Loading...
Findings - CC - 2018 - DR-61-16 MOD - Modify The Building Elevations Of A Multi-Tenant Retail/Restaurant BuildingBEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DESIGN REVIEW TO MODIFY THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS OF A MULTI - TENANT RETAIL/RESTAURANT BUILDING FOR ULTIMATE SEVEN LLC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER DR -61-16 MOD The above -entitled design review application came before the Eagle City Council for their consideration on February 13, 2018. The Council continued the item to February 27, 2018, at which time their decision was made. The Eagle City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; FINDINGS OF FACT: A. PROJECT SUMMARY: Ultimate Seven, represented by Kyle Cooper, is requesting design review approval to modify the building elevations of a multi -tenant retail/restaurant building by removing the trellis structure from over the outdoor patio area on the east building elevation. The 2.08 -acre site is located on the northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and South Bergman Way at 4363 West Gray Fox Street in Reynard Commercial Subdivision. B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: The City of Eagle received the application for this item on November 15, 2017. C. NOTICE OF AGENCIES' REVIEW: N/A D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: On December 16, 2008, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Map and Text amendment changing the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Mixed Use and Professional Office to Commercial for the property located on the northeast corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard (US 20/26). This action also approved an annexation and a rezone with development agreement from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to C -3 -DA (Highway Business District with a Development Agreement) (CPA-5-08/A-03-08/RZ-8-08). On March 9, 2010, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment changing the land use designation from Public/Semi-Public and Transitional Residential to Mixed Use and Comprehensive Plan text amendment associated with the Rim View Planning Area; an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to MU -DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) (CPA-07-08/A-05-08/RZ-11-08). On April 9, 2013, the City Council approved a development agreement modification and preliminary plat for Reynard Subdivision, a 241 -lot (206 buildable, 2 commercial, and 33 common) (RZ-11-08 MOD/PP-05-12). On May 23, 2013, the Design Review Board approved a design review application for the common area landscaping and pool house located within Reynard Subdivision (DR -14-13). On May 23, 2013, the Design Review Board approved a design review application for monument Page 1 of 8 K:\1'lammng Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-61-16 MOD Multi -ten Retail -Restaurant Bldg remosal of trellis ccl.docx signage for Reynard Subdivision (DR -15-13). On July 23, 2013, the City Council approved the final plat for Reynard Subdivision No. 1 for M3, Companies (FP -08-13). On April 17, 2014, the Reynard Subdivision No. 1 final plat was recorded at the Ada County Recorder's office. On July 23, 2013, the City Council approved the final plat for Reynard Subdivision No. 2 for M3, Companies (FP -09-13). On April 18, 2014, the Reynard Subdivision No. 2 final plat was recorded at the Ada County Recorder's office. On September 9, 2014, the City Council approved the final plat for Reynard Subdivision No. 3 for M3 Companies (FP -06-14). On December 22, 2014, the Reynard Subdivision No. 3 final plat was recorded at the Ada County Recorder's office. On September 9, 2014, the City Council approved the final plat for Reynard Subdivision No. 4 for M3 Companies (FP -12-14). On December 24, 2014, the Reynard Subdivision No. 4 final plat was recorded at the Ada County Recorder's office. On December 16, 2014, the City Council approved the final plat for Reynard Subdivision No. 5 for M3, Companies (FP -06-14). On October 15, 2015, the Reynard Subdivision No. 5 final plat was recorded at the Ada County Recorder's office. On January 27, 2015, the City Council approved the final plat for Reynard Subdivision No. 6 for M3, Companies (FP -20-14). On October 22, 2015, the Reynard Subdivision No. 6 final plat was recorded at the Ada County Recorder's office. On May 10, 2016, the City Council approved a final plat for Reynard Commercial Subdivision for M3, Companies (FP -05-16). On November 10, 2016, the Eagle Design Review Board approved a design review application for a multi -tenant retail/restaurant building with drive-through (DR -61-16). On November 10, 2016, the Eagle Design Review Board approved a design review application for a master sign plan for a multi -tenant retail/restaurant building, including building wall, menu board, and directional signage for Costa Vida (DR -62-16). E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: None. Page 2 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\I)r\2OI6\DR-6l-I6 MOD Multi -ten Retail -Restaurant Bldg removal of trellis cd.docx F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS: Existing Proposed North of site South of site East of site West of site COMP PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION DESIGNATION MU -DA (Mixed Use with Development Agreement) No change MU -DA (Mixed Use with Development Agreement) RUT (Rural -Urban Transition Ada County designation) MU -DA (Mixed Use with Development Agreement) C -3 -DA (Commercial Mixed Use Highway District with Development Agreement) Mixed Use No change Mixed Use Meridian AOI Mixed Use LAND USE Multi -tenant retail/restaurant building No change Reynard Subdivision No. 1 Vacant Parcels Reynard Subdivision No. 1 Vacant Parcel within Lazy P Subdivision (Eagle Island Marketplace) G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA, CEDA, or DSDA. H. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is being developed with a multi -tenant retail/restaurant building. I. SITE DATA: No change SITE DATA PROPOSED Total Acreage of Site 2.01 -acres (90,909 -square feet) Percentage of Site Devoted 10% (approximately) to Building Coverage Percentage of Site Devoted 50% (approximately) to Landscaping Number of Parking Spaces 72 -parking spaces Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setback 91 -feet (North) 47 -feet (South) 81 -feet (West) Side Setback 92 -feet (East) *Note: Parking required based on 9,502 -square feet being restaurant. J. GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES: No change Number and Uses of Proposed Buildings: REQUIRED 0.11 -acres (5,000 -square feet) (minimum) 50% (maximum) 10% (minimum) 64 -parking spaces (minimum)* 20 -feet (minimum) 20 -feet (minimum) 7.5 -feet (minimum) 7.5 -feet (minimum) The applicant is proposing to construct one (1) building to be utilized as a multi -tenant retail/restaurant facility. Height and Number of Stories of Proposed Buildings: Page 3 of 8 K:U'lammng Dept\logle Applications\DA2016\DR-61-16 MOD Multi -ten Retail -Restaurant Bldg remo%Al of trellis cc! docx The applicant is proposing an approximately twenty-six and one half foot (26 1/2') high single -story structure. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Buildings: The proposed multi -tenant retail/restaurant facility is approximately 9,502 -square feet. On and Off -Site Circulation: A 29,000 -square foot (approximately) paved parking lot provides parking for vehicles using this site. Two 26 -foot wide shared driveways are located on the north property line twenty-seven feet (27') and two hundred thirty-five feet (235') east of the west property line. Both driveways provide access to West Grey Fox Street. K. BUILDING DESIGN FEATURES: No change Roof: Single ply membrane (black) Walls: Stucco (Navajo White, Steady Brown, Whole Wheat), Brick (Brownwood Mill), and Stone (Ledgestone Chablis) Windows/Doors: Aluminum (Dark Bronze) Fascia/Trim: Metal Awnings and Metal Trim (Dark Bronze) L. LANDSCAPING DESIGN: No change Retention of Existing Trees and Preservation Methods: There are existing trees located on the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. With the exception of one (1) 3 -inch caliper pear tree located in the southern portion of the property and two (2) 3 -inch caliper crabapple trees located along the eastern boundary of the site, all existing trees are to be protected and retained. Amenities Tree Replacement Calculations: The applicant is proposing to install three (3) 6' to 7' high Hoopsi Spruce trees, three (3) 2 -inch caliper Columnar Hornbeam trees, and three (3) 2 -inch caliper Royal Red Maple trees. Proposed Tree Mix (Species & Number): To be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Street Trees: Street trees are proposed along West Grey Fox Street. Maintenance Provisions and Proposed Irrigation Methods: Automatic irrigation required. Transition Zones: N/A Parking Lot Landscaping: a. Perimeter Landscaping: Perimeter landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot. b. Interior Landscaping: 10% interior landscaping is required, 10% is proposed. M. TRASH ENCLOSURES: No change One (1) 330 -square foot trash enclosure is proposed to be located near the northeast corner of the site. The enclosure is proposed to be constructed of CMU walls with stucco finish and metal gates; all of which will match the materials and colors used in the construction of the building. N. MECHANICAL UNITS: No change The applicant is proposing to use roof mounted mechanical units. The roof mounted mechanical units are proposed to be screened by screen walls. No ground mounted mechanical units are proposed and none are approved. Page 4 of 8 KAI'lanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-61.16 MOD Multi -ten Retail -Restaurant Bldg remo%al of trellis cct:docx O. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: No change A site and parking lot light plan showing location, height, and wattage is required to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of any building permits. P. SIGNAGE: No change No signs are proposed with this application. On November 10, 2016, the Eagle Design Review Board approved a master sign plan for this multi -tenant retail/restaurant building (DR -62-16). Q. PUBLIC SERVICES AVAILABLE: N/A R. PUBLIC USES PROPOSED: None. S. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists T. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - none Evidence of Erosion - no Fish Habitat - no Floodplain - no Mature Trees - no Riparian Vegetation - no Steep Slopes - no Stream/Creek - no Unique Animal Life - no Unique Plant Life - no Unstable Soils - unknown Wildlife Habitat - no U. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED): Not required. V. AGENCY RESPONSES: N/A W. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date. STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT: A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: None B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: 3.8 Due to the high visibility of Chinden Boulevard, special attention shall be given to the design, configuration and position of the buildings abutting the roadways consistent with Eagle City Code. The side of any buildings facing the roadways shall be provided with architectural design elements and architectural relief, as may be approved by the Eagle Design Review Board. C. ZONING CODE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: • Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-1: GENERAL APPLICABILITY: This article applies to all proposed development located within the design review overlay district which shall include the entire city limits, and any land annexed into the city after the date of adoption hereof. Such development includes, but is not limited to, new commercial, industrial, Page 5 of 8 K:\Plammng DepnLagle Applications\DA2016\DR 61 16 MOD Multi -len Retail -Restaurant Bldg remota) of trellis ccf docx institutional, office, multi -family residential projects, signs, common areas, subdivision signage, proposed conversions, proposed changes in land use and/or building use, exterior remodeling or repainting with a color different than what is existing, exterior restoration, and enlargement or expansion of existing buildings, signs or sites, and requires the submittal of a design review application pursuant to this article and fee as prescribed from time to time by the city council. • Eagle City Code Section 8 -2A -6(A)(6): a. Building Mass: The mass of the building shall be reviewed for its relationship with existing development in the immediate surrounding area and with the allowed use proposed by the applicant; b. Proportion Of Building: The height to width relationship of new structures shall be compatible and consistent with the architectural character of the area and proposed use; c. Relationship Of Openings In The Buildings: Openings in the building shall provide interest through the use of such features as balconies, bays, porches, covered entries, overhead structures, awnings, changes in building facade and roofline alignment, to provide shadow relief. Avoid monotonous flat planes; d. Relationship Of Exterior Materials: The design review board shall determine the appropriateness of materials as they relate to building mass, shadow relief, and existing area development. Use of color to provide blending of materials with the surrounding area and building use, and the functional appropriateness of the proposed building design as it relates to the proposed use shall be considered; and e. Allowed Architectural Styles: The architecture styles provided in the EASD book are approved examples for applicants to follow when designing for Eagle architecture. D. DISCUSSION: • On November 10, 2016, the Eagle Design Review Board approved a design review application for a multi -tenant retail/restaurant building with drive-through on this site (DR -61-16). The site, landscaping, and building are to be constructed as approved with the exception of the trellis that was proposed on the east side of the building. A stand alone trellis was approved to be constructed on the east building elevation over the outdoor patio area. The applicant is requesting approval to have the option to construct the trellis or not. The applicant's justification letter states the trellis was proposed over the patio area to provide shade but as the building has been constructed, they believe the patio will be in the shade most of the day; thus, the need for a trellis for shade is not needed. While the trellis was not attached to the building, it did provide dimension and architectural relief to the east building elevation. Staff defers comment regarding the deletion of the trellis to the Design Review Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE REPORT: Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff recommends approval with the site specific conditions of approval and the standard conditions of approval provided within the staff report. PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD: A. A meeting to consider the application was held before the Design Review Board on January 11, 2018, at which time the Board made their recommendation. B. Oral testimony in opposition to the application was presented to the Design Review Board by no one. C. Oral testimony in favor of the application was presented to the Design Review Board by no one (not including the applicant/representative). Page 6 of 8 K:V'lanntng Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR 61-16 MOD Multi -ten Retail -Restaurant Bldg rcmotal of trellis ccfdocx BOARD DELIBERATION: (Granicus time 27:14) Upon completion of the applicant's and staff's presentations, the Board discussed during deliberation that: • The Board supports the elimination of the trellis if plant material, that will reach varying heights at maturity, is planted in the landscape areas on the south and east sides of the patio area. • The Board affirms a significant piece of architecture is eliminated from the