HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning (2)Requested Changes to the Agenda:
Item 50• remove from consent a enda
~~P ®~ 200
g
Item 7A: remove from agenda ~, ~ ~'~,
Item 9 Broadway Integrated Project: The applicant has requested a continuance, but it was
my understanding that Council did not want to continue this item again. Therefore, we informed
the applicant that it was likely going to be heard tonight.
Item 9: Broadway Integrated Project
Location: E. Broadway (former Idaho Truss site)
Applications: City Council Review of Director's Determination
Highlights of Proposed Development: The applicant applied for alternative compliance because
they did not want to provide the required on-site parking for the subject mixed-use project. The
Planning Director has denied the alternative compliance request because in Old Town the
alternative to providing on-site parking is the MDC in-lieu fee.
Staff Recommendation: Uphold Director's Determination to deny ALT-08-009.
Written Testimony since Staff Report: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: The Council heard this item on July 1, 2008 and was
willing to consider other methods (other than in-lieu fee) for alternative compliance for the
parking requirement; however, Council required that the applicant demonstrate along-term lease
with the 30-day revocation clause OR a shorter term lease (one year) without the 30-day
revocation clause.
Notes:
9/9/2008
Item 10: McDonald's Redbox Project
Location: 3415 Cherry Lane. Near Ten Mile Intersection.
Applications: City Council Review of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance
Highlights of Proposed Development: install a Redbox Movie DVD Rental kiosk on the south
western portion of the property; just north of the entrance for the drive up window. The kiosk is
24 square feet in area.
Council continued this item for staff to research what options are available to Council
regarding action. Section 11-SA-4 (Administrative Process) of the UDC gives the Director the
authority to "require conditions of approval that are deemed .necessary to protect the public
health, ~ safety, and welfare and prevent undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties. "
Granting a CZC is listed in Table 11-SA-2 as an administrative process. Therefore, Council
may direct the Planning Director to impose conditions of approval on the CZC.
Elevations/Photo: Yes
Staff Action: approved on June 26, 2008
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: Testimony and/or discussion at the last hearing focused
on the following:
1. Although the plans comply with current code, there is concern that the proposed 24-
hour use conflicts with information given the neighbors during talks with the
developers and builders.
2. Adjoining residential property owners have expressed concern over the 24-hour use.
3. Council suggested moving the use inside the McDonald's. The franchise owner did
not feel the interior design lent itself to having the use inside.
4. Council suggested limiting the hours of the Redbox through the use of a gated
enclosure.
5. The City recently passed UDC amendments that limit the h ours of operation within
the C-N district from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Sample Motions:
Denial (upholding the issuance of the CZC as is): After considering all Staff, Applicant, and
public testimony, I move to uphold CZC-08-004 as presented during the hearing of September 9,
2008, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reason(s) for the denial of the City
Council Review application.)
Approval (modifying the CZC): After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony,
I move to overrule the Director's decision regarding CZC-08-004 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of September 9, 2008. I further move that the Director shall issues
approvals with the following conditions consistent with the City Council decision: [state
conditions]
Approval (denying the CZC) NOT RECOMMENDED BY CITY ATTORNEY: After
considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to overrule the Director's
decision regarding CZC-08-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
9/9/2008
September 9, 2008, for the following reasons: [state reasons related to public health, safety,
and welfare] I further move that the Director shall rescind CZC-08-004 consistent with this
City Council decision.
9/9/2008
Item 11: Instant Equity Auto Project
Location: 1065 Fairview Avenue; south side of Fairview, west of Locust Grove
Applications: City Council Review of the Planning Director's Denial of CZC-08-010
Highlights of Proposed Development: request to operate a car sales lot on the subject property 1)
without connection to city sewer, 2) with reduced landscape buffers adjacent to Fairview Avenue and a
residential zoning district, 3) without cross access to adjoining properties, and 4) without annexation of
contiguous, unplatted parcel held in common ownership.
Number of Proposed Buildings: The applicant proposed to convert the existing single family
home and detached two car garage.
