Collierville board rejects McDonald’s request for extra parking; staff had recommended denial

The Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday denied a variance request that would have allowed a McDonald's restaurant to provide more on-site parking than the town's zoning rules allow. The proposed 3,694-square-foot restaurant on a 1.7-acre parcel at the southeast corner of Houston Levy Road and East Shelby Drive was seeking roughly 40'plus spaces; staff recommended denial and the motion to approve failed.

Staff planner Jamie told the board that the subject property is zoned R-1 low-density residential within the Price Form PD (Area 2a, Village Core South) and that drive-through restaurants are permitted in the shopping-center commercial district there. Jamie said the town's rules use both minimum and maximum parking calculations: a minimum of 1 space per 200 square feet of building area and a maximum of 1 space per 2 seats. Based on submitted plans, Jamie said the applicant's plans showed 45 spaces, the applicant requested 40, the minimum requirement would produce 19 spaces, and the maximum based on seats would allow 17 spaces. "Staff does not recommend approval of the request as the standards for a variance have not been met," Jamie said.

Nathan (Nate) Wilson, area construction manager for McDonald's and the applicant's representative, said the proposed restaurant would include about 35 seats and operational features that, in McDonald's experience, need more parking than the ordinance allows. "Typically, a minimum is 35 parking spaces for a McDonald's with that sweet spot hitting around 40," Wilson said, adding that mobile order pickup, courier (delivery) pickup and pull-forward drive-through spaces factor into demand.

Jamie told commissioners that the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) parking generation guidance cited by the applicant estimates a development of the proposed size could need about 46 spaces at Friday midday peak, and that the town has required landscaping, stormwater and lighting standards intended to limit negative impacts of large lots. Jamie also noted alternatives available to the applicant, including securing off-site parking agreements, increasing seating (to change the parking calculation based on building area), amending the zoning ordinance, or revising the site plan.

Board members debated whether the shortage of parking reflected a property-specific hardship (a standard for variance approval) or a broader change in restaurant operations that should be addressed through a legislative code amendment. One commissioner said, "I can't vote for the variance," citing the variance standards; another commissioner said the shift in restaurant patterns represented a hardship that the code has not kept up with and urged an expedited code review. The record shows the motion to approve the variance failed with four "no" votes and one abstention.

The planner listed next steps for the applicant should the variance not be granted: revise the site plan, submit a final subdivision plat, and pursue building permits; Jamie also said an ordinance amendment could take two to three months if initiated and processed with Planning Commission and the mayor and board, though a comprehensive rewrite tied to the town's comprehensive plan could take longer.

The board closed the item with a recommendation to the applicant to discuss off-site parking options with adjacent property owners and a suggestion from staff that the town will consider parking requirements in an upcoming zoning and comprehensive-plan review. Commissioners said they welcomed McDonald's but wanted any new development to comply with the town's legal standards.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve the variance as presented ' Outcome: failed (No: 4; Abstain: 1; Yes: 0).