Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning~'~ Requested Changes to the Agenda: ' ~• ~~l Item 10 Hacienda Subdivision: Continue to 11/5/08 ~,~~ Item 13 Eagle and Victory: applicant requests withdrawal of annexation application ~~~ ~~ ~* ~' O,D~ Item 14 and 15 Overland Village: Continue to 12/2/08 ~ r' Executive Session: City Attorney requests that you add (c) and (f). ~'~~~~~ Project: Una Mas Location: 3945 E. Ustick Road, on the south side of Ustick, approximately '/ mile east of N. Eagle Road. Applications: Preliminary Plat. (PP) approval of 21 commercial building lots on 12.62 acres in a C-G zoning district for Una Mas Subdivision. Highlights of Proposed Development: The proposed project will include one access point from E. Ustick Road and three access points from the newly constructed N. Allys Avenue into the proposed commercial development. Elevations: Yes: All future structures on this site shall substantially comply with the building elevations and materials depicted. Additionally, all structures on this site shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. Commission Recommendation: approval at their June 19, 2008 public hearing. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Denise Lauerman (Applicant's Representative), Burke Hansen (Owner) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The proximity of Ally's Way in relation to the Lowe's entrance and possibility of traffic conflict on Ustick Road; ii. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Mixed Use -Regional for this site. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None. We have an e-mail from the applicant's representative stating that they are in agreement with the staff report and conditions. Notes: ioi2si2ooa ~~ • ~~.x, 10/28/2008 Project: Eagle and Victory Location: on northwest comer of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road. Applications: amend the comprehensive plan for approximately 15.5 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community. The applicant originally submitted a concurrent application requesting annexation of 3.75 acres of land to C-N. That application has been withdrawn. Highlights of Proposed Development: The applicant submitted a conceptual development plan showing how the site may develop in the future. The plan is depicting two drive-through businesses on the site (pharmacy and a bank). The proposed drive-through businesses are within 300 feet of a residential zoning district which requires CUP approval prior to establishing the use on the site. Access to/from the site is proposed from one full-access driveway on E. Victory Road and right-in only drive way on S. Eagle Road. Other: Staff received a memo from Mindy Wallace at ACHD stating: "The applicant of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone located at the northwest corner of Eagle Road and Victory Road has requested that ... (ACHD) staff review and provide comments on a revised site plan that was submitted to the Meridian City Council on September 23, 2008. Staff has reviewed the revised site plan and does not support the proposed right-out driveway on Eagle Road located 200-feet north of Victory Road due to its close proximity to the Eagle/Victory Road intersection. Elevations: No Commission Recommendation: denial at their August 14, 2008 public hearing. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Shawn Nickel (Applicant's Representative), Rex Young, Vern Urwin, Jim Allen, Barbara and Dave Marquart, Tedi Hepper, David Currier, ii. In opposition: Wendell Jeffries, Bob Aldridge, Chentelle and Harold Krasinski iii. Commenting (neutral): Ed and Joan Crampton, Terry Murphy, John Coombs iv. Written testimony: Jarrette and Gina Ireland, Wayne Peterson, Linda Kaley, Jeff Brauer, David Guzzetti and staff also received two petitions totaling 34 signatures in opposition of the project. The petitions were from residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The appropriate land use designation for the seven parcels requesting the land use change. The subject site is an enclave of low density residential surrounded primarily by medium density residential development. ii. The Commission recommended denial of the project and felt a higher density residential use, not commercial, on the site would be more consistent with the surrounding area. iii. Concern over current and proposed access points to/from Victory Road and Eagle Road for the subject site. iv. The Commission discussed the comprehensive plan which has made provisions for a neighborhood center at the half-mile west of the site to alleviate congestion that commercial traffic would generate at the Eagle Road and Victory Road intersection. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None (staff had recommended denial) ioi28i2oo8 Written Testimony since Staff Report: i. Memo from ACHD as mentioned previously. ii. Letter from applicant requesting withdrawal of the annexation request. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. I would like to note to Council that the withdrawal of the annexation request creates even greater concerns with regard to the appropriateness of this site for future commercial development. One of the primary reasons staff recommended denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and the annexation was that the site is very constrained for commercial development. It is much narrower than what we are generally told is an acceptable depth for commercial developments. The previous concept plan with the annexation application did not provide staff with satisfactory evidence that this site could accommodate commercial development. ii. ACHD staff stated that even the right-in only access was a compromise. Ideally, they do not want to see any access to Eagle Road given the proximity to the intersection. iii. The Council should determine if a mixed use-community designation is appropriate land use for the subject site, if it is compatible with the surrounding residential uses, and if the change is in the best interest of the city. Notes: ioi2si2oos Project: Emerson Park Location: northeast corner of E. Victory Road and S. Meridian Road. Applications: DA modification Highlights of Proposed Development: As a condition of approval of the Emerson Park preliminary plat, the applicant was required to apply for a modification to the original DA and addendum to include the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. The subject MDA application satisfies this plat requirement. The Applicant is requesting a new DA for