in off of the center
curb cut, and they would circulate kind of counterclockwise
at the top left, and then come down. So you would either park and go into the, the bank, or you would circulate and go into the ATMs,
or you would exit on that bottom left, curb cut, the existing curb cut there.
And if you are parked, let's say, on a ADA stall or the two adjacent stalls there, you could exit, you know, clockwise or counterclockwise. So you have that option. We've kept that as a, you know, 24 foot lane. Lane. So that that would be how the circulation would work.
So is there separation between the two properties or can can a driver
merge over into the to the,
restaurant
part of the There's a 24 foot drive aisle that splits both properties. So it's a shared access.
So technically, that drive aisle does separate both properties,
but, you know, there's sufficient cross access. Like if Fifth Third, if they pull into the, the drive through and they wanna get a a sandwich or whatever it is, that QSR, they can, you know, safely zip over by way of a a stop sign.
And we'll make sure that all cross locks are are buttoned and ironed out here.
But and then vice versa, if you wanted to come,
if you exit the drive through, the QSR, and then you forgot to deposit a check,
you can then circulate and ask needed. So there's options.
Any other questions?
Yes. Mister Kowalski recognized.
Ian Kowalski.
I think on the diagram for the bank, is that where the ATM is just in the lower part of the diagram?
Yes, sir. So if you see those three arrows,
the
closest lane,
would be the, the the drive up, and then the middle lane would also have an ATM there, and then the third lane would be the bypass.
So
if somebody is in the ATM and another car comes to wait behind them,
does that block off
the
exits?
That that's a great question. So by way of the bank queuing requirements, I believe it's two cars.
So if that becomes an issue, you know, the,
teller can pull them forward or have them, direct traffic around. But I I believe we have enough room. So I believe that's a 18 foot drive aisle.
So any drive through, it's really nine and nine. Like, if you think about a Chick fil A or what have you said, they would have some ample room to to make that maneuver around.
But but then it's the balancing act between open space on increase in pavement to get that bypass
wider.
But I I would think that they would have a safe maneuver around.
That is a good point though.
Thank
you.
Any other questions?
Yeah. Mister Seager. Go ahead.
If you did not
obtain the variance for the number of parking spots,
what is the impact to your project here?
That's a great question. And, you know, going back to the example of having 11 spaces,
you know,
we'd have the four
available non ADA spaces.
But then you could potentially look at parking and doing a cross access with the QSR.
But then you run into like, for the QSR too, we're we're somewhat under parked.
I mean, 20 spacers or so, it's somewhat,
below market.
Like, at Chipotle or whoever else, they typically require 28 and above,
just with dine in customers.
So, I I mean, to your initial question, it'll likely be some sort of cross access agreement between QSR and then the Fifth Third,
but then we would have to go back to Fifth Third and and see if that they would allow or the QSR would allow cross access, if that makes sense. Okay.
What impact on Atlanta if you remove those parking spots, what is the impact on landscaping
variance you request? Yeah. So that would get us closer for sure on on the bank side. Yeah. But I don't know that we would meet that full, 32
existing percent. Yeah. And it it's unfortunate the way the property lines were drawn and not pointing fingers at anyone. But if you look at the bottom left at Market Boulevard,
there's an empty triangular space
where it's kind of owned by the I believe it's the Brixmor property.
So really that property line should have hugged the sidewalk, but, you know, this is a older property. So if you count that triangular swath, we would meet the 32%.
Okay. Thanks.
Yeah. Mister Kowalski recognized again. Ian Kowalski.
I believe
on the South Side of Kings Lane there,
there is a large existing parking lot.
Have you explored at all
purchasing rights for employees to park there?
So
and I'll get to that. Hopefully, not too too much in a long winded way, but I used to work on the Chick fil A account in the Northeast,
and that was a a popular question that came up. But safety became a lot of the the biggest issue with King's Lane as you all know, people zipping around and and through. And usually for bank customers,
I mean, there's a certain demographic. I mean, I I don't mean to stereotype or not, but, you know, safety becomes an issue at that point.
Mister Hanna, you had a comment.
John Hanna.
I'm I'm still having a hard time with the flow of traffic in both these locations.
Sure. So
if if I'm looking at this right, we're coming in off of Kings Lane,
on the
restaurant
side. Mhmm. Correct?
And then you have cars coming around to the right and going around the building coming back across
traffic coming in
for
the Fifth Third.
So don't don't you believe that this is gonna cause congestion? And,
you know, if you have a if you have a busy restaurant
and you have a busy bank and you have cars zipping in and out, we're talking about safety
for employees
crossing Kings Lane. What about the safety of the cars coming through there? That's a great point. And I would say to that, I mean, a lot of the QSR
traffic and volume will be through the drive through.
So
the drive through really exits on that bottom right corner. But to your point on the dine in customers that are exiting
down that shared access aisle,
I would think that the volume of people exiting Fifth Third Bank, it's not as heavy as a drive through exit, if that makes sense. But at the at the same time, you know, at any busy shopping center, you have the same,
I guess, not problem, but, you know, the situation, if you will.
So
in in my my opinion,
the the drive through exiting that bottom right would be your heaviest flow.
And then the ATM customers,
they would likely leave one at a time. Because you're if you're exiting Fifth Third Bank, you're gonna likely go on that bottom left exit to exit unless you're sitting in the ATM.
At that point, you're going one and one. And it's usually a ten minute departure or five minute departure rate. I I don't know the the math behind an ATM,
but it it's gonna be the drive through that's driving
the the heaviest
don't necessarily agree, but okay.
No. I appreciate that. I mean, yeah, that's why we're here.
Okay. I have a question. I think in one of the earlier slides, Mr. Li, you mentioned that
if you
kind of blend the two, you get to a certain
percentage, but the variance
on the frontage is
acute on the fifth third side. What yeah. What was that number?
Yes. So the built two zone width required is a 137.
Uh-huh. And then the two buildings combined is a 125.
Uh-huh. So we're we're shy of that. So Right. Right. So what is that variance like?
Kind of thinking about Yes. Sure. Number come out to, like, 12 over one or Yeah. So, like, if you remove the the
the body line, that proposed line, and then if they looked at it as one holistic property,
the 60% was at a 137
Mhmm. Of the built to zone width. And then our buildings that you see up there Yeah. Like the QSR is about 81 feet and the Fifth Third Bank is about 44 feet. So if you add those together, that's how you get to the if I did the math right, 125,
compared to the required 137.
Mhmm. So that $1.25 wouldn't meet.
Like, if you squish those two buildings together and call it a strip retail,
that still wouldn't meet the 137.
Now, you know, you could argue why not just propose a strip retail at a 137.
Right. But, you know, there are some
con or nuances to that.
Okay. So if you do that,
$1.25
gets you to 55%.
Correct. Roughly. Right. Right. Versus 45%
on So but you still need a variance either way. Yep. Right. Right. But it's not as stark as
what you're asking. It's 10 points above what you're asking. Like, you wanna go from 60 to 45.
And if you just have one lot,
you're at. Also,
will that allow you to possibly rotate
the bank
and then get to all of the 60?
So, yeah, we did look at that, and there's two things there. I know the drive through
does need to face,
you know, away from Market Boulevard and Holton Bridge Road, if I'm not mistaken. And then the other thing too, the circulation gets a little funky. Because if we did look at that,
and the pinch points become
the the North South
drive by on the West, north side share drive by on the East. So if you rotate the building to make it longer, you effectively kind of almost kill your circulation
or you kill those six spaces
that hugs the shared access
north running north south. Mhmm. So we did look at that option and unfortunately,
we just couldn't,
you know, make it work from a circulation
drive through. So we'd have to introduce two additional variances for the drive through,
being in a frontage.
And,
I don't know the correct terminology or code section, but yeah.
Okay. So the
it it looks like the problem is that the drive through needs to be away from Holcomb
Holcomb Bridge and from Market Boulevard?
Okay. My understanding.
Got it.
And for what it's worth, we did have the QSR
drive through facing Holcomb Bridge from the get go.
But, you know, Jeanne and Richard were kind enough to tell us, look,
it made more sense to avoid two additional variances. So we we
variances. So we we led with our QSR having the drive through. Like, a Starbucks down the street has a drive through fronting Houghton Bridge, but, obviously, that's an existing nonconformity.
But here, you know, it it still makes sense to have that drive through on the south. So Mhmm.
K. Mister Kowalski.
Ian Kowalski. This might be to Richard.
What is the primary road here that everything's being calculated off?
