Planning Commission Application Summary

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Application Summary Project Name: Lone Peak Business Park Minor Subdivision request Address: South Lone Peak Pkwy. Current Zoning: CSD-LP (Lone Peak Commercial Special District) Hearing Date: December 4, 2014 Summary of Request The request is for an industrial subdivision which will create two buildable lots. While the application is for a Minor Subdivision, the Zoning Administrator determined Planning Commission and City Council review shall be required given its potential controversy. A letter from an adjacent business owner can be found in Exhibit E. Background The property is part of the larger Lone Peak Business Park, and industrial development. The proposed Lot 2 obtained Site Plan approval on August 28, 2014 within the condition that the subdivision plat for the property be approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. General Plan and Zoning The land use designation for the property is Business and Light Manufacturing, which is designed to allow office and light manufacturing uses with a limited amount of retail. The zoning district CSD-LP was designed to allow for substantial employment and business presence within Draper City. Analysis The subdivision will create four total lots, two of which will be buildable industrial properties. The other two will house the private street system and a private irrigation well. Lot 1 will be 4.76 acres in size and Lot 2 will be 7.92 acres in size. The road already exists and is 36-feet wide. The subdivision will create a 56-foot wide private right-of-way for the road. The well property is proposed to be 0.11 acres in size and will allow access to a private well. Continuation of the public South Street will not be required. DCMC Section (b) allows for private road systems when cross access is provided. The applicant has a shared and cross access agreement for the properties within the industrial park for use of the private street. The subdivision code, in DCMC Section (a), requires connection to existing streets, which the private road will do by connecting to the existing South Street. No other stub streets are located adjacent to the subdivision. In addition, this code section requires stub streets be located to allow adjacent residentially zoned property to be most efficiently subdivided. The residentially zoned property to the north is already subdivided. No other residential property abuts the development boundary. Deviations (If applicable) NA Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a positive recommendation be made to the City Council.

2 Development Review Committee 1020 East Pioneer Road Draper, UT (801) STAFF REPORT November 24, 2014 To: From: Draper City Planning Commission Business Date: December 4, 2014 Development Review Committee Prepared By: Jennifer Jastremsky, AICP, Planner II Planning Division Community Development Department Re: Lone Peak Business Park Minor Subdivision Request Application No.: S Applicant: Ken Rudy, representing Price Logistics Draper, LLC. Project Location: Approximately South Lone Peak Pkwy. Zoning: CSD-LP (Lone Peak Commercial Special District) Zone Acreage: Approximately Acres (Approximately620,294.4 ft 2 ) Request: Request for approval of an Minor Subdivision in the CSD-LP (Lone Peak Commercial Special District) zone regarding an industrial subdivision. SUMMARY This application is a request for approval of a Minor Subdivision for approximately acres located on the west side of Lone Peak Pkwy, at approximately South Lone Peak Pkwy. The property is currently zoned CSD-LP (Lone Peak Commercial Special District). The applicant is requesting that a Minor Subdivision be approved to allow for the development of the currently vacant site as an industrial park. A letter from an adjacent business owner can be found in Exhibit E. BACKGROUND The property encompassing the proposed Lot 2 obtained Site Plan approval on August 28, 2014 with the condition that the subject Minor Subdivision plat be approved by Draper City prior to any building permits being issued on the property. An appeal to the Site Plan approval was denied by the City Council on September 30, ANALYSIS General Plan and Zoning. The Land Use Map of the General Plan calls for the Business and Light Manufacturing land use designation for the subject property. This category allows for a mixture of land uses that could include office and light manufacturing uses with limited retail development to provide Lone Peak Business Park App. # S Minor Subdivision Request 1

