Loading...
Staff ReportSTAFF REPORT T T e ~T HEARING DATE: June 4, 2013 (~~ 1~1L~1 ~1~.. (Continued from May 28, 2013) i D A H q TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner (208)884-5533 SUBJECT: VAR-13-002-KnighthillCenter Variance 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, James Wylie, is requesting approval of a variance to allow aright-in/right-out access point to 5H 20/26. The applicant has submitted a concept plan depicting the proposed access location. (See Sections 7, 8 and 9 for further analysis). NOTE.• The proposed conceptplan is for ildtrstrative purposes only and does not constitzzte approval from the Planning Division. 2. SUMMARY Staff finds that the subject property has access to N. Linder Road, N. Gertie Place and W. Everest Lane. Further, the proposed access is not consistent with the draft U.S. 20/26 Access Management Plan, the request for access to a state highway is not consistent with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and it does not meet the findings criteria required in the UDC for the City Council to grant a variance (see Exhibit B for the required variance findings). Staff recommends denial of the subject variance application for the reasons stated herein. NOTE: ITD recently changed their access spacing policy contained in IDAPA Rule 39, Title 3, Chapter 42, and the proposed driveway appears to meet the new TDAPA rule for access location. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Denial After considering all staff, applicant, and public testitony, I move to deny File Number VAR-13-002 as presented in the staff report for the hewing date of June 4, 2013, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number VAR- 03-002 to the hearing date of (date certain) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number VAR- 13-002, as presented in Staff Report for the hearing date of June 4, 2013, with the following rodifications: (add any proposed modifications). 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Southwest corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N. Linder Road NE '/ NE'/a Section 26, T4N Rl W b. Owner/Applicant: James Wylie 1676 N. Clarendon Way Eagle, Idaho 83616 Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 c. Applicant's Statement/Jnstification: See applicant's narrative attached in Exhibit A. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application is for variance approval as detertnined by City Ordinance. A public hearing is required before the City Council consistent with Title 11, Chapter 5. b. Newspaper notifications published on: May 6 and 20, 2013 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 2, 2013 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 21, 2013 6. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The subject site is vacant commercial ]and, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The subject site is located on the intersection of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard. There is a mix of office, commercial and residential uses that are planned for and exist in the area. 1. North: Knight Sky Estates, zoned C-C and TN-C 2. East: Vacant land, zoned RUT (Ada County) 3. South: Lochsa Falls No. 11, zoned R-4. 4. West: Lochsa Falls No. 12, zoned R-4, C-N, and L-O C. History of Previous Actions: In 2006, the site was annexed (AZ-06-006) and preliminarily platted (PP-06-005) with 4 commercial lots and one common lot. A Development Agreement (instntment #106122368) was approved by City Council on July 5, 2006. The concept plan was approved with no direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard. In 2008, the applicant proposed a new concept plan and preliminary plat (5 commercial lots and 1 common lot) which the City Council approved. Concurrently, a development agreement modification was also approved that removed the previous concept plan and attached a new concept plan with additional DA provisions. One of proposed DA provisions required the applicant set aside 100' of right-of way for the future expansion of SH 20/26 and neither concept plan proposed direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard. The amended DA was never signed and the applicant elected not to seek a tune extension for the plat application; the 2006 development agreement remains in effect for the subject property. In 2009, Council denied an access variance to Chinden Boulevard for this property. D. Access: The subject site has been approved with three separate access points from (2) public streets and (1) private street; N. Linder Road to the east , N. Gertie Place from the south and W. Everest Lane to the west. In addition, W. Everest Lane parallels SH 20/26 and connects to N. Long Lake Way. The N. Long Lake Way and Chinden Boulevard intersection is a signalized intersection at the half-mile consistent with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 7. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE The following UDC section is pertinent to this application: UDC 11-3H-4B: Access to State Highway 69, State Highway 55, and State Highway 20-26: 1. Use of existing approaches shall be allowed to continue provided that all of the following conditions are met: a. The existing use is lawful and properly permitted effective September 15, 2005. A use has not been approved for the subject project. Therefore this requirement does not apply. Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 - 2 - b. The nature of the use does not change (for example a residential use to a commercial use). Because this site has been approved and zoned for approximately 110,000 square foot of conanaercial development, staff believes the nature of the use will increase significantly. c. The intensity of the use does not increase (for example an increase in the number of residential dwelling units or an increase in the square footage of commercial space). The intensity of the use on the site will increase significantly from vacant land to commercial property with approximately 110, 000 square fee[ of office and retail uses. 2. If an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be abandoned and removed. a. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed. Staff is not aware of any deeded access to this properly. In addition, the site has been approved for commercial uses, therefore access to SH 20/26 shall be restricted per the UDC. With the previous approvals (Preliminary Plat, DA, and Concept Plnn),' direct lot access was notproposed or approved. b. Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at: i. The section line road; and A public s[reet connection to SH20/26 exists at Linder Road, a section Zine road. This will most likely be the primary entrance into the site and is located approximately 600 feet from the intersection. ii. The half-mile mark between section line roads. These half-mile connecting streets shall be collector roads. As mentioned earlier, W Everest Lane (private street) parallels SH 20/26 and connects to N. Long Lake Way (designated a collector) which is a signalized intersection at the half-mile consistent with the UDC. West Everest Lane is currently stubbed at the western property boundary and a cross access agreement has been recorded granting this property access. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The preservation of the SH 20/26 Corridor is one of the City's top priorities. The U.S. 20/26 Corridor Preservation Study, (ITD and Compass, ongoing,) identify preferred roadway configurations and recommend safety improvements to these high-volume and high-speed facilities. The City supports access management, congestion mitigation improvements and the beautification of the corridor called for in the study. Further, staff is of the opinion that the following objectives and goals from the Comprehensive Plan are applicable to the proposed variance request: • 3.03.02G -Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land use decisions. This plan recommends Zinaiting access to the roadways to maintain mobility through the corridor. COMPASS has identified this intersection as a high volume intersection. Staff believes adding an access point to SH2O/26lhal close to [he intersection naay negatively impact traj~c naobili[y on SH2O/26 and in[erfere with future roadway expansions planned for the intersection. 3.03.02E -Encourage and promote the preservation and expansion of Chinden Boulevard (US 20/26) by ITD. Knighthill Cen[er VAR-13-002 - 3 - Because City Ordinance restricts access to SH20/26, the City envisions limited access along the Chinden Corridor. Restricting access to this roadway supports the recommendation in the Corridor Preservation Study. Further, 70 feet of ROW has been dedicated to ITD along the frontage of this property. • 3.03.02N -Reduce the number of access points onto vterial streets by using methods such as cross access agreements, access management and frontage/backage roads. The UDC restricts access to the SH 20/26. West Everest Lane is currently stubbed at the western property boundary and a cross access agreement has been recorded granting this property access. Further, future developnent has access to N. Linder Road and N. Gertie Place. Staff believes the site is adequately served by the three (3) access points. 9. ANALYSIS a. Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation Staff has provided analysis below regarding the proposed application. VARIANCE APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow one right-in/right-out access point to SH 20/26 for a commercial development. The proposed access is located approximately 725 feet west of the of the Linder/Chinden signalized intersection. For illustrative purposes, the applicant has submitted a concept plan depicting a neighborhood commercial development and the proposed Chinden Boulevard access point to the development. The original concept plan attached as Exhibit A.2 did not have direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard. Because this new concept plan differs from the previous approvals, tlee app/icant will have to submit for n new preliminary plat and development agreement modification if the subject variance request is approved by Council. In 2009, ITD supported the City's ordinance and denied the proposed access point. Since that time, ITD has taken a different approach. ITD's original denial was based on their previous mission statement that focused on efficiency and operations of the existing road network. As other developers have come forward seeking access to state facilities, ITD's administration encouraged a change in their mission to increase emphasis on economic development. The applicant was required to submit an economic analysis and a new traffic study to justify the new approach. Based on those submittals, ITD has approved the applicant's encroachment permit to access SH 20/26 and ROW reduction. Even though the proposed access and reduced ROW appear to meet Department policies, ITD has not indicated what site improvements or safety measures would be required with the construction of the access point. Staff is concerned that ITD has not considered the Linder/Chinden intersection design into their approval. The draft access management plan for SH 20/26 Corridor has identified this intersection as a high volume intersection. Staff believes adding an access point to SH 20/26 that close to the intersection would impact the traffic mobility on SH 20/26 and interfere with future roadway expansions planned for the intersection. A copy of the letter from ITD is attached as Exhibit.A.4. UDC 11-3H-4B, regulates the standards for access to SH 20/26. Because the use of the site is proposed to change from vacant land to a commercial development, access is resh~icted from the state highway; the owner of the site shall acquire access to a street other than the state highway. As mentioned earlier, Linder Road, Gertie Place and Everest Lane provide opportunities for access to the subject site. In addition, Everest Lane parallels SH 20/26 and connects to N. Long Lake Way; a signalized intersection at the half-mile, which is consistent with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes these roadways are sufficient to accommodate the amount of future traffic generated by the proposed development. Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 - 4 - Although ITD has approved the location for an access point, the City still retains the authority to restrict access to the site from the state highway. Further, the Development Agreement approved for this property by both the applicant and Council when it annexed, runs with the land and prohibits access. The basis of the UDC code section is to restrict access to Chinden Boulevard in order to avoid creating similar access issues that currently impact Eagle Road. In order to grant a variance, the Council needs to make the following findings: 1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; 2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; 3. The vv~iance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff is of the opinion that granting a variance wozdd allow a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed for properties that are adjacent to a state highway. Recently, Council approved a variance request north of this property. Physical constraints due to the topography in the area and the lack of interconnectivity with existing county development, were deciding factors for granting the approval. In 2009, Council denied the same variance request because the site is served from two (2) public streets and one private street consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. These access points provide sufficient access to and from the subject property from the adjacent roadway network. Further, the approved development agreement restricts access to Chinden Boulevard via the concept plan. Because future access can be facilitated from the aforementioned roadways, staff is of the opinion there are no site characteristics that create an undue hardship. Further, Staff is of the opinion granting the subject variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare by increasing the hazards associated with vehicles entering/exiting the site and merging with traffic travelling at high rates of speed on Chinden Boulevard. This intersection is classified as a high volume intersection and adding an access point to SH 20/26 that close to the intersection could impact traffic mobility on SH 20/26 and interfere with future roadway expansions planned for the intersection. Although ITD has stated they will ensure that the decal lane will remain intact with the design of the intersection, there are no specific plans for the intersection design or specified safety measures for the construction of the access. Because the subject property has multiple accesses, and the driveway location is not consistent with the draft U.S. 20/26 Access Management Plan, and the request for access to a state highway is not consistent with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and and the proposal does not meet the findings criteria required in the UDC for the City Council to grant approval of the variance. Based on Staffls analysis above and the Variance Findings, Staff is recommending denial of the Variance application (see Exhibit C for required variance findings). 10. EXIiIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Approved Concept Plan 3. Conceptual Site Plan Depicting Proposed Access to SH 20/26 4. Applicant's Narrative B. Agency Comments 1. Idaho Department of Transportation Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 - 5 - C. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 - 6 - UQ n W 0 0 N z~ e ~~ ~ ~„ A_ ~- ~ ° ° o-' ~~', ~___~ ~,~ ~ 1. I ~i ~I~~',~ I. i~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~'s ~'m p y ~ 5 \i ` ~ _r i'. ! ~..~~ ` ~ N .G. -~' ~ .p ~ ~`~ ~ - r ~1..`. -• ---1 ~~ I .Jr-~~- ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~,i ~ __ j ~~- '~ ~' ~ \~ ~~!N BARNEY'L~I a ~, ~ 1 ~,-~~ ~ ~ ~ .. o-~-~ ;"~ ~. ~~~~~ '~ `~,~~` ' _ ~ -~~~ ice, e -- r ~ o t ~ z ~_ ~ ~~ ~ - -~_,_ , _ y t C l~ E y __ ~ k r- _ D I I` ~__ i ~ t _.. KOOK----', l1- i 6 ~~' ~ ~--- ~ ~ H .... ~ ,~ ~-_ n ~, __ r---~ ~ -- ---- ~ `~' ~-. ' ~ a C) x fIq lJ n (J \~ IN 0 N v __ - .. - ., _ L _ ._ _ .. i { rl r -" D ~`%/ Z ' m ~ J D J 1 1 7 M y 3. Conceptual Site Plan Depicting Proposed Access to SH 20/26 - - ~~< CHINDEN BLVD. (US 20/26) Proposed Access Point ~II ail ~ IPACL ~a ,~,~~ ARCEL 2 e~ "~I`"` ~. ~ P C iie ~!mmc auu roeu ~ ,~$ DEPT SI PARCEL 5 ~-, .._ lL_~ ~~1 i0~ I{~"'I. z, I I ~~ i'~ r il~ ~I Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 - 8 - 4. Applicant's Narrative Jantex R. Wylie 1676 N. Clatvndon Way Rngle, Idaho $3616 208-939.1253 City of Meridian 4-25-13 33 L'.13roadway Ave, suite 102 Meridian, Id. $3642 This narrative is propered with the intent to wmply with the City of Mvridiao's requirement for a variance tc t}te existing development agreenteut dated July 5, 2006 and recorded July 31, 2006, N©, 106122368, We me requesting a variance for lho following items: I. Right-in /Might-out awes onto L'hinden Blvd. 2, Right of way reduction along Chindon 131vd, from I OD' io 70'. In (?ctober of 20121TD revised their cnc~ria for access along state Lighwxys. We have applied far and received npprovnl from ITD for access at the wcstoen most boundary of oar properly. We also Imve received a letter front [`1`D allowing the requested RO W reduction from I UO' to 70' and we have dedicated that ground to the state of Idaho. We also Nave provided a teafiic report Including a plan showing tho tom lane, a letter from Chuck Winder a real estate proFcssionsl as to his opinion of the economic impact of this project and an economic report that shows the enormous economic powntial ofa retail development for Ibis site, please see attachments. We have tnarketcd this property without the access and fotmd that it is not a viable retail project without the access. Many potential tenants stated that without access they wcxc not interested is the propctty. We worked with, dedicated land and provided mrntey for the improvement ofthe existing intersection wish the adjoining proporty cornor ownors. It is our intention to develop u conmtercial project ou this prominent corner but we feel that without the requested variance the project is not viable. Tice State of Idaho acknowledges iltat economic impact is now Otte ofihe crilerla in eonxideralion of allowing acces.4 and the reyuep4ed variance complies with.the State of Idaho's new access and Right-of Wny requirements. Two of the outer properly corners have access to Chlnden. Theca accewses a'e approved by I'I'D bat are in wnflict with the City oFMet9dian's oniinance, it would be patting this property In a compciitive disadvantage not to allow a variance fur this properly as well. The attached traffic report shows that safety anti traffic flaw are imptnved with the proposed Cldndcn access. Tits ~'la~consideration es 1{. y Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 - 9 - B. Agency Comments 1. ITD VARIANCE COMMENTS ~oANp IDANO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 8028 • * 9gise, ID 83707.21Y18 (208) 334.8300 itd,idahp.0ov rAr ry e'~~ May 1, 2013 MS Machelle Hill Meridian City Clerk's Office 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 VIA E11fAII, Re_ VAR 13-002 - US 20-26 Actess to the lgotThwest Caner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard The Idaho Transportation Department has received a variance request application for a new private approach to US 20-26 (Chiuden Boulevard) approximately 750-ft west of Linder Road. ITD has the following comments= 1. ITD had previously denied an approach to US 20-26 for this parcel The ITD Board recently (October 1, 2012) changed the approach separation standards. The proposed approach location and Ore sltbmitted traffc analysis appear to meet the newest Idaho Transportation Departmentpolicies. The policy requires that an approach be located a mininnun of 750-ft upstream from a signalized intersection (as measured between centerlines). The separation distance meets the minimum requirements and the applicant proposed the approach for right-inlright-out operation. 2. TTD has received Ore approach application, the site plan, the traffic analysis and the processing fee. The application was comglete and the applicawt was allocated an approach at the western property line, approximately 750-west of Linder Road. 3. The permit requires that the applicant's design complies with TTD design standards, drat the design includes an eastbound right-taro lane, and that the approach is restricted to right-in-right-out operation. The pemtit is not valid until ITD receives and approves the engineering drawings and design of the approach and the method of restricting left fires. ITD made the requirement for the right rum deceleration lane as safety mitigation. We have every incentive ro retain the deceleration lane as traffic volumes increase and the safety imputations become more important. ITD has 140-ft ofright-of--way aborting that paztel. This width is sttfBcient for asix-lane roadway or a fora lane divided roadway plus added hue lanes in each direction- Onte tvfdening oaurs, the added cost of conshucting the deceleration lane is minor. The key issue is the right-of-way. ICnighthill Center VAR-13-002 - 10 - A possible cross section from the US 20-2b Corridor Plan looks like this: FlOUre 9. East Segment, Ultlmste BuIldAul Cross Section (Merldlan Road to Eagle Rosdl lot)" Righl-of-Wcy 7a . t Weslhaund US 2l1lR6 ~o" ~ ' EaslGa~nd us 20/26 ITD Las not yet assigned funding to widen ITS 2Q-26 from hvo-hues to four lanes, but there is sufficient right~f-uay width to widen the roadway to fora hues, to add bicycle lanes, and add sidewalks while sti11 retainiug the right fitn deceleration lanes for each travtl duecfion_ We Lave. not desigped this roathvay expansion project so I cannot guarantee the specific design and constmetion. I can only report that we need the deceleration lane for mitigation and have every incentive and sufficient right-of--way w idth to maiutain that specific mitigation. If yon Lave auy questions, you may contact Matt Ward at 334-8341 or me at 3348377. Sincerely, yfVs.,~~~~~, . Dave Szplett Development Services Manager dove. szplett(a~itd.idaho. gov cc: Bill Parsons Knighthill Center VAR-13-002 _ I I _ C: Required Findings fi•om the Unified Development Code (Variance) The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code G7-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11-SB-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district: In 2009, Council did not grant a right or special privilege and denied the same variance request because the site is served from two (2) public sheets and one private street consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC, direct access to State Highway 20/26 is prohibited, per UDC 11-3H-4B and the approved development agreement restricts access to Chinden Boulevard via the concept plan. B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; Staff finds that there are no undue hardships that would prevent the applicant from developing the site by restricting access to SH 20/26. In this case, the applicant has options to facilitate access to/from other roadways. As mentioned above, Linder Road, Gertie Place and W. Everest Lane provide opportunities for fiiture access to the subject site. Staff is of the opinion that the aforementioned roadways are sufficient to accommodate the amount of future traffic generated by the proposed development. C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds that allowing right-in/right-out access to SH 20/26 will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare by increasing the potential for accidents with vehicles entering/exiting the site and merging with traffic travelling at high rates of speeds on the highway. This intersection is classified as a high volume intersection. Staff is of the opinion adding an access point to SH 20/26 that close to the intersection would impact the traffic mobility on SH 20/26 and interfere with future roadway expansions planned for the intersection. Further, ITD has not indicated what site improvement or safety measures would be required with the construction of the access point. Although ITD has stated they will ensure that the decal lane will remain intact with the design of the intersection, there are no specific plans for the intersection design or specified safety measures for the construction of the access. I{nighthill Center VAR-13-002 _ 12 _