Loading...
PZ MinutesMcCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: With no modifications? McCarvel: With staff's recommendation. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Second again. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- to approve file number RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: CUP 15-011 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building A by Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of an Existing Drive- Thru Establishment in a C -G Zoning District D. Public Hearing: CUP 15-013 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building B by Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Proposed Drive- Thru Establishment in a C -G Zoning District Yearsley: For the next item we are going to open both of these items at the same time, because they are in close proximity and the same site, but since they are two separate applications we will have to make motions individually for each one of these. So, with that I will open file numbers CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-013, CFT retail drive-thru and let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda this evening will be two conditional use permits for the CFT retail drive-thru Building Pad A and Pad B sites. You can see here on the aerial on your left here that the site is currently zoned C -G within the city and it's surrounded by properties that are zoned C -G as well. Currently there is a Walmart store that it is built northwest of this site and the only other commercial development, as you can see in the aerial, is the commercial development located on the southeast corner. The surrounding properties are currently vacant as well. The applicant is here this evening to discuss constructing two drive-thru uses on the same parcel of ground. Recently the subdivision, which you acted on several months ago, called the Coleman Subdivision, was recorded and this was a lot and block that was approved with that subdivision. Also later -- or in 2008 this property went through a rezone and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for a concept plan for a retail development, which is consistent with the site plan before you this evening. As part of that approval the City Council did approve and record a development agreement, which is also subject to this piece of ground as well, so moving forward they will have to comply with the recorded development agreement as well. The graphics on the left-hand side depicts how this proposed development will interact with the adjacent Walmart store here, so this is the entire 26 acre site or a majority of it here. When the applicant came forward to staff we wanted to make sure how this development would interface with the adjacent property to the west and the Walmart store moving forward. We wanted to insure it was consistent with that concept plan as I mentioned to you with the -- that's required with the recorded development agreement. The applicant was -- also sought and approved -- received approval from the director for an alternative compliance application to allow a majority of the parking between the buildings and the adjacent streets and I will get into that more as I get into the landscaping plan. So, the site plan on the right-hand side is, basically, a zoomed in version of this proposed development. For purposes of the two applications this will -- the pad site -- the western pad site will be known as Pad A and the northern -- I guess the northeast corner will be Pad B. So, the pad site A will consist of an 8,600 square foot multi -tenant building. The end user for the drive-thru use will be a restaurant, which is a permitted use in the C -G zoning district. You can see here that the actual stacking lane comes along the western boundary with an exit lane on the south side of the building. The proposed drive-thru for this portion of the site is consistent with the UDC standards. The pad site B, again, will have a 2,500 square foot building -- at least that's what's depicted this evening. At this time this is merely speculative. The applicant does not have an end user for this building. They merely want to establish the drive-thru use in order to be able to market the pad site and get further interest in having someone locate in conjunction with the restaurant use and the other multi -tenant building. Access to this development was approved -- was approved with not only the Walmart store, but also the Coleman Subdivision. If you go back to the graphic on the west -hand -- or the left-hand side you can see here there is a right -in, right -out only access to Ten Mile along the north boundary of the proposed development and, then, the access road that you see here to McMillan is also a right -in, right -out, which during the review as a commercial subdivision, staff did require a cross -access agreement for this property to use those access points. So, no other access points are approved -- requested or approved with the application before you this evening. The landscape buffers around the perimeter along McMillan and North Ten Mile Road were approved -- reviewed and approved with the Walmart store and subsequently approved with the Coleman Subdivision as well. As I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, the applicant has received alternative compliance in order to modify those buffers. Typically under our design review standards we don't like to have the parking area being the primary focal point along -- adjacent to streets, we want the building to be the primary focal point. The applicant has presented an alternative compliance to enhance the landscape buffer and provide a decorative feature at the entry corner -- or at the intersection, which staff feels does enhance the development and also provides screening from the adjacent Walmart store parking as well. So, I think the applicant's argument states that the building -- having the back of the building and the drive-thru being the predominant feature along the street, in this particular scenario staff feels is probably more prudent to have landscaping and a decorative feature, rather than having the back of a building and the drive-thru use. So, we did side with the applicant -- or the director did find -- make the findings to approve that alternative compliance. Staff has a condition in the staff report that requires that those improvements be put in prior to occupancy of the first drive-thru, the first structure on the site and we would be looking for consistency with those standards as well. As you see here in the upper right-hand corner that's what we envision looking at. As part of that alternative compliance the applicant has also provided additional landscaping within the parking lot to help break up the parking, get some more landscaping in there as well and, then, also they have received alternative compliance to convert two the internal parking items into patio areas for outdoor seating as well and, again, there is a detail of that and it will be brick pavers, which will be consistent not -- with the proposed building materials of the structures. So, here are the two elevations for you this evening. The larger building would be the color rendering and the smaller building was proposed for the speculative site. Proposed building materials consist of stucco, brick, stone, tile and glass, of course. Staff is supportive -- or staff finds that these elevations do comply with the UDC that -- the design guidelines and the Meridian design manual. Moving forward the applicant will have to go through the CZC and design review process with the city before they can get a building permit on the site. The only recommendation to the proposed elevations to you this evening would be along this west elevation or the rear elevation. If you look at the color rendering here you can -- you will note that the applicant has provided a -- a metal banding strip along those elevations and also on the proposed elevations for pad site B. Staff has a recommended condition that that design element be placed along this back building as well. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application. We are not sure if the applicant is in agreement with our staff report, but they are here this evening as well. Staff finds that this site does generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan of commercial designations for this site and complies with the -- as conditioned in the staff report does comply with the requirements of the UDC. I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you might have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Lee: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Crystal Lee from Gary Wang and Associates, 1255 Corporate Center Drive in Monterrey Park, California, and we agree with the staff recommendations. We are in agreement with -- with the minor recommendation -- sorry. With the minor recommendations that they have put on site. We have been working closely with Bill on this site design to make a really nice project that we feel will benefit Meridian and the residents. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No. Thank you. Lee: Thank you. Yearsley: Since there is no one else in the audience to testify, we won't have her come back and -- I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-13. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-013. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? You know, I look at it -- I think they have done a good job. I like alternative compliance with the entry feature. I think that will stand out and I think it will make it look really nice. I like how they have kind of -- with the drive-thrus that they have oriented away from the buildings and into the street side, so I think it will look nice and it looks like it flows well, so I think it looks -- looks really well. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think -- I agree with you completely. I think it's -- I mean it's a commercial use already. The Walmart parking lot is kind of vast and large and I think the features that they have provided give a buffer -- exactly what Bill said. You have a feature that breaks that up. I mean it will kind of -- gives a little bit of a buffer between the giant parking lot that you see as you drive by right now. So, I think it -- I think it's good. It looks nice. Yearsley: Thank you. With that if there is no other comments, I would entertain a motion -- let's start with Item No. CUP 15-011 first. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 15-011 as presented in the staff report for hearing date on June 18th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: So we can go onto the next one. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve file number CUP 15-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2015. And I think we -- do we need this on the first one? Do we need to -- Fitzgerald: Alternative -- Yearsley: I think the alternative -- McCarvel: Staff needs to prepare findings document to be considered -- Yearsley: Yes. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on July 2nd, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number CUP 15-013. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: With that we have one last motion to make. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Yearsley. Fitzgerald: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Wilson: Second.