3 services for employees of these uses. It also states that these areas are typically characterized by a parklike atmosphere which provides for a variety of uses. The property has been assigned the CSD-LP (Lone Peak Commercial Special District) zoning classification. With the CSD-LP zone the City anticipates a substantial employment and business presence. The M-1 and CBP zoning designations are identified by the General Plan as a preferred zoning classification for the Business and Light Manufacturing land use designation. The R3 zoning abuts the subject property on the north, and the CSD-LP abuts on the west, east and south. Subdivision Layout. The applicant is proposing two buildable lots, and two lots which will contain a roadway and an access parcel for a well. Lot 1 will be a 4.76 acre industrial property. Lot 2 will be a 7.92 acre industrial property. Lot two is the location of the proposed Wasatch/Casepak development. Lot 3 is a 0.11 acre property which ranges from 7.46-feet wide to feet wide and is feet long. There is a well within this property and according to the applicant Lot 3 is designed to allow maintenance access for the well. The well is owned by Price Logistics Center Draper, LLC. It provides irrigation water for the entire industrial park and in a typical year will pump 75 million gallons of water. Given the shape of the property, it could be construed to be a protection strip. There is nothing within Draper City Municipal Code which would prohibit the creation of a protection strip. Lot 4 is for the existing private road servicing the proposed industrial lots. The lot will be 1.44 acres in size and will provide a 56-foot wide private right-of-way, with an existing 36-foot wide paved road. There are several easements on the property, including a private shared access easement for the private roadway within the industrial park, general utility easements, Rocky Mountain Power Easements, and South Valley Sewer District Easements. Off-site storm drain improvements will be required in order to accommodate development of the proposed lots. Drainage improvements are being coordinated between the applicant, Draper City and Salt Lake City Corporation, the owners of the Salt Lake and Jordan Canal. Circulation. The proposed buildable industrial lots will be served by a private right-of-way which connects to the public South Street and ends in a cul-de-sac about 200-feet away from the Salt Lake and Jordan Canal at the south of the subdivision. The public road of South Street is not required to continue. Draper City Municipal Code Section (b) specifically excludes commercial developments from meeting street frontage requirements if cross access is given, this allows for private street systems. Cross access between the different owners and tenants of the industrial park exists for the private street system. This code section has been provided below for your review. DCMC Section (b) Lots: All lots or parcels created by the subdivision shall have frontage on a street, improved to standards hereinafter required, equal to at least 50% of the streets minimum required width. This standard shall not apply to commercial development given adequate cross access is provided between any and all affected developments and/or properties. Land designated as public right-of-way shall be separate and distinct from lots adjoining such right-of-way and not be included in the area of such lots. DCMC Section (a) requires streets to connect to existing streets. The only existing street either inside or adjacent to the subdivision boundary is South Street, which the proposed private road will connect to. The second portion of DCMC Section (a) states that when adjoining land is zoned residential streets shall be located within a proposed subdivision to allow the adjacent land to be most efficiently subdivided. The property to the north is already subdivided, and was done so in the 2013 Draper APA Subdivision and obtains access from a private street along its northern boundary. The property to the east is already subdivided as part of the industrial park and the property to the west and south is a canal. The code section has been provided below for your review. Lone Peak Business Park App. # S Minor Subdivision Request 2

4 DCMC Section (a) Streets. Streets shall be located within a subdivision so they connect with existing streets. If the adjoining land is zoned for residential use, streets shall be located so that the adjacent land may be most efficiently subdivided. Based on staff s review of the proposed subdivision, all requirements for street dedication, continuation or access have been addressed. Criteria For Approval. The criterion for review and potential approval of a Minor Subdivision request is found in Section (a) of the Draper City Municipal Code. This section depicts the standard of review for such requests as: The Zoning Administrator shall take the following into account when determining whether the application will require Planning Commission and/or City Council review: (1) The size of the proposed development; (2) Whether the subdivision lies within the Sensitive Lands Overlay Zone; (3) Compliance with City Ordinances and Master Plans; (4) Requests for special exceptions; (5) Compatibility with surrounding properties; and (6) The controversial nature of the proposal. Due to the potential controversial nature of the proposal, the Zoning Administrator has determined that the Minor Subdivision Plat shall follow the review procedure of a normal Plat, which will require Planning Commission and City Council review. REVIEWS Planning Division Review. The Draper City Planning Division has completed their review of the Minor Subdivision submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request without further comment. Engineering and Public Works Divisions Review. The Draper City Engineering and Public Works Divisions have completed their reviews of the Minor Subdivision submission and have issued a recommendation for approval for the request with the following proposed comments: 1. Complete storm drainage discharge to public facility. Completion may be considered at the time of bonding of the drainage infrastructure. Building Division Review. The Draper City Building Division has completed their review of the Minor Subdivision submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request without further comment. Geotechnical and Geologic Hazards Review. Taylor Geo-Engineering, LLC, in working with the Draper City Building and Engineering Divisions, has completed his review of the geotechnical and geologic hazards report submitted as a part of the Minor Subdivision submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request without further comment. Unified Fire Authority Review. The Unified Fire Authority has completed their review of the Minor Subdivision submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request with the following proposed comments: Lone Peak Business Park App. # S Minor Subdivision Request 3

