Request for Site Plan Approval for a McDonald's Located on Lot 4 Block 1 COR TWO; Case of McDonald's USA LLC

The City has received an application for Site Plan review for a proposed 4,600 square foot restaurant located in the COR-2b Subdistrict. The proposed building is a single tenant space located at the southeast corner of Sunwood Drive and Armstrong Blvd NW, adjacent to the recently approved Super America site. The proposal includes a drive-thru and the applicant has requested to utilize and operate electronic speaker devices associated with the drive-thru twenty-four (24) hours per day.  A conditional use permit was also being processed concurrently with the site plan review due to the twenty-four (24) hour drive-thru component; however, at the January 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, a Public Hearing was held for an ordinance amendment relating to drive-thru uses in the COR-2b Sub-District and the Planning Commission recommended that twenty-four (24) hour drive-thrus in conjunction with permitted and conditional uses be a permitted use.  

A public hearing is not required for the site plan review. However, in accordance with State Statute and City Code, Staff attempted to notify all property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the Public Hearing for the conditional use permit via Standard US Mail. A Notice of Public Hearing was also published in the Anoka County Union.

The site is approximately 1.36 acres in size and is located in the COR-2b Sub-District. Within this Sub-District, up to two (2) drive-thru lanes are allowed in conjunction with permitted and conditional uses and the proposed restaurant is a permitted use.  The proposal indicates two 'ordering' lanes along the north wall of the building that ultimately merge into a single lane for payment and receipt of food.

When reviewing bulk standards such as setbacks, orientation, and sizes, three factors are used to determine the appropriate standard for site plan review in The COR:
1.Sub-District Boundary
2.Street Classification/Hierarchy
3.The Development Plan as approved by Ordinance (modified form-based code)

The idea behind this review is that the surrounding built-environment is an important aspect of the design of a site. Most standards can be described using the street classification (as defined by the Design Framework) within individual Sub-Districts. For those circumstances where unique built-environment factors (such as larger roadways, broader design constraints), the Development Plan as approved by Ordinance provides the City a tool to address unique sites where the traditional build-to scenario proposes larger challenges or does not fit the surrounding built-environment.

The building orientation, as presented, appears to be oriented in such a way that the traditional 'front' faces the southern property boundary. The rear of the building, as well as the two (2) drive-thru lanes, faces Sunwood Drive. There is, however, an additional entrance along the east wall of the building facing the private drive, which could be described as the main entrance. The proposed configuration is not the traditional build-to standard found in other areas of The COR or as outlined in the Design Framework.  But, at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated that the proposed layout is a result of the fact that approximately seventy percent (70%) of McDonald's business is generated by drive-thru traffic and this configuration minimizes potential conflicts with pedestrians and drive-thru traffic. 

The COR-2b Sub-District is intended to allow for more traditional, auto-oriented retail development. Coupled with the diminished pedestrian 'feel', due to the realigned Sunwood Drive, which now has six (6) lanes of roadway, and the setbacks (as shown in the approved Development Plan 6.1) for the parcels north of Sunwood Drive (also zoned COR-2b), where the 'big box' retail will be located, it seems reasonable to defer to some of the standards within the General Business zoning district. This alternative is permissible per City Code Section 117-118 (f), which states that provisions from Article II Division 3 (Zoning Districts) may be utilized when determined by the City to be better suited to address an aspect of a development proposal.  Additionally, the current Development Plan (6.1) conflicts with language in the Design Framework related to location of drive-thrus in the COR-2b Sub-District.  Thus, the Planning Commission has also recommended that the restriction for drive-thru location within the COR-2b Sub-District be eliminated.

As outlined in the Development Framework, at least forty percent (40%) of the building facade should be within the build-to area (thirty-five [35] feet due to it being bounded on the west by an Arterial Street). However, the Design Framework provides some flexibility by allowing for landscaping, decorative fencing and other certain features to be used to create the street edge. The proposal does include additional shrubbery and decorative fencing in sections along the Sunwood Drive frontage to better frame the site edge. The submittal indicates that forty-two percent (42%) of the street frontage will be lined with decorative fencing and shrubbery. The fencing will match the fencing approved for the site to the east (Super America).

