Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 2013 6:30 PM - Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Mitch Adams, Josh Kippenberger, Doug Chambers, Pat Baer, Jack Hezlep, Shawn Riley, Dennis Poteete, Kathy Wills MEMBERS ABSENT: Gunter Hansen, Herman Hicks CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner, Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Approve Minutes of Thursday, August 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Josh Kippenberger VOTE: 8-0-0 Passed PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED MEETING DATE: September 5, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 DESCRIPTION: Site Plan Review – McDonald’s Remodel GENERAL LOCATION: 610 N Rock Road APPLICANT: McDonald’s Corporation AGENT: Nikki Nelson, Reprise Design REASON FOR REQUEST: Remodel of existing building including façade renovations, ADA improvements and addition of a second drive-thru lane BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  This site is located generally east of Rock Road near the intersection of Rock Road and Madison Avenue.  This site includes all of Lot 2, Block 1, of the Bristol Square Addition to Derby.  This property is zoned B-3 “General Business District”. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 10   The existing restaurant facility was originally approved as an outright permitted use and will continue as a restaurant under the existing B-3 zoning.  Site plan approval is required for all new developments as well as major alterations to existing structures or sites when the cost of the building improvements exceeds 50% of the current County appraised value of the structure or site.  Estimates received from the applicant were above the 50% threshold, thus triggering the requirement for site plan review.  In site plan reviews involving major remodels, the Planning Commission has the authority to enforce the full effect of the zoning requirements, or at the Planning Commission’s discretion, may elect to approve less than the minimum requirements where it is deemed to be appropriate. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Legal Description. The legal description of the site is Lot 2, Block 1, Bristol Square Addition, Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas and is shown as such on the plan sheets. 2. Building Setbacks. The existing building as well as the proposed modifications and the drive thru lanes meet all setback requirements for the B-3 district. 3. Easements. There are 30 foot and 50 foot pipeline easements in favor of Cities Service Gas (now Southern Star), both of which are located generally along the east property line of the subject lot. The west edge of the 50 foot pipeline easement coincides with the 35 foot building setback line (except near the southern boundary line where the setback line angles to the east slightly). There is also a 10 foot utility easement parallel to the east property line and extends the full width of the lot. This 10 foot easement is only a portion of a larger easement which extends to Madison Avenue to the south and contains a sanitary sewer line serving Lots 1-5, Block 1 of the commercial development. All recorded easements appear to be in the correct locations on the site plan and proposed improvements do not encroach upon any of the recorded easements. 4. Access. Complete access control exists along the west property line of the subject property. Access to the site is gained through recorded joint access easements which are identified on the site plans. One such joint access easement is adjacent to the north property line providing access via Rock Road. The second access easement provides a connection from the southeast corner of the site to Madison Avenue. These existing access points adequately serve the site and no modifications are proposed. 5. Streets. This site has access to Rock Road and Madison Avenue via joint access easements. Both streets are sufficient to provide access to the site and no street improvements are required. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 10 6. Circulation Aisles. The minimum aisle width for one way aisles with 60-degree angled parking is 17 feet. Existing circulation aisles provide a width of 18 feet which fulfills the requirement. The modified parking area on the south side also provides 18 feet between the back of the parking spaces and the drive thru lane, meeting the required aisle width. On the east side of the site, the proposed addition of a second drive thru lane would cause the existing parking to be replaced with an 18 foot circulation aisle. This width is not sufficient to accommodate two-way traffic. If the additional drive thru lane is allowed as proposed, signs denoting “One Way” and “Do Not Enter” shall be provided on the south and north ends of this aisle, respectively. All signing and pavement marking are to be installed and maintained in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The drive thru lanes are 10 feet wide where separated from the access aisle by a striped pavement marking, and 12 feet wide when separated using a median island with curb. Both widths should be sufficient to accommodate the one way traffic. The plans show that the drive thru lanes will be marked with identifying labels and directional arrows using pavement markings. The applicant shall be prepared to explain if existing directional signage will remain or if updated directional signs are proposed. Appropriate directional signage may be required at the discretion of the Planning Commission (directional signs may be a maximum of 6 square feet in size). The applicant shall be prepared to demonstrate where delivery trucks will gain access to the site and where trucks will be parked for deliveries. The applicant shall verify that there is sufficient width to accommodate the turning movements of delivery trucks. 