5 1. The Unified Fire Authority has no issues with the proposed subdivision at this time. The proposed building has already been reviewed. Parks & Trails Committee Review. The Draper City Parks and Trails Committee has completed their review of the Minor Subdivision submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request without further comment. South Valley Sewer District Review. The South Valley Sewer District has completed their initial review of the Minor Subdivision submission and the proposed Wasatch/Casepak development and has issued notice, dated September 19, 2014, that sewer system capacity is available for the proposed development. Noticing. The applicant has expressed his desire to obtain a Minor Subdivision for the subject property and do so in a manner which is compliant with the City Code. As such, notice has been properly issued in the manner outlined in the City and State Codes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a Minor Subdivision Plat by Ken Rudy, representing the Price Logistics Draper, LLC, application # S, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all requirements of the Draper City Engineering and Public Works Divisions are satisfied throughout the development of the site and the construction of all buildings on the site, including permitting. a. Complete storm drainage discharge to public facility. Completion may be considered at the time of bonding of the drainage infrastructure. 2. That all requirements of the Draper City Building and Planning Divisions are satisfied throughout the development of the site and the construction of all buildings on the site, including permitting. 3. That all requirements of the Unified Fire Authority are satisfied throughout the development of the site and the construction of all buildings on the site. 4. That all requirements of the geotechnical report are satisfied throughout the development of the site and the construction of all buildings on the site. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed development plans meet the intent, goals, and objectives of the Draper City General Plan. a. Allow development only in those districts where community services are now available or where they can be extended without increased cost to existing residents. b. Encourage the establishment of a strong tax base by accommodating commercial and industrial development in appropriate areas. c. Maintain a balance of land uses that support a high quality of life, a diverse economic base, and a rich mixture of housing and leisure opportunities. 2. The proposed development plans meet the requirements and provisions of the Draper City Municipal Code. 3. The proposed development plans will not be deleterious to the health, safety, and general welfare of the general public nor the residents of adjacent properties. 4. The proposed development conforms to the general aesthetic and physical development of the area. Lone Peak Business Park App. # S Minor Subdivision Request 4

6 5. The public services in the area are adequate to support the subject development. MODEL MOTIONS Sample Motion for a Positive Recommendation I move we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Lone Peak Business Park Minor Subdivision Request by Ken Rudy, representing the Price Logistics Draper, LLC for the purpose of a subdivision, application # S, based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report dated November 24, 2014 and as modified by the conditions below: 1. List any additional findings and conditions Sample Motion for a Negative Recommendation I move we forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the Lone Peak Business Park Minor Subdivision Request by Ken Rudy, representing the Price Logistics Draper, LLC for the purpose of a subdivision, application # S, based on the following findings: 1. List any additional findings Lone Peak Business Park App. # S Minor Subdivision Request 5

7

8 EXHIBIT A AERIAL MAP

9 15 Election Rd do u Dr 15 L an Azt ec Rd d le R Pre a mb Dr Po ult ry Rd llot Ba Inaug u r at i on Rd S S Sunset Slope Cv Drap er Ridge Dr k P k wy rk Dr B usiness P a P ix i e Dr ea Lone P Aiden Ridge Dr Sunset Crest Way Legend S Fox Ch a se D City Limits Parcels r Feet 1,000 Lone Peak Business Park Minor Subdivision Aerial Map N W E S

10 EXHIBIT B LAND USE MAP

11 Inauguration Rd Ballot Rd Poultry Dr Preamble Rd Aztec Rd Residential Low/MediumDensity Residential Medium Density Election Rd S Sunset Crest Way S Cultural/Institutional Draper Ridge Dr Business & Light Manufacturing Lone Peak Pkwy Sunset Slope Way Residential Medium-High Density Pixie Dr Neighborhood Commercial Sunland Dr Open Space/Parks S Business Park Dr Legend City Limits Parcels ,000 Feet Lone Peak Business Park Minor Subdivision Land Use Map W N S E

12 EXHIBIT C ZONING MAP

13 RA1 Inauguration Rd Ballot Rd Poultry Dr Preamble Rd Aztec Rd A S R3 Election Rd CBP Sunset Crest Way S RA2 Aiden Ridge Dr Draper Ridge Dr CSD-LP Lone Peak Pkwy CSD-LPA CC Pixie Dr RM1 Fox Chase Dr S Business Park Dr Legend City Limits Parcels ,000 Feet Lone Peak Business Park Minor Subdivision Zoning Map W N S E

