The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a conditional use permit allowing a drive‑through banking facility at 310 Nifong Boulevard, forwarding the recommendation to City Council.

Staff told the commission the 2.31‑acre site lies at the southeast corner of Nifong Boulevard and Bethel Street and that the application meets the Unified Development Code (UDC) criteria for a drive‑through in the MN (mixed neighborhood) district. Planning staff recommended approval of the CUP, noting the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC evaluation criteria in Section 29‑6.4 M(2).

The proposal calls for a two‑story banking center with a three‑lane drive‑through on the east side of the lot, access from a private drive at Nifong and from Bethel Street, and landscaping and buffering shown on the submitted plans. Planning staff said the Nifong access is restricted to right‑in/right‑out by a center median; the Bethel intersection provides full access. The site plan shows stacking spaces that meet the UDC requirement.

Matthew Crudy, the project civil engineer with Engineering Surveys and Services, said the bank’s peak‑hour generation is “about 270 vehicles,” and that the full traffic study had forecasted roughly 1,200 vehicles for the broader study area. Crudy also described existing sidewalks, a planned sidewalk on the private drive, and utility connections to serve the site.

Staff emphasized that building design standards such as street‑facing transparency, wall plane and roof articulation are typically addressed at building plan review and that no variances were requested with this CUP. The UDC use‑specific standards for drive‑throughs (cited by staff as Section 29‑3.3 jj) and the design guidelines (Section 29‑4.6 c) apply to the development.

Commissioner Stanton moved to approve the requested CUP; Commissioner Gray seconded. The roll call was unanimous in favor: Commissioner Darr (yes); Commissioner Galway Jones (yes); Commissioner Gray (yes); Commissioner Stanton (yes); Commissioner Stockton (yes); Commissioner Brodsky (yes). The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for final action.

The commission record shows standard public notice was sent (164 postcards and subsequent mailings) and that staff and the applicant concluded there are no outstanding utility or infrastructure constraints that would prevent development. The recommendation notes traffic and circulation as the principal impacts and relies on the right‑in/right‑out and on‑site stacking to mitigate conflicts.

The commission’s action was procedural: it forwarded a recommendation to City Council; no building permits or design approvals were granted at the meeting.