Elevations: Yes (photos of existing buildings)
Issues and/or Re uirements b Year 2001 2003 2008
Pro osed use Dr. Office Retail Store uto Sale
CUP a royal re aired prior to any develo ment Yes Yes o *Note
Landsca ing conforms to ordinance Yes es *lvote 1 Yes Note 4
Irri ation s stem Yes ~`Ma '~ Yes
Sidewalk adjacent to Fairview Yes No e
Wells removed Yes a Yes
Septic removed Yes Yes
Connect to ci sewer Yes o *tvote Yes
Connect to city water Yes a Yes
Cross access to adjoining ro erties Not discussed qt discussed Yes
Driveways conform with ACRD olic Yes a Yes
DA required as condition of annexation Yes Yes o *Note
DA recorded to secure these agreements No No
Note 1) From 2003 Miscellaneous application to amend the 2001 annexation provisions:
"Existing landscaping may be modified to conform with the intent and purpose of the landscape
code pursuant to...alternative compliance... if the future use of the property is a permitted use in
the C-G zone and the building footprint is not expanded or modified. Modifications to the
landscaping may include additional trees as required and an irrigation system if there is not one
provided on site. New construction on and/or the request for a conditional use permit or
subdivision of the property will require complete conformance with the adopted landscape
ordinance in effect at the time of the new application. "
Note 2) From 2003 Miscellaneous application to amend the 2001 annexation provisions: "The
applicant shall connect to city water, prior to any use on the property. Sewer is currently not
available to this site. Applicant shall be required to connect this existing structure to the
sanitary sewer system when it becomes available from the south. Expansion of the existing
structure or new construction on the subject property will not be allowed unless sanitary sewer
is brought to the site by the applicant. "
Note 3) Because the applicant never recorded a DA, staff does not believe that we can hold them
to the requirement for a CU approval. Likewise, staff believes they cannot hold us to the
provisions they negotiated that were never formalized as part of a DA.
9/9/2008
Note 4) Alternative Compliance is still an option, but it needs to meet the intent and purpose of
the landscape ordinance as stated in 2003 and as defined by the UDC. The current proposal
depicts 17.5 feet along Fairview; 25 feet is required. The 17.5 feet is the minimum allowed
through alternative compliance; the proposed alternative is to plant two additional trees. Vehicle
display areas adjoin the 17.5 foot buffer. (Staff fears this sets an unwelcome precedent in that we
continually have enforcement issues related to vehicle display parking within landscape buffers.)
The application does not state how the proposal complies with the intent and purpose of the
landscaping ordinance.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
1) Since a DA was not recorded, should Council direct staff to de-annex this property?
2) Should the applicant bring in the contiguous parcel to the east for annexation and seek ,
new DA provisions with regard to both properties? If yes, the contiguous parcel could
gain access to sewer in Fairview at Jericho.
3) Should applicant enter into a DA with the provisions negotiated in 2003? If yes:
a. Should the applicant obtain CU approval for an auto sales lot as required in 2003?
b. Is the alternative compliance proposed sufficient to meet intent of code?
c. Is having the vehicle display area over the septic leach field acceptable?
4) Should City standby 2003 provisions without benefit of DA? (NOT RECOMMENDED
BY CITY ATTORNEY) If yes:
a. Is the alternative compliance proposed sufficient to meet intent of code?
b. Is having the vehicle display area over the septic leach field acceptable?
5) Should applicant abide by 2008 code requirements? If yes:
a. Should the City Engineer approve septic system use? Is having the vehicle display
area over the septic leach field acceptable?
b. Is the alternative compliance proposed sufficient to meet intent of code?
c. Should staff require cross-access to adjoining properties?
Sample Motions:
Denial (upholding the Director's decision): After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public
testimony, I move to uphold the Director's decision to deny CZC-08-010 and ALT-08-004 as
presented during the hearing of September 9, 2008, for the following reasons: (You should state
specific reason(s) for the denial of the application.)
Approval (overruling the Director's decision): After considering all Staff, Applicant, and
public testimony, I move to overrule the Director's decision regarding CZC-08-010 and ALT-08-
004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 9, 2008. I further move that
the Director shall issue approvals consistent with the City Council decision. (You should state
any specific conditions you want added.)
Notes:
9/9/2008