building with the removal of the trellis on the east building elevation. • The Board is in favor of the trellis being built if the applicant decides there is a need to provide shade for the outdoor patio area in the future. BOARD DECISION: The Board voted 6 to 0 (Koci abstained) to recommend approval of DR -61-16 MOD for a design review application to modify the building elevations for a multi -tenant retail/restaurant building to remove the trellis structure over the outdoor patio area for Ultimate Seven, LLC, with the site specific conditions of approval and standard conditions of approval provided within their findings of fact and conclusions of law document, dated January 25, 2018. PUBLIC MEETING OF THE COUNCIL: A. A meeting to consider the application was held before the City Council on February 13, 2018. The Council continued the item to February 27, 2018, at which time the Council made their decision. B. Oral testimony in opposition to the application was presented to the City Council by no one. C. Oral testimony in favor of the application was presented to the City Council by no one (not including the applicant/representative). COUNCIL DECISION: The Council voted 4 to 0 to deny DR -61-16 MOD for a design review application to modify the building elevations of a multi -tenant retail/restaurant building to remove the trellis structure over the outdoor patio area for Ultimate Seven, LLC. See items 2B, 2D, and 2E under conclusions of law for explanation of the decision. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of the design review application (DR -61- 16 MOD) with regard to the Eagle City Code Title 8, Chapter 2, Article A, DR Design Review Overlay District, and affirms (with the inclusion of the trellis on the east side of the building), the design of the building and trellis meet the design requirements set forth in Eagle City Code Section 8 -2A -6(A). 2. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of the proposed design review in terms of Eagle City Code 8-2A-13, "General Standards For Design Review" and has concluded that the proposed design review: A. Will function in conformance with the applicable strategies of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and is in accordance with the regulations of this code since there are no inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan and subdivision landscaping is permitted with the approval of a design review application within the MU -DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) zoning district; B. Is of a scale, intensity, and character that is in harmony with existing conforming and planned development in the vicinity of the site since the proposed trellis is designed to complement the general vicinity and provide aesthetically pleasing architecture to enhance the character of the area; C. Is designed with adequate off street parking facilities in such a way as to not interfere with ingress/egress to the site and will serve the intended use so as to not cause conflict with adjacent Page 7 of 8 K:\Planning Dept \Eagle Applications\DAN 16\DR-61-I6 MOD Multi ten Retail -Restaurant Bldg removal of trellis cet.docx uses as anticipated within the zoning district since the site meets the required parking for retail and restaurant uses and the drive aisles have been design in conformance with Eagle City Code 8-4-5; D. Will not interfere with the visual character, quality, or appearance of the surrounding area and city, and where possible, enhance the continuity of thematically common architectural features since the proposed trellis has been designed with quality materials and similar features utilized on the existing retail/restaurant building and will enhance the character of the area; E. Will have facades, features, and other physical improvements that are designed as a whole, when viewed alone as well as in relationship to surrounding buildings and settings since the proposed trellis has similar features utilized on the existing retail/restaurant building and is in conformance with the Eagle Architecture and Site Design book; F. Will not obstruct views and vistas as they pertain to the urban environment and in relation to artistic considerations since the proposed trellis is in conformance with the required setbacks and height restrictions; G. Will provide safe and convenient access to the property for both vehicles and pedestrians through patterned traffic circulation and connectivity to abutting development; H. Is in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare promoting a pedestrian friendly and walkable environment in balance with protecting a viable residential center in the area; and I. No signs are proposed with this application. All signs, if proposed, will be required to be harmonious with the architectural design of the subdivision, and will not cover or detract from desirable architectural features. DATED this 13th day of March 2018. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE Ada County, Idaho Stan Ridgeway, Mayor ATTEST: Sharon K. Bergmann, Eagle CityJClerk Reconsideration Notice: Applicant has the right, pursuant to Section 67-6535, Idaho Code, to request a reconsideration within fourteen (14) days of the final written decision. Page 8 of 8 K:\Planning Dep61 agle Apphcauons\Dr\2016\DR-61 . 16 MOD Multi. ten Retail -Restaurant Bldg remosal 01 trellis ta.I docx