Are you talking about Holcomb Bridge Road? So that's that is the one that is considered the primary road when we consider the denominator for all these calculations. That's correct.
And that's because the front doors of these buildings face Holcomb Bridge Road
even even though
the access and egress to the property is off Kings Lane?
Kings Lane yeah. Kings Lane isn't a,
it's a private road. Okay.
Thank
you.
And, again, we we'd be willing to go back and look at our calculations from a shared parking perspective or because we did try, you know, the QSR one thing again for what it's worth. The patio,
it wasn't covered.
And
initially, we had a reduced building width for the QSR two. But if you look at that appendage to the right, I guess, yeah, page right, we added a structurally
covered patio
to then meet for that QSR.
So now it's only the bank that we're,
you know, pursuing.
So
Yeah.
Okay. And then what about the concern
of all of the impervious
surface?
They I believe there's a byproduct
of
Variances to landscape open space. Right. Oh, okay. Thank you. Right. So just green. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
And,
and just, look at what exactly that was. There's a lot of stuff here. So that is reducing from 32
to 26.
Okay. That's correct.
'26 and change. Okay. So 5.6% and then 10% for the
percent and then 10% for the, QSR.
Yeah. You might have to build a rooftop garden at this point.
I mean, if per pervious pavers were allowed, but I don't believe they were for the per code,
to meet that open space. So
Yeah. And just to further explain, we're we're looking at the lots as proposed. We're not looking at as the entire existing lot. Yeah. So they, you know, they looked at what's currently landscape open space there. There. So they either need to meet that or, you know, to a minimum of 15%,
basically.
They basically just have to meet what's there and this so the variances to,
you know,
less than what is required,
existing.
Yep.
Any other questions? Mister Kowalski.
If these variances were approved,
is there any condition in here
that both buildings have to be built, or is there a possibility with the variances approved that just the bank or just the QSR were built?
That's a great question. And by the timing of things, obviously, we'd like to build at the same time because we know that we will have to go to DRB. That's a very long process. We understand that.
But if
it it's not in lockstep, then it adds additional DRB hearing separate
from going into the same night and same cycle, if that makes sense. So our approach would be to build at the same time. But, you know, there's never a a sure thing of, you know, someone could back out or
there's a lot of unforeseen for that to, you know there's a potential that it could not line up, if that makes sense.
Yeah. I guess the potential I was really asking about it's, less of a potential of there being a six month offset in the building and more of a potential is that, if approved,
three years from now, everything's built and it's just a bank or three years from now, everything's built and it's just the quick service restaurant. Yeah. That that's a great point. And I I know that we don't like to talk in terms of financials as far as the BZA is concerned. But for us as the developer,
it wouldn't pencil with just the one tenant. If if I can say that on record, I don't know. But yeah.
Meaning, we would need the two tenants,
for our
sales purchase to make sense. So we can't have a vacant
lot b, so to speak.
We we would push for both lots being constructed at the same time. So that while that may be a concern,
in this corridor, I don't think it's much
it's a very small
percentage that that could happen.
But I hear what you're saying. Like, what if we develop it or we get a proof of the variances,
go through DRB,
and then for whatever reason, that lodge just sets vacant. Is that kinda where you're getting at?
In business, things happen. Exactly. Exactly. So but that's not something we can predict. So
Jahazif Jabbar.
I'll recognize myself. So
in looking at this, mister Lee, it looks like
by dividing up the lots,
you are increasing
the threshold
of the variance
in each of the variances you're asking for. Right? So whether that's the build to zone,
you're rather than going from 60 to 55, you're asking for 60 to 45.
The parking,
I don't know. Actually, I haven't thought through the parking one, but then the landscape is probably a wash
either way. Right.
So what what does that buy is that just a financial decision that is just easier to, you know, sell this off down the road? Is that why you're asking for two separate lots and therefore
compounding
why you're coming to us?
Right. So, you know,
if it was not subdivided,
you know, as the developer I mean, we plan to be here. We're invested in the city. I live in Alpharetta.
Our office is in Buckhead.
So, you know, we we plan to be here and the city invested.
But, you know, if we were to sell off one or two properties,
we would have to sell both off at the same time,
if we didn't subdivide, if that makes sense.
Yeah.
Yep. Go ahead, mister Seager. Okay. In that in that line of thought,
are those two established lots now?
They are not. So this would be part of the DRB plan process. So if everything was okay, you'll you'll divide the
subdivide? That that's correct. Yes, sir. K. So,
if you don't get the this may not be the right question to answer. If you don't get the variance for the,
landscaping for the quick service or the quality service restaurant,
what are you gonna do? Are you gonna try to make
adjustments to the plan here to work that landscaping out so it fits?
Exactly. So, I
mean, we were afraid that that question might come up. But I mean, there are So it won't. It won't. It wouldn't necessarily if you don't get it, it won't necessarily kill the project.
It it would make it tough. We'd have to go back to our tenants and see if the reduction in parking and the shared parking because, like, if I'm hearing you correctly, the open space, it does tie in to the maximum parking.
Thank you for pointing that out on our previous meeting. But, you know, if we were to remove the bank parking,
we'd increase open space, but then we would have shared parking
let me flip to the plan. So, like, on the QSR,
we could add a couple spaces, but then the QSR now becomes less
open space.
It reduces the open space by adding parking to the QSR side. Because as it stands today, QSR is kinda parked at the minimum too. So if you share those parking, you know, there it overburdens the parking spaces on the
QSR. So it it again, it's a balancing act, but they're you know, we we could definitely take a look at that.
And, again, we'd have to go back to Fifth Third Bank,
just to make sure that they're okay with that. So
but it you know,
it wouldn't kill the deal, but it would
make it harder. And we're gonna run into the same thing with the Fifth Third Third Bank. If you got some of these variances or one or two of them approved and the other ones not, it kinda wrinkles the whole thing.
So But there's a solution, we we believe, that we can work with staff, work with the board to get to a equal medium.
It wouldn't kill the deal again, but, again, we would wanna work with Richard and Jeanne here.
K. Mister Kowalski.
Yeah.
Ian Kowalski again.
The I see here that the Fifth Third Bank is specifically called out as the tenant
on
the west side of the property. That's correct. And that this is a typical
bank size design that they use. So it's a it's a it's a cookie cutter, and so it's, it is the shape you want.
I noticed on the other side, it's just called proposed QSR.
That's right.
So
I'm trying to find out if you can say anything more about that because that sort of sounds like, we're shopping for a tenant. We don't know that we've got somebody. And, again, I'm getting back
to what happens. Exactly. And that's a great point. And, I I will tell you and, you know, I guess on public record that we have a couple of LOIs from national tenants. And obviously, this is a very
key
parcel. It's, you know, again, the first viable, in my opinion, first viable parcel today,
as you come off of seven a. So there there'd be no issue with getting AQSR.
Again, we have LOIs from,
national tenants. It's just we're working out the details with them, and they can all fit in that box.
So I I think, we'll hear from the public. And then if we have any further questions, we'll ask you to come up. Okay? Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Alright.
Any public comments, please come on down.
And please state your name and address.
Good evening. Julie Sellers with Dillard Sellers. 1776
Peachtree Street.
Here
public, but actually really, on behalf of the property owner, doctor Nalcek is here with us. He's been the property owner for fifteen
years, and I'm here on his behalf,
asking you for approval.
This is a very challenged property.
We have appreciated the engagement with staff.
We certainly do believe that there's justification
for all of the variances.
You know, I I wanna just reiterate what, Gideon mentioned.
When you look at this property, there's no access from Holcomb Bridge. You're essentially
surrounded by a private road, an access road, and Holcomb Bridge. So there are certainly challenges with the property in and of itself.
When you think about being able to redevelop this property in the manner that I think the city would want to see
without variances,
you're talking about a strip mall or, you know, strip center. Excuse me. Not mall, but a strip center. And there's so much vacancy
in this corridor for strip centers that's simply not gonna happen.
So the property owner has,
really, you know, I think done his homework,
is,
very comfortable with the plan and with the approach that this developer has brought. We've really been collaborating with the staff,
made certain
changes, you know, to this. So we are just here tonight asking you on behalf of the property owner for approval.
If
you are not inclined
for approval, I believe and,
Gideon can correct me if I'm wrong. But if for some reason,
you are not inclined to approve, we would respectfully request that you
defer to allow us to do some work, maybe give us a little more direction on what could get you more comfortable,
with approval. I just simply don't see a redevelopment of this property
without variances.