14 EXHIBIT D SUBDIVISION PLAT

15

16

17 EXHIBIT E BUSINESS OWNER LETTER

18 From: To: Subject: Date: brad findlay Jennifer Jastremsky Written comment for the upcoming public hearing for the subdivision at Lone Peak Business Park Friday, November 28, :01:28 AM Dear Jennifer: My name is Brad Findlay. I currently serve as the Board Chair for American Preparatory Academy schools. I am also a 15 year resident and home owner in Draper. I am writing to you regarding the proposed subdivision in the Lone Peak Business Park as part of the Wasatch Products building and construction proposal. First let me say that I wish Wasatch Products all the best. I hope that their subdivision is approved and that they are granted approval to move forward with the construction of their business. The purpose of my letter is ask that as part of the subdivision process, that the city require the land owner and developer of the Lone Peak Business Park deed to the city the portion of the existing private road that lies between the western end of S. and the proposed driveway/entrance to Wasatch Products, thereby making S. a public road all the way from Lone Peak Parkway to the entrance of Wasatch Products. The purpose of the requirement is to allow the owner of the property to the west of our school access to a public road. I am asking that the city make this requirement because: 1. This is a standard requirement in most like situations where there is a private road connected to a public road that also is contiguous to another parcel of land that is needing access to a public road. The 20 acre parcel to the north of Lone Peak Business Park is currently occupied with the APA school, 5-6 acres of vacant ground to the west of the school, and approximately 9 acres of vacant ground to the east of the school. 2. The 9 acres to the east of the school can gain access to Lone Peak Parkway by a number of options. 3. However, the 5-6 acres to the west of our school cannot access Lone Peak Parkway at this time. The Fire Marshall has looked at this site and has told APA and the owner of the ground to our west that the Fire Marshall will not allow any building to happen to the west of our school without a second access point. Currently the single point of access from the school (and the acreage behind us to the west) to Lone Peak Parkway is from the access road very near Election Rd. 4. The only other option for the landowner to our west to gain access to Lone Peak Parkway is to purchase a home or two in the residential subdivision to the north and to demolish these homes and gain access to the Lone Peak through this residential neighborhood. I believe that the best and most reasonable access to Lone Peak Parkway by all parties involved is on S. The city installed a traffic signal at the intersection of S. and

19 Lone Peak Parkway about 2 years ago in anticipation of the increased traffic on S. The city can easily help all parties involved by requiring that as part of the subdivision approval for Wasatch Products, that the private road the connects S. and the proposed Wasatch Products development, be deeded to the city as a public road. As I stated before this is a common practice and requirement in similar situations. I understand that this type of requirement is not mandatory and that the city can approve the proposed subdivision and keep the road in question as a private road. However, I feel that would do unnecessary and significant financial harm to the land owner of the property to the west of APA. Let me address one more item as part of this discussion. I have met with both Steve Price (Lone Peak Business Park) and with Keith Casey (Wasatch Products) this past spring and summer discussing the situation. Their main reason given to me as to why they think that it best to keep the private road private is because of safety. They have expressed to me that their main concern is the mixing of school automobile traffic with semi truck traffic on the same road is not safe for the children of the school. Let me assure that student and children safety is at the top of my list. However, I do not see how keeping school traffic off of S. will make any difference in potential points of contact with semi trucks in the Lone Peak Parkway business Park. The reason is that there are multiple existing points of contact with semi trailer traffic and school traffic. The school has high traffic during a 30 minute period in the morning typically between 7:30am and 8am. And then again for an hour in the afternoon typically between 2:15pm and 3:15pm. During these times trucks are on Lone Peak Parkway, and on South and on South. Semi trucks are driving in front of, behind of, and in opposite direction of, our school traffic now. I do not believe that a semi trailer and a school vehicle would be anymore or less at risk on S. (if S. were a public road) than they are currently on Lone Peak Parkway. Trucks do not get to S. without first driving along Lone Peak Parkway. APA traffic is driving on Lone Peak Parkway everyday experiencing potential points of contact with semi trailer traffic. Having this encounter along S. would not expose a danger or threat to school children anymore than an encounter along Lone Peak Parkway. One final note. APA has staff that guide and direct car pool everyday both in the morning and the afternoon. At no time do we ever allow children to cross the driveway from one lane of traffic to another with out being escorted by staff or parents. One concern I heard from Mr. Price and Mr. Casey is what would the potential danger be if students were walking along S. next to the big trucks. This would never happen. Our children are not allowed to cross any portion of driveways without an adult escort.

20 I invite you to come and see our carpool both in the morning and the afternoon to get a better understanding. But in my opinion there would be no increased level of danger to school traffic along a new, public S. as compared to any point along Lone Peak Parkway, South or South. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Brad Findlay