HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning
Project: Creamline
R_ECEIVED
NOV 2 1 2006
City ofMerldian
City Clerk OfficQ
Location: the north side ofFrllnklin Road, near the northeast comer of Franklin and Linder Roads,
approximately 350 feet east of Under Road.
Applications: annexation and zoning and preliminary plat
Highlights of Proposed Development: Annexation and Zoning to C-G for 8.74 acres and I-L for 24.01
acres_ Plat for 4 commercial lots and 6 industrial lots. One public street (North West 13th) is proposed in
the center of the site and ends in a cul-de-sac. Beyond the cul-de-sac the applicant is proposing a 500-foot
long drive aisle and cross access easement to provide access to the rest of the property that is not directly
served by the cul-de-sac. The applicant is also proposing to construct two curb cuts that will allow for
direct access from Franklin Road for Lots '2 and 10, Block 1.
Proposed Commercial Acres: 8.74
Proposed Industrial Acres: 24.01
Other: Proposed DA requirements: Restriction of uses along western property line and use restrictions as
imposed by the Fire Department (Haz-Mat etc.)
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Retirement Community and future Multi-family, Zoned L-O
2. East: Lumber Storage and Vacant Land, Zoned I-L
3. South: Franklin Road and Crestwood Estates Subdivision, Zoned R-4
4. West: Single-family homes and some home occupations, zoned Rl (Ada COWIty),
a daycare, zoned L-O, and vacant land zoned C-C.
Elevations: Yes
Couuni:s:siun Rl:CUIIlIIltmdation: approval at their October 19,2006 public hearing
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Brad Miller
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
.,,.,:.
Key Tssues of Discussion hy Commission:
1. 25 foot landscape buffer between I-L zoned uses and alternative compliance;
11. Fire Department restrictions on lots north of the Eight Mile Lateral;
Ill. Required tiling of the Eight Mile Lateral;
IV. Possible emergency access into the site on the northern property line;
v. Public street access into the property;
VI. Loading areas, docks, and bays facing west.
Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
1. Elimination of condition 1.2.2 which required the applicant to provide two public street
access points to this property connected by a loop road;
11. Elimination of condition 1.2.3 which required the applicant to provide a cross access
easement to the neighboring property to the west;
111. Elimination of condition 1.2.4 which required the applicant to include a 25 foot landscape
buffer between uses along the western boundary of Lots 3-5, Block 1;
IV. Modification of condition 1.2.5 to allow loading areas, docks, or bays to face the western
property line.
v. Required applicant to submit an alternative compliance application for the 25 landscape
buffer between uses;
VI. Required the applicant to pursue an emergency access point along the northern property line
and report to the Council if this was viable.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i.' The applicant is requesting not to cover the Eight Mile lateral on this property as required by
the UDC (see condition 1.2.8);
11. The applicant should provide more information about a possible emergency access point
available along the northern property line.
111. The comprehensive plan designation for the neighboring properties to the west is Mixed Use
Community which would allow for various zoning designations and uses. Staff is concerned
that decreasing the required landscape buffer along the western property line from 25 to 5
feet, as recommended by the Planning Commission, may have a substantial adverse affect
on thc futurc rcdcvclopment potential of other propel1ies in this area.
iv. The applicant has submitted a letter responding to the proposed conditions of approval.
I. Staff has no concern with Item 1. The motion should include direction to delete
condition 1.2.8 on page 2.
2. With regard to item 2, Staff does not feel that 5 feet is an appropriate buffer to
the nun-industrial uses. This is not sufficient area to plant trees to screen the
property. If the Council approves the subdivision, the motion should state
Council's preference with regard to the appropriate huffer. Alternative
compliance determinations are usually approved by the Director; I could support
a IO-foot buffer with the solid vinyl fence as proposed. For now I would
recommended wording the condition as, "The applicant shall submit an
alternative compliance application to reduce the 25 foot buffer between land
use~ on tbe western property line to a fivo foot landseape buffer '.vith a six foot
chain link fence '.'lith slats of a siBbIe eoIor."
3. Item 3 pertains to Fire Department conditions. Staff would look to the Fire
Department to provide additional testimony on this item. Implementation might
be easier if the both conditions applied to the same lots. Currently we have the
following use restrictions:
That the following uses shall not be allowed on Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block I:
a. Vehic1e impound yard
b. Solid waste transfer station
c. Recycling center
d. Vehic1e Repair, major
That no trash compactors, loadiag areas, docks, or bays face the western property line on Lots 3, 4, and 5,
Block 1.
3.18 The Fire Department reserves the right to restrict future uses that involve flmable and hazardous
materials in areas that are only served by one access. This condition shall only apply to lots 4. 5. 6,
and 7, Block 1 as shown on the preliminary plat.
3.20 The applicant must provide fire department approval of anv uses north of the creek (Lots 3-8. Block
1) 'Prior issuance of a Cel1ificate of Zoning Compliance for any use or structure in this area.
Written Testimony: Letter submitted by Brad Miller on behalf of Vau Auker Prupertks uated 11/20/2006
Notes: