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.