7. Parking. One parking space is required for each 3 occupants. Parking calculations shown on Sheet C-1 indicate that 53 parking spaces are required. The existing parking lot arrangement currently provides 42 available parking spaces which is less than the minimum required. The proposed addition of a second drive thru lane would further reduce the available parking to a proposed 31 spaces as shown on the site plan. Staff recommends that the number of required parking spaces should not be allowed to be reduced without first obtaining an executed and recorded cross-lot access and parking agreement with the owner of the adjacent parking lot to the east. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may elect to deny the reduction of available parking spaces, may approve the reduction in parking subject to a recorded cross-lot access and parking agreement, or may reduce the required parking with no conditions. Existing parking spaces are 9 feet wide and 19 feet in length which meets or exceeds the minimum required dimensions. Parking spaces along the south lot line are proposed to be remarked with dimensions of 9 feet wide by 20.75 feet in length, which also exceeds the minimum requirements. All existing parking spaces shall be restriped as necessary. Restaurants equipped with a drive-thru facility are required to have at least 5 vehicle stacking spaces as measured from the order box. Since two drive-thru lanes are proposed, the required stacking spaces may be split between the two. From the order box locations identified on the site plan, there are sufficient stacking spaces provided to DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 10 meet the requirement. If the addition of the second drive thru lane is denied, there would still be sufficient space to accommodate the 5 vehicle stacking spaces from the location of the existing order box. 8. ADA. ADA regulations require lots with 26 to 50 parking spaces to provide 2 handicapped accessible spaces. 2 are currently proposed which would fulfill this requirement, provided that the total number of parking spaces remains within the specified range. Because there is not sufficient space on site to exceed 50 parking spaces, it is assumed that 2 ADA spaces will be the maximum required. The building official has approved the location for the handicap parking stalls, which are shown near the building entrance. At least 1 of the ADA spaces must be van accessible. The current edition of ADA Standards for Accessible Design allows that a van accessible space may be a minimum of 8 feet wide only if the adjacent accessible aisle is a minimum width of 8 feet. The proposed arrangement meets this requirement. However, the ADA guidelines also specify that when van accessible spaces are angled, the van accessible space should be situated with the accessible aisle on the passenger side of the van (Section 502.3.9). The space to the east of the accessible aisle shall be marked “van accessible” in accordance with ADA regulations for such signage. Sheet C-3.2 provides spot elevations for the areas that must be ADA compliant. All elevations shown appear to be within the maximum slope tolerances, including level pads and ramps. Details are also provided on subsequent pages providing specifications for ADA ramps, accessible routes and signage. All appear to meet the applicable ADA requirements. A note shall be added to the plans that states “Where discrepancies exist between the approved plans and the minimum requirements to meet ADA, the more stringent of the two will prevail, as determined by the City of Derby.” ADA requirements do not specify a particular method for marking a crosswalk between the accessible aisle and the accessible entrance; however, it is still a part of the accessible route, and therefore staff is recommending that the two crosswalks be marked with diagonal stripes in the same manner as the accessible aisle to discourage vehicles from stopping and blocking the entrance ramps. The existing pavement marking for the crosswalk provides the diagonal striping. A design criteria requirement for buildings is to design or position entrances/exits to minimize possible safety conflicts between persons using such entrances/exits and vehicular traffic. This can be accomplished by employing the use of guardrails or similar barriers, landscaping or alternative sidewalk alignments. The doorway on the north side of the building already has an acceptable guardrail to fulfill this purpose. Similar guardrail treatment shall be installed at each public entrance/exit to the building. All guardrails shall be installed in accordance with applicable building codes and regulations. As a result of this requirement, the accessible route to the entrance/exit on the south side of the building would become obstructed by the guardrail. The landing and sidewalk ramp shall be redesigned to provide the required guardrail and maintain compliance with all ADA standards. The final design shall be coordinated with and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 9. Signage. Signage plans were not submitted with the plan set. Locations for order boards and “presell” boards are marked on the site plan. It is assumed that the wall DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 10 signs on the building will be replaced or relocated in conjunction with the exterior building improvements. The applicant is advised that a separate City of Derby sign permit is required prior to installation of any new signs or relocation of existing signs. Sign installation requires inspection. The existing ground sign is outside the construction limits identified on the site plans and the applicant has indicated that the existing ground sign will not be modified. The applicant is advised that should any modifications be made to the existing ground sign, the changes must be made in accordance with applicable City of Derby sign regulations following approval of a separate City of Derby sign permit. 