The exterior finish of the building will consist of facebrick, brick accent bands, dryvit accents (EIFS), corrugated metal panels, clear, tempered glass, two (2) roof cap accent elements and an aluminum trellis. The Applicant has submitted revised elevations and three-dimensional renderings that have incorporated windows into the north wall (facing Sunwood Drive) and removed the two (2) down spouts.

The submittal indicates a total of fifty-one (51) parking stalls being provided, which includes three (3) handicap stalls. The Design Framework bases the minimum and maximum parking stalls for restaurants on the number of seats, with a minimum of one (1) parking stall per every two (2) seats and a maximum of one (1) parking stall for every one (1) seat. Staff has requested a seating plan in order to verify whether the off-street parking spaces provided falls within this range.

The grading/drainage, utilities and landscaping plans are generally acceptable with the requested revisions outlined in the Technical Reports. It should be noted that the existing utilities referenced on the plans are not in place at this time. Any connections will need to be coordinated with the City's Engineering Department.

The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings at their January 3, 2013 meeting related either directly or indirectly to this request. The first hearing was for an ordinance amendment related to twenty-four (24) hour operation of drive-thrus and drive-thru location within the COR-2b Sub-District.  The second hearing related to a conditional use permit for the McDonald's to operate a drive-thru twenty-four (24) hours per day.

Alternative Action Options:

1. Deny the request.  After review by City Staff and the Planning Commission, the principal tenants of the request all appear to conform with the Zoning Code, Design Framework and/or Development Plan 6.1 and therefore, this option does not seem desirable.
2. Request additional information/exhibit(s) from the Applicant demonstrating alternative building/drive-thru layouts.  This would provide additional information as to why alternative building orientations, which front Sunwood Drive or the private drive, aren't feasible.  This would not necessary required a 'build-to' scenario be explored, in which the building would be placed close to the street, yet a simple rotation of the building centered on its current proposed location. The Applicant communicated to the Planning Commission that the proposed layout would minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and drive-thru traffic.  The Applicant stressed the importance of this because roughly seventy percent (70%) of their business comes via the drive-thru.  After understanding that the proposed layout is intended to safeguard pedestrians within the parking area to the maximum extent possible, the Planning Commission was satisfied and did not believe additional information/exhibits were needed.
3. Approve the Site Plan as submitted.  The COR TWO plat was designed to act more as a campus-like setting, with the buildings facing the interior of the site, along the private drive. Also, the intent of the COR-2b Sub-District was to allow more traditional, auto-oriented uses, which seems more appropriate now with the realigned Sunwood Drive. This site is now bounded by six (6) lanes of roadway to the north and six (6) lanes of roadway to the west, which diminishes the pedestrian 'feel' somewhat. The Planning Commission initially questioned the building/drive-thru layout related to the Design Framework, but as previously noted, after understanding that this layout was a result of reduced conflict points between pedestrians and drive-thru traffic, the Planning Commission was satisfied with the current configuration.  Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommended that twenty-four (24) hour drive-thrus be permitted outright in the COR-2b Sub-District and directed City Staff to draft an ordinance amendment to reflect this.
4. Approve the Site Plan but require a Conditional Use Permit for twenty-four (24) hour operation of electronic speaker devices associated with the drive-thru.  As with alternative #3, this option requires an ordinance amendment to allow the use of electronic speaker devices outside the hours of 7:00am and 10pm.  The Planning Commission did not believe this scenario made much sense considering that the use is in a primarily commercial Sub-District and would not have negative impacts on surrounding commercial uses.

The Planning Commission recommended that the Site Plan be approved as proposed (including twenty-four [24] hour operation of electronic speaker devices associated with the drive-thru), contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter dated December 28, 2012. 

All cost associated with processing the application are the responsibility of the Applicant.

Motion to adopt findings of fact favorable to the applicant and to approve the proposed site plan, contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter dated December 28, 2012, revised January 18, 2013, and upon review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney.