McCall could get a new 4,424 square foot Maverik gas station and convenience store, just a few blocks away from the current location.
The Salt Lake City-based chain asked McCall’s Planing & Zoning Commission to approve the new project at 400 N. Third St. at the corner of Colorado St.
The new station would replace the current location at 622 N. Third St. The much larger gas station would have 10 fuel stations, a convenience store and 29 parking spaces.
If the city approves the project, Maverik would need to add a sidewalk along Third Street. Construction crews would tear down four vacant buildings on the site.
Maverik pitched the project Tuesday during a McCall Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Several commissioners pointed out that Maverik must meet the city’s 12-point criteria to receive a conditional use permit.
In Maverik’s application, it worked to address each point by saying the new project reaches the requirements outlined by the city.
Public expresses opposition
Members of the public, and P&Z commissioners questioned if the project met a requirement around design, appearance and cohesion with the surrounding area.
“Maverik’s proposal is in line with the existing neighborhoods characteristics both in building design and uses that serve traveling tourism,” Maverick rep Erik Anderson wrote. “Consistent with surrounding community commercial which includes restaurants, and hotels south/east of the proposed site. Maverik’s gas station and convenience store are aesthetically sharp and clean with a rustic flare.”
Citizens of McCall and commissioners said they disagreed with Anderson.
“I believe the building as presented… I look at it as an insult… I’m really surprised that they proposed that for this site in McCall,” McCall Planning & Zoning Commission Impact Area Representative Steve Clement said. “To me, that was a tremendous oversight and lack of common sense and judgment. A red canopy trim, are you serious?… The customer will know the Maverik station is there you don’t need to make it quite so obvious.”
All of the members of the public who testified, or had their comments read by the planning & zoning commission, were against the proposal.
Planning & Zoning did not vote on the proposal and said they may take action at a later meeting.