So happy to answer any questions. But
on behalf of a property owner who's owned this for fifteen years, has some health concerns, which he has said it would be okay for me to iterate,
he really,
needs to and desires to sell this property and appreciate your consideration.
Thank you.
Anyone else
from the public?
Okay. Alright.
We are closing for any further public comments.
Do we have,
any other questions for staff before we move?
Oh, mister Kowalski.
Ian Kowalski.
When I look at the QSR, I looked through the, UDC and I saw and I understand
how parking spaces are calculated
for a bank or retail.
Is there something else in there for QSR? Because I see a lot of parking spaces, and I wasn't able to figure out how many parking spaces are allowed.
Yeah. So that would be a restaurant,
and I believe
I believe it's 300
per 300 spaces or no.
How's that retail?
Okay. Junie's on it.
Planning and zoning director.
It that would be
figured at all restaurant rate, which is one per 100
and per feet. So restaurants typically have an increase.
They're about double of what a normal retail
space or commercial space would be.
So that would
say
alright. It comes out to 30?
Thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
So, I have a procedural question for staff.
Say if we want to provide some guidance,
what is the best, you know, for
the developer to,
amend and come back?
What's the best? Do we do we
bolt this down and then they have to come back with a new plan? Or or do you suggest? No. I think what the applicant is asking is for you not to defer. Deferment,
encumbers the property with a prejudice period of one year. Oh, okay. So, no one could come forward with another application,
in that timeline. So they're asking that rather than,
a denial that you offer some advice of where you could get to,
a decision on it and then
defer the case. Right. Right. I I think you misspoke. I think you said they don't want deferment, but they in fact wanna deferment rather than an outright denial. Yeah. Correct. I'm sorry. Yeah. I, yeah, I think I heard that.
Okay. So
go ahead, mister. No? Nothing?
So yeah. I think
do I have do we have to move before we have discussion? Or No. We can't.
Yeah. Procedural question,
staff. Do we do we need a motion before we discuss, or we could just have a discussion with the board?
Yeah.
I think it's maybe more procedurally correct to make a motion and then discuss. Okay. Mister Kowalski, you're recognized?
I make a motion to defer, and now we can discuss. Okay. Thank you.
You're so smart.
What happens when you have veteran board,
chairs on on the board? Yeah. And we have a second.
Alright. So
to the discussion,
any
any comments,
concerns from the board? Second?
Yes. Mister mister Hanna seconded the motion to defer. Yeah.
Yes, sir. You recognize mister Kowalski.
So I can voice a couple of my concerns.
One of them is the comment I made about the location of the ATM. And if it's tough for me to just look at the scale of this and see what happens
if there's a car at the ATM, a car behind it, and there's another car trying to exit.
And understanding that better would help me.
One way to possibly get around that is if the exact Fifth Third location were, were taken as drawn,
it's drawn now maybe in a left right configuration,
and it were flipped to be in a right left configuration.
That would move the ATM
further
to the east.
I don't know if that would then cause problems exiting the ATM, so another problem is created. But,
That's a great point. And we'll go back to the Fifth Third team on if they could mirror the building.
Because, you know, to your point, if the teller window is on the bottom right of the building, you still have 20 feet before you get to the stop sign. So, you know, that would still be sufficient enough to get to the stop sign. So that that's a great point, which I'll go back to the, the fifth 13
on that ask.
I think one of the other things you're hearing from us is
the number of variances that are being asked for. I can appreciate that this may be a difficult to develop economically piece of land in this corridor, and this is
a a proposed solution here.
I also feel like in subdividing a lot, trying to shoehorn too much into too little.
And
with four variances being asked for, it kind of feels like too much into too little. And is there a way to
alleviate that? Sure. You did talk about
less parking spaces and replacing them with some green
space?
Right. So I guess one before I get to the potential solution,
just one counter on what could have been for a strip retail. Like, let's just say we did propose a 137 foot,
retail building. In my opinion, I believe we would still be deficient in the open space requirements because we'd have circulation around the a long elongated building, and then parking on either side
of that building.
But to your point, that would be one variance versus two variances from that
subdividing line.
But to your point, you know, we can take a look at potentially reducing
the
parking spaces on that bottom four.
Because
hypothetically,
those are you know, ideally, those would be employee parking spaces on that bottom left.
So we could go back to the Fifth Third team and see if they would be willing to, you know, allow their team members or,
their employees to park,
on the QSR side by way of a shared access agreement,
which would then in turn, sir,
put back, you know, let's call it
10 times 20 or I can't do math right now. But those four spaces would would would become open space. So that that's something we can look at with the, fifth, third, and the,
QSR tenants.
But you would still need the
the minimum landscape variance for the QSR. Right? And that That's correct. And, unfortunately,
if we did that, we'd wanna add maybe one or two spaces on the QSR side. Because again, right now, I believe we only have, let's see, nine,
fourteen. So 21 spaces on the QSR side, which again,
it it's light from
a national tenants perspective. Again, Chipotle needs about 28
minimum. And and I say Chipotle loosely, but that's not the tenant yet. Or it could be, you know, whoever it is. So we would add
potentially two or three spaces to offset the four.
QSR would still be compliant from a parking perspective. But then the open space would be slightly reduced on the QSR side. So it's the luster of two evils in my opinion,
but I think that would you know, we could take a look at that and try to
minimize as much percentage as as we can.
Yeah. What about
if
you if you did not combine
the lots, then you
would you still have the middle,
driveway,
or would you just have a big loop?
Yeah. For operationally, we would need that middle driveway,
because say you wanna get to the Fifth Third Bank, then you would have to circulate
and cross pollinate with the QSR drive through traffic and vice versa.
But, yeah, if you even if you remove that subdividing lot, you'll still need the build to zone width for the 125
feet.
While it may not be as, you know, drastic as the Fifth Third,
you'll still need the open space,
but then it's reduced to just the one open space.
And then,
I think that max next parking may go away. We'd have to look at that. But, again,
we'd have to reconsider the deal structure because we we would need this property to be subdivided.
Yeah. Okay.
But what what, mister Kowalski
proposed, you basically then eliminate
two
of the variance requests on Fifth Third side. Right? The
the overage on the parking
and the minimum landscape because That that's right. You would just you'd be coming to us with a grand total
of two variance requests, one on each side,
albeit
the one for the QSR
would be a higher
variance threshold.
That that's right.
Or higher deviance, higher variance. Right. Again, we'd have to look back at the numbers, but that's the the intent and, you know, move it in the right direction. So that's a great point.
Yes. Mister Kowalski, you recognize? Now. Ian Kowalski, yet again.
One of the things I'm trying to understand are the parking spaces on the south side of the proposed QSR.
How would those be used?
Yeah. So
those would
act as, you know, dine in customers. There'd be a crosswalk to that probably the the the right band of the QSR.
And then you would still have the drive through free and clear,
whether it's separated by delineators or what have you. But it's no different than a, you know, a Chick fil A or McDonald's having a bypass lane and a bypass with parking and then a drive through lane just aside from it. So When I'm looking at it, I can see how
the parking spots on the North side of the QSR are very functional, safe for pedestrians.
People can get in there. There's
a simpler traffic flow there.
The
it just seems like getting out of the car on that South side where I'm going with that,
is there any way
to that's either where bank employees go or there's more parking on the North side.
Move move the building,
the proposed USR
South, put more parking on the North and eliminate people having to walk across those, drive through lanes where
people don't pay attention once they get their food.
And that's fair. I I think it makes sense for the employees, for the bank to be parked on that bottom
row.
But,
you know, if we've shifted the site down, I don't think that gains you any parking to the north because We're only allotted two rows of parking. And then if you see the QSR, we're right at that 85 foot built two zone. So we're we're kinda maxed out there. But what we can do is look at putting or I guess,
negotiating a shared access easement or shared parking easement,
for the bottom, you know, four spaces.
Okay. Any other further discussion before we take a vote?
Alright. So the motion on the table is to defer the matter,
and we have a second.
All in favor, raise your right hand.
Alright. Unanimous.
Thank you so much for your feedback. Got it. Yep. Thanks. Good luck, man.
Uki,
our
last agenda items is the approval of the BZA minutes from the April 29
meeting.
Do we have a motion?
Yes. Mister Hanna has
Make a motion that we approve the minutes from the 04/29/2025
BZA meeting.
K. Any we have a second. Yes. Mister Huey
has a second. All in favor, raise your right hand.
And
we
yes. We have a unanimous
yeah.
Mister Hanna.
Okay. Cool. And
if there are no objections,
we will
adjourn the meeting.
I don't see any objections. Adjourned.
I'll sign this.