Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Drive Through topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
7 Brew seeks variances for drive-through at 3800 S. Reed; board questions parking and traffic
Summary
Applicant for a 7 Brew outparcel at 3800 South Reed asked the board for variances on minimum floor area, impervious surface and a drive-through facing public streets. Staff recommended approval but board members and residents raised questions about parking counts, ingress/egress and potential traffic impacts; the transcript does not clearly record the final vote.
Bill Terry, an engineer representing 7 Brew, presented case P02V26 seeking multiple variances for an outparcel at 3800 South Reed Road, including a reduced main-floor area (138 square feet variance cited in the petition), an increase in allowed impervious surface and permission for a drive-through that would front two streets within the CCOL overlay.
Terry said the parcel configuration and a landlord-set boundary for the outparcel limit placement and size, and argued the variances are necessary so the outparcel can be developed. He noted the proposed redevelopment would add green space and, as presented to staff, would reduce overall impervious surface versus existing conditions. "This will allow the 7 Brew to operate normally and as well as the shopping center that abuts this outparcel," he said.
Staff recommended approval, saying the requested changes would not create safety hazards or encroach on easements. Board members pressed on parking calculations and the location of vehicle access: the transcript includes discussion of 12 on-site parking spaces, a revised count to 14 based on landlord constraints and concern about traffic patterns into Southway Boulevard and near an existing Dollar Tree. City engineering was referenced as preferring not to add new ingress points onto the roadway; staff said traffic and site-plan issues will be addressed during subsequent site-plan approvals.
The transcript shows a motion to approve the case was made earlier in the hearing, but the record in the provided transcript does not include a clear statement of the vote outcome for P02V26. The Board did take a separate motion to adjourn later in the meeting and adjourned by voice vote.