10. Site Lighting. A site lighting plan was not provided. Site lighting includes wall- mounted lights. The locations of wall sconces are shown on the building elevations. The applicant shall be prepared to explain any other existing/proposed on-site lighting and shall provide additional site lighting information as required. 11. Landscape/Screening and Buffering. Landscaped Street Yard. A landscaped street yard is required on all sides of a lot abutting a public street. In this case, the site has frontage only along Rock Road. The required width of the landscaped street yard is determined based upon the depth of the lot. Lots less than 250 feet in depth are required to have a 10 foot wide street yard, as measured from the street right-of-way line. The depth of the subject lot is 244 feet. The distance from the street right-of-way line to the parking lot curb exceeds the minimum requirement. One shade tree is required for every 500 square feet of street yard. Calculations for the area of this street yard (244 ft. x 10 ft. = 2,440 sq. ft. / 500 sq. ft. = 4.88 = 5 shade trees) requires 5 shade trees. When the required landscaped street yard is occupied by utilities which prevent the planting of trees, as is the case in this situation (gas pipelines), required trees may be placed elsewhere on site. While a landscape plan is not provided, existing trees are identified on the site plans. There are a sufficient number of trees provided around the perimeter of the site to fulfill the minimum requirement for the landscaped street yard. Screening/Buffering. None of the properties adjacent to this review area have residential zoning, therefore, screening and/or buffering is not required at this location. Parking Lot Screening/Landscaping. Solid visual screening of parking areas is required where parking lots are adjacent to street frontage. The existing parking lot adjacent to Rock Road requires solid visual screening, which is satisfied by an existing row of shrubs. A sidewalk connection between the site and the existing Hike & Bike Path is proposed which would require removal of a number of shrubs from the row screening the parking lot (see section 14, Pedestrian Access). Staff is supportive of the removal of the minimum number of shrubs possible to achieve this sidewalk connection. If necessary, new shrubs shall be planted to maintain adequate spacing to meet the parking lot screening requirements. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 10 At the date of this report, a number of shrubs appear to be distressed, dead or missing. The applicant shall ensure that all existing shrubs are healthy and trimmed appropriately. Diseased or dead shrubs shall be removed and replaced with healthy shrubs of like kind and any open spaces between existing shrubs shall be filled using shrubs of like kind in order to provide a solid visual screen. Some existing vegetation, including one ornamental tree, along the west side of the building is proposed to be removed to allow for an improved sidewalk alongside the building wall. These plants are not counted toward the minimum requirements for landscaping, and thus their removal is acceptable. The Planning Commission may request additional vegetation around the building or elsewhere on site to replace the plants being removed. Equipment Screening. The existing building has all mechanical equipment mounted on the rooftop and screened by a parapet wall, except for the electric transformer on the ground on the east side of the building. Rooftop mechanical equipment is not shown on the building elevations. The applicant shall be prepared to discuss proposed screening of rooftop units or any ground mounted units not shown in the plans. Trash Receptacle Screening. There are no details included in the site plans which indicate that modifications will be made to the existing trash receptacle enclosure. The applicant shall be prepared to discuss any potential changes to the screening wall, including painting to match the building or other maintenance. The Planning Commission may require the screening wall to match the materials or color of the principal building. Miscellaneous Landscaping Notes. The applicant is reminded that all landscaping is required to be maintained in good condition and that ongoing maintenance includes replacing dead or diseased plants and trees. One redbud near Rock Road has a large portion that has died. This tree shall be pruned appropriately or replaced as necessary. 12. Drainage. The existing conditions on site are graded to direct stormwater into 4 curb inlets which are identified on the site plan. The proposed site improvements will not significantly change the drainage on site and no additional runoff will be generated. The existing stormwater sewer system is sufficient to continue to serve the site. 13. Utilities. Since this project is a remodel, existing private service lines will be maintained. Locations of existing utility service lines and stormwater appurtenances are identified on the site survey. The applicant is advised to locate utilities prior to commencing site work and is responsible for protecting all on site utility lines. Any lines damaged during demolition or construction is the responsibility of the applicant or their designated agents. Derby Fire Department has reviewed and approved the proposed site plans. 14. Pedestrian Access. In accordance with requirements in the Site Plan Design Criteria, a pedestrian connection is required to provide a link between the project and DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 10 adjacent public sidewalks. The proposed design includes a new 5 foot sidewalk link on the east side of the site which will connect to the City Hike & Bike Path along Rock Road. Providing this sidewalk connection requires the conversion of one parking space to a pedestrian access aisle and the removal of several shrubs currently required for parking lot screening. Staff is supportive of the reduction of this one parking space and removal of the shrubs in order to provide the sidewalk connection. Shrubs shall be maintained or replaced as described in section 11, Landscaping/Screening and Buffering. 15. No Smoking. In accordance with Derby’s ordinance banning smoking in public places and places of employment, the applicant shall ensure that “No Smoking” signs are posted and a 20’ smoke free zone established at all entrances to the facility. 16. Design Standards. Elevations for all 4 sides of the building are shown on plan sheets A-2.0 and A-2.1 with the types of materials noted. The key notes provide greater detail for building components, materials and colors. The building elevations note that the freezer will be painted to match the color of the EIFS and brick. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may consider additional design elements which may add to the aesthetics of large expanses of blank walls or other features. 17. Miscellaneous. General notes on sheet C-1 referring to the “city department of public works/bureau of engineering/construction inspection division” shall be changed to “City of Derby Planning & Engineering Department.” Notes on sheet C-3.2 referring to the “highway department” shall be changed to “City of Derby.” Detail 1 on sheet D-1 calls for a Kansas City concrete mix with granite aggregate. This may need to be changed as it would likely be difficult to come by in Derby. All signing and pavement markings shall comply with the most recent edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). REVISED PLANS: Following Planning Commission approval, the applicant shall make necessary revisions to the Site Plan documents to incorporate all corrections or comments and submit 3 revised copies to the city. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Site Plan for Lot 2, Block 1, Bristol Square Addition to Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas, subject to staff comments. Attachments: Site Plan DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 10 DISCUSSION: Bird – indicated that the site plan review is a project remodel of the current McDonald’s at 610 N Rock Road, with a façade improvement and addition of a pedestrian sidewalk connection to the existing hike and bike path, as well as the addition of a proposed 2nd drive through lane. Staff was comfortable with the presented plans; however, one concern was noted regarding parking requirements. The parking ordinance requires 53 parking spaces but the proposed finished product has a reduction of 22 spaces. There are currently 42 parking spaces on site that had been approved with the original site plan review. Bird mentioned that there were other items in the staff report that could be discussed if warranted by the Planning Commission. Bird indicated that a representative for McDonald’s was also present to answer questions. Hezlep – stated his concern for the reduced parking, navigation through the parking lot, and the south side entrance. Earl Hacker, Black Stone Environmental – answered that there is a one-way loop around the restaurant which requires drivers from the south entrance to take the pass through lane around the restaurant on the east side and circle around to the drive through stacking lanes. Hezlep – expressed that he did not feel there would be enough room to drive through the lot. Hacker – indicated that there was not additional space on the lot to increase the parameters, but that the site was designed in accordance with applicable regulations. Adams – asked what kind of safety measures would be in place if the Planning Commission required cross-lot agreements. Hacker – agreed that cross-lot arrangements would be beneficial, however, he indicated that the process for cross-lot agreements could be lengthy and McDonald’s was ready to construct. He indicated that the owner of the restaurant is comfortable with the number of parking spaces. He said that a parking count study was completed and it revealed that more patrons are utilizing drive through service, reducing the demand for parking spaces. He mentioned that 20% of patrons park to order inside and then leave, rather than wait in the current drive through system. An aerial photograph (date of photo unknown) shows the parking lot partly empty and the drive through lane completely full. Adams – asked if a study had been done with this site to show the parking demand. Hacker – answered no, but that before the meeting, he observed the restaurant activity and counted 17 cars parked and 9 cars stacked in the drive through lane. Hacker mentioned that in some cities where McDonald’s is not in compliance with parking, they have offered bike parking in lieu of vehicle parking, connecting it to the hike and bike path. He indicated that there was not an argument against the city ordinance, but that the restaurant’s business included 75% drive through traffic and parking was not an issue. Riley – asked if the restaurant will continue to have the play area. Hacker – answered that he wasn’t sure since he had not reviewed the architectural drawing. Riley – asked if there was any historical data on the number of patrons who park. Hacker – answered yes, however he did not have the information available. Riley – indicated his concern for reduced parking, siting the number of vehicles that would still need to park (i.e. employees and patrons with children who would use the play area). DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 of 10 Hacker – indicated that previous parking studies had been done during breakfast, lunch and dinner times and proven that additional parking spaces were not needed. Riley – asked if a study had been done for this restaurant. Hacker – answered no. Poteete – asked for staff’s recommendation on parking. Bird – answered that staff’s recommendation was to require a cross-lot parking access agreement. Poteete – asked what that consisted of for McDonald’s. He mentioned that he observed area stores with signs posted for their patrons only to park, and asked what kind of agreement McDonald’s would need to acquire with the business owners. Bird – answered that they would have to reach an agreement with the adjacent property owners and that the easement be recorded with the County Register of Deeds, designating the legal identified area as being available to both McDonald’s and Bristol Square. Adams – asked if the cross-lot agreement could be worked on during McDonald’s remodel. Bird – answered that staff preferred the cross-lot agreement to be completed up front to guarantee accomplishment, but options could be considered for cross-lot agreements to be obtained during the construction of the project. Hacker – indicated that if parking becomes an issue, the owner of McDonald’s would pursue a cross-lot agreement with the other property owners at that time. Kippenberger – indicated that the reduction in parking spaces was not bothersome and didn’t see it as a major problem for the restaurant. Baer – mentioned some potential issues with large group activities that would encumber the parking area and that cross-lot access would be beneficial, but he indicated that the overall changes were good improvements, including the removal of the east side parking stalls. He said that the loss of parking stalls is detrimental, but if it became an issue later, the owner would need to pursue cross-lot access agreements. Baer mentioned that some of the grass area being removed should be replaced with shrubs in the new island. Baer commended the restaurant for addressing ADA issues. Baer – asked for more details on the façade improvements and questioned whether the trash enclosure would maintain a similar appearance as the restaurant. Hacker – indicated that the trash enclosure would match the building’s bricks. The overhang and rough beams will be removed from the restaurant. Poteete – asked about the freezer area. Bird – answered that the plans indicate the freezer is proposed to be painted to match the color of the brick. Poteete – asked about the south exit, indicated on plan sheet C-2. Hacker – answered that it is a freezer door ramp and not ADA accessible. The door to the left of the freezer door is an employee door and is ADA accessible. Poteete – asked if staff felt the pedestrian and accessible markings were adequate. Bird – answered that staff recommend maintaining the existing diagonal striping for the accessible route with a fresh coat of paint. He also mentioned that the existing handicap parking space signs currently have the van accessible space in the appropriate location. Bird – asked Hacker to comment on the hand rail at the accessible entrance. He mentioned that staff recommended a rail in front of the exit to prevent pedestrian traffic from exiting directly into the drive through lane. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 of 10 Hacker – indicated that it would be difficult to place a hand rail at the location proposed due to a downspout, grease interceptor and a clean out for sanitary sewer located in the area. Baer – proposed a few solutions to Hacker that would permit an area for patrons to exit to the left of the door, incorporating a hand rail for safety. Poteete – asked if the Commission felt parking would be adequate without the cross-lot agreements. Kippenberger – answered that he felt it would be adequate. Baer – reiterated if parking became a problem, McDonald’s could address it as needed and that all the proposed improvements would be a positive for the restaurant. Baer – moved to approve the site plan review subject to staff comments contained in the staff report, a handrail/guardrail at the south entrances and additional vegetation and landscaping provided in drive thru island and new landscape areas. MOTION: Pat Baer SECOND: Jack Hezlep VOTE: 7-1-0; Riley voted against COMMUNICATIONS: Bird – let Planning Commission know that an application for a utility easement vacation will be presented at the September 19, 2013 meeting. Baer – indicated that he will be out of town September 19, 2013 and asked Vice- Chairman Hezlep to chair the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Josh Kippenberger SECOND: Mitch Adams VOTE: 8-0-0 Meeting adjourned at 7:12pm Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 of 10