PC 092816 - Laserfiche WebLink

clear that the compromise was, we need to have two buildings so let's break it up into a set of two buildings that complemented each other. So one building can conceal the drive -thru and can the other building touch on Owens Drive. So that's how we got here. Mr. Mash's preference really was to do a singular building, but we agree that considering what staff would like to see and what they felt they could support, this site plan made sense. So I can kind of walk you through all of this. In fact, one of the recent meetings we had that included all of us included Jennifer before she went on leave, Adam, the Traffic Engineering Division, and Starbucks. We talked about the queueing at length and Starbucks' queueing requirement was seven cars, and the traffic report said 12 cars and our site plan at that time had 10 cars. We didn't have quite this configuration so Jack, the reference that you made to the other facility for Starbucks led Starbucks to say, okay, we need to get at least another car in there and what we're going to have to do is extend that end of Starbucks and give us greater length. And, one of the compromises we needed to make and as you all know because you've reviewed a lot of retail projects— there's kind of a preferred depth of retail spaces and typically it's 50 feet. It can go as high as 65. We'd hate to go any deeper than that, but similarly you'd hate to go too shallow so our Building B created by the extension of Building A to get more queueing shrunk from 50 feet in depth to 38 feet and we agreed to do that because we needed to come much closer to that 12 car queueing requirement. I had a discussion today with Adam about the agreement that I felt that we had as a result of one of the recent meetings where we had the 10 cars and the traffic report said 12 cars, and it was our understanding that if we could get one more car —if we could get to the 11th car —than that would be an acceptable solution because it's not a perfect size. It could be 13, it could be 12, it could be 11. We were at 10 and we were able to modify the site plan. It took a lot of effort to manipulate all of the different pieces and make sure we were satisfying the accessibility requirements and the distribution. At one time we had the two handicapped cars for accessible parking spaces located in front of Building A, but the request was made, can you get one car related to each building, and so we were able to do that. So, we're very hopeful because you know we're kind of up against the wall. That 12th car; the comment was made well, can we make Building B shallower. Well, we really can't. We really can't take another 20 feet for that 12th car out of the depth of Building B because then we're looking at a building's that probably 20 feet deep or we have to severely carve into the corner of the building. We feel that what we're presenting tonight, what we're showing you, looking for your feedback is a solution that makes sense. It's reflective of our substantial efforts to reach that 12 car requirement even though we're one car short. So we're open to discussion about that issue. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have on the architecture too. Commissioner Balch: Those are canvas awnings? Grant: Those are canvas. Commissioner Balch: Okay and how far do those project out? Are they for the sun or are they actually for rain protection as well? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 28, 2016 Page 20 of 32