Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-04 Staff Comments C-C Received 11-12-04 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd ¡ olferi di!t \ IDAHO ~, CITY HALL (20B) BBB-4433 - Fax BB7-4B 13 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (20B) BB7-2211- Fax B9B-9551 CITY COUNCILMEMEERS Keith Bird Christine Donnell Shaun Wardle Charles M. Rountree LEGAL DEPARTMENT (20B) 466-9272 - FAX 466-4405 MEMORANDUM: Hearing Date: November 16, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council RECEIVED NOV I 2 2004 From: Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner Anna Borchers Canning, Planning Director City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Subject: Miscellaneous Application Request for a Reduction in Platting Requirements to Divide a 12.74Acre Parcel into Two Parcels (Ml-04-01S) at 1127 E. Pine Ave. by Montague-Sauriol, LLC. Staff has reviewed the above referenced submittal and offers the following comments. APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Montague-Sauriol, LLC, has submitted a Miscellaneous Application (MI) requesting a reduction in platting requirements to divide a 12.74 acre parcel into two parcels. The subject parcel is zoned I-L (Light Industrial) and is not part of a recorded subdivision. The subject property is located at 1127 E. Pine Ave., on the south side of E. Pine Ave., approximately ~ mile wI!! of N. Locust Grove Road. The owner of the property is Montague-Sauriol, LLC and Charles Roy Montague, as a registered agent, has provided notarized consent for the division of this property. Staff has received a Record of Survey showing how the parcel will be divided. The parcel is located in an I-L zone, which has no minimum lot area or street frontage requirements. Any future development must comply with MCC 11-9-1 regarding building setbacks, lot coverage, and height restrictions. In June, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Department established a new policy and procedure regarding re-subdivisions. This decision was based on MCC 12-3-1.B. which states the following: Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 9, 2004 Page 2 of 4 Re-Subdivision: Notwithstanding the definition of "subdivision" contained in Section 11-2-2 of this Code, where an applicant desires to subdivide an existing lot which is located in an existing subdivision which has been previously recorded and the required improvements made thereon, he may do so without going through the entire platting procedure required by this Title. He shall, however, submit an application for re- subdivision showing the existing lot and how the lot is proposed to be re-subdivided. The City shall then determine what. requirements of this Title shall be complied with by the applicant. The City may require full compliance if deemed necessary. The provisions of this subsection pertaining to the reduction in platting requirements of certain parcels may apply to previously unplatted and unsubdivided ground upon application to the City Council. (Ord. 456, 9-3-1985) The Planning Director, City Engineer, and City Attorney determined that this ordinance allows property owners to request a re-subdivision of property if the proposed division meets the following criteria: 1. If the property is within a recorded subdivision, a Lot Line Adjustment application must be submitted and may be approved at staff level. If the property is unplatted, a Miscellaneous application must be submitted and heard by the City Council. If the Miscellaneous application is approved by City Council, a Lot Line Adjustment application must be submitted. For either platted or unplatted land, the applicant must provide drawings that show a) the existing parcel and the proposed split, b) any and all existing and proposed improvements within or adjoining the property, c) proposed sewer connection and profiles, and d) any other information deemed as appropriate or necessary by the City Engineer and/or Planning Director. Both parcels that result from the split must meet the minimum yard requirements of the applicable zone per MCC 11-9-1. Applications for re-subdivisions of property will only be considered for property zoned as commercial and/or indnstrial. Residentially zoned land is not eligible. Properties would be limited to a one-time split under these provisions. Platting requirements for condominium plats may also be considered under these provisions where the condominium plat only affects ownership and does not result in additional development of the property. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. STAFF ANALYSIS Although the applicant meets the above stated requirements for a reduction in platting requirements, in this instance staff believes that full compliance is necessary for several reasons. The first reason relates to circulation. The Comprehensive Plan supports interconnected streets. The property immediately to the west, owned by the Petersons, is landlocked by the Five Mile MI-Q4-015 Montague MI.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 9, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Drain. Future development of the subject property would need to stub Commercial A venue to the Peterson property. This will allow eventual development of the extension of Broadway A venue to Commercial Avenue. On previous applications, the ACHD has required this stub street to the west. The Meridian Development Corporation has submitted a letter asking that this development go through the full platting procedures in order to extend Commercial Ave. Staff feels that there should also be a connection between Commercial Ave. and Pine Ave. Road dedications must be approved by the ACHD district, and the method of obtaining that approval is through the subdivision process. If the application were to go through the full platting requirements, the ACHD would also obtain the full ROW required on Pine Ave. The second reason is that staff has some question as to whether this property should be eligible for a reduction in platting requirements. The original parcel of record included the subject property as well as the property platted as Railroad Park Subdivision. The subject property should have been included in that subdivision but staff did not require it at that time. Council may want to discuss this issue and give staff direction as to whether such properties should be eligible for a reduction in platting requirements. The third reason is that this property is a key transitional property within the surrounding residential and industrial neighborhoods. Ada County intends to acquire the larger piece, and they have discussed a number of uses on the property. During the comprehensive plan update process, this property and others to the west were recognized as being the transition from: industrial properties to the east and south; residential properties to north; and Old Town to the west. For this reason, the area was given a mixed use designation to allow developers a greater flexibility to meet the design challenges associated with these transitions. This is the largest property in the area with the mixed use designation. The challenges regarding this site were evident during hearings on previous applications. The Planning Commission and City Council received public testimony regarding the compatibility from both the residential and industrial uses that neighbor the property. The fourth reason is that the entire property is within the Five Mile Creek 100-year floodplain; a portion of the property is also within the floodway. Going through the platting process will give staff an opportunity to evaluate impacts related to FEMA issues and to place notes regarding the floodplain on the final plat. The fifth reason is that the Comprehensive Plan denotes multi-use pathways along the Five-Mile and along the rail corridor. The pathway for the rail corridor is assumed to be constructed at the northern edge of the rail road right-of-way. Staff has typically required adjoining property owners to provide the required five-foot landscape buffer. Finally, the Fire Marshall, Joe Silva, has expressed concerns about the water supply system. Fire flows can be an issue in this area. He would like to see a loop water line connection to improve fire flows. MI-O4-015 Montague MI.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 9, 2004 Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION As stated previously, staff is strongly recommending that the Council deny this request and that this property go through the full platting requirement process. MI-O4-015 Montague MI.doc