Emerson Park Subdivision (platted as Lots 1 & 4, Block 1, Mussell Comer Subdivision) that reflects the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat for Emerson Park. The proposed DA will also include provisions from the original DA and the later addendum that are applicable to the subject property. The original DA and subsequent addendum covered the entire 21.38 acre area that was annexed and platted as Lots 1, 2, 3, .and 4, Block 1, Mussell Corner Subdivision. In 2007, a preliminary plat of 17.84 acres was approved for Emerson Park Subdivision, which is a re-subdivision of Lots 1, 2, and 4, Block 1, of Mussell Comer Subdivision; Lot 3, Block 1, Mussell Corner Subdivision where the feed store and convenience store/fuel sales facility are located was not included in the Emerson Park plat. ' Although Lot 2, Block 1, Mussell Comer Subdivision was re-platted with the Emerson Park Subdivision preliminary plat, the applicant states this lot will not be fmal platted with Emerson Park. This lot will remain platted in Mussell Comer Subdivision. Also, this lot is not owned by Kung Victory, LLC, the owners of the land to be fmal platted as Emerson Park; the lot is owned by Tim and Carol Mussell. For these reasons, the applicant wishes for it to remain as part of Mussell Comer and be subject to the DA provisions associated with Mussell Comer, not the proposed new DA. If approved, the original DA and addendum will remain in effect for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mussell Corner Subdivision. The proposed DA will only apply to Lots 1 and 4, Block 1, Mussell Comer Subdivision, preliminary platted as Emerson Park Subdivision. Elevations: Yes No Staff Recommendation: approval Written Testimony since Staff Report: a-mail from applicant stating that they are in agreement with the recommended DA language in the staff report, but noting that two of the preliminary plat conditions have akeady been met. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: none known. Notes: 10/28/2008 Project: Eagle and Victory CPA and AZ Location, size of property and existing zoning: The subject area is Boise River, from Linder Road to approximately '/< mile west of BlacklC CatRoad.Thed north epropertye hyllis Canal and south of the currently zoned RUT in Ada County. consists of 645 acres and is Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1 • North: Rural residential/agricultural properties, zoned RUT (Ada County) 2. South: Rural residential/agriculfural properties, zoned RUT (Ada County); approved Jayker Subdivision, zoned R-2, R-8, R-15, C-N, & C-C �)' SPurwing Subdivision, zoned R-8; 3• West: Rural residential/agricultural properties, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. East: Rural residential/agricultural properties, zoned RUT (Ada County) Applications: The applicant, The Rose Law Group, has applied to amend the Comprehensive Plan F Map (CPA) by changing the land use designation on approximately 15.5 acres of land from Low D to Mixed Use — Community. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting Annexation and Zoning Future Land Use from RUT and RI (Ada County)to C-N (Neighborhood Density Residential ei borhood Business District) zoning district. ng of 3.75 acres of land Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this site is depicted on the concept plan via o to/from E. Victory Road and one right -in only driveway from S. Eagle Road. Cross access has not the adjacent parcel for future connectivity. Staff also has concerns with the separation of theone full -access point Victory Road. Staff believes this access should be vacated once those parcels adjacent been provided for future. Staff has received comments from ACHD supporting the applicant's proposed full access driveway along J to site (west) redevelop in the It is important to note the Eagle/Victory intersection is not scheduled for improvements untiss l with the access points proposed for this site. The rim 3.75 acres located at the corner of the intersection. Because there are multiple properties, 'Staff has concerns primary reason for concern is the applicant is only proposing to annex regulate cross access of those properties not requestinn. g p p s, rt is difficult for the City to independently with a more intense uses and access then what currently exists now. each lot has the potential to develop Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan showing how the site may through businesses totaling approximately 20,000 square feet. The concept Plan d parking stalls. However, none of the associated landscaping is shown and future y develop with two drive P P depicts two commercial pads with 80 parcel to along the west side of the property. The comprehensive supports the pedestrian and vehicular mixed use development. Furthermore, cross access shall be provided internall connectivity is not provided to the annexation bound connectivity for boundary for future connectivity. If Council approves the applicants CPAhe site and and to the epancwest of the vehicular connectivity should be provided to adjacent properties. Staff does not believe that require CUP approval and have limited accessibility from adjacent neighborhoods 'ate pedestrian and does not believe the uses are necessarythat 'i drive -through uses, to serve this area. In addition, elevations werelnotsubmrittedlby the applicant this area. Staff t illustrating the proposed buildings on the site. Without evaluating any buildings for determining if the proposed development would be compatible with the residential i g the site, staff has a difficult time Elevations: Building Elevations were not submitted with this application. n the area. History of Previous Actions: N/A Written comments: Staff did not receive written comments from the applicant. However On August 7, 2008 two petition lists from surround residential neighborhoods (27 signatures) requesting denial of the Staff Recommendation: Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requestedproject. Staff has determined that allowing a "Mixed Use — Community,, CPA and Property to C-N would not be in the best interest of the Ci `� applications below. applications per the Analysis in Section 10 and the future land use map designation and annexing the ty. Staff is recommending denial of the CPA and AZ Staff is recommending that this applicationFindings listed in Exhibit C of this staff re ort. recommendations on all the CPA icaio be continued to the hearing date of August 14, f re in hopes applications can occur at one time. p that Notes: