The Board of Zoning Appeals on a 4‑0 vote denied two variance requests from the Chick‑fil‑A property at 2735 South Iowa Street.

Staff liaison Catherine Week told the board the application (BZA‑24‑1007) asked to reduce the CS‑zoning front building setback from 25 feet to 0 feet and to reduce the required 15‑foot parking/landscape buffer to 0 feet. Staff recommended denial after reviewing the five variance criteria in the Land Development Code, concluding the requests were driven by the applicant’s operational desires rather than a unique property hardship.

Why it matters: The city’s setbacks are intended to create a uniform streetscape, predictable sight lines and a landscape buffer between roadways and parking. Staff said those objectives would not be met by the reductions as requested.

During discussion the applicant, Allen Wiley of GBC Design, amended the request for the landscape buffer. Wiley said the proposal would instead extend pavement “about 11 and a half feet into that 15‑foot,” leaving roughly 3.5 feet of the buffer (staff and the applicant later framed it as a request to reduce the landscaped buffer to approximately 3 feet). Wiley said the additional lane and canopy are intended to increase drive‑through capacity and protect employees and customers from weather at the pickup window.

Board members focusing on the variance criteria cited three persistent concerns: the site has operated under the current setbacks for years without the proposed canopy, the hardship described was operational (not a legal or physical constraint created by zoning), and the request would conflict with the Land Development Code’s stated intent to maintain consistent street frontage and landscape buffers. One board member noted neighboring commercial parcels already have pavement near the right of way but said that did not change the code’s stated purposes for Iowa Street.

The board conducted separate votes on the two parts of the request. A motion to deny the front building (canopy) setback reduction carried 4‑0. A second motion to deny the landscape/parking setback reduction from 15 feet to 0 feet also carried 4‑0. Staff recorded a late communication on the item in the packet but the board’s denial followed the staff recommendation.

What comes next: With both variance requests denied, the applicant may choose to revise the design or pursue other administrative options; the record indicates staff told applicants reductions of numerical values can be considered by the board but that use of the public right of way cannot count toward a private landscape buffer.

The board’s action applies only to the specific variance requests before it; no building permits or site plan approvals were granted during the hearing.