PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 10 May 4, 2005 agreement between petitioner and ADOT is needed to accomplish these improvements. Municipal Traffic Department has not accepted the final TIA due to concerns with coordinating traffic on 56 th Avenue with free dump days. They also want a traffic signal at 56 th Avenue and Old Seward. The signal installation includes all median and associated work. They are requesting a plat note be placed on the final plat stating “WalMart shall not receive a Conditional Certificate of Occupancy until the Old Seward Highway and 56 th Avenue traffic signal is operational.” This is to be done before Wal Mart opens its doors to the public. They also want the petitioner to resolve the configuration of the roadway and medians at the intersection of Old Seward Highway and 56 th Avenue. These requirements are addressed in the Planning Department's recommended conditions. In reviewing the vacation requests, MS. O'BRIEN noted that a 30-foot wide rightof-way is being dedicated along the north boundary in lieu of the 15-foot public use easement. That dedication results in a 60-foot wide right-of-way for East 56 th Avenue, which meets current standards for an urban industrial street. Juneau Avenue is being dedicated to an 80-foot width on the west property boundary in lieu of LaTouche Street right-of-way, which has never been constructed or used as a connection between 56 th Avenue and Dowling Road. It does appear that vacation of the public use easement and the LaTouche right-of-way meets municipal vacation policy and ordinance and would not adversely affect traffic circulation or access to this or other properties in the area. CHAIR PHELPS asked who would be responsible to approve the construction of the intersection at Old Seward Highway and 56 th Avenue, as required in condition 8.c. MS. O’BRIEN replied that both the Traffic Department and Project Management and Engineering (PM&E) would have approval responsibility. CHAIR PHELPS asked if that should be specified in this condition. MS. O’BRIEN replied in the affirmative. The public hearing was opened. BRAD RINCKEY, with Lounsbury Associates and representing the petitioner, introduced TOM ADAMS, also with Lounsbury Associates. MR. RINCKEY stated that this project has been discussed several times with all interested parties, including several meetings with the Municipal Planning Department to discuss all aspects of site development with an emphasis on access and drainage. There have also been meetings with the Taku/Campbell and Campbell Heights community councils and positive responses have come from both on site layout and proposed building aesthetics. There have been meetings with Army COE, EPA, USF&W, Department of Natural Resources regarding the wetlands resulting in the development of a plan to restore and maintain a portion of the wetlands on the site. That plan has been submitted to the COE. A TIA has been completed and verbal approval has been received from the Traffic Department.
PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 11 May 4, 2005 Written approval has been received from ADOT. The petitioner has met with the Mayor’s Office and received a positive response to the building layout and the building aesthetics. This hearing is to address the plat. This project is subject to site plan review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at which time all design elements will be discussed in detail. A site plan review application will be heard on July 11, 2005. This project is also subject to Urban Design Commission approval where landscaping, screening and building design elements will be reviewed; that review is anticipated in July. MR. RINCKEY felt regarding condition 5.b that is premature to say the driveway must be abandoned with construction of the traffic signal when design of the signal has not even started. He asked that condition 5.b state “Resolve with MOA Traffic Engineer regarding the lot across 56 th Avenue and the need to abandon the existing driveway.” He also asked to amend condition 5.d to state “56 th Avenue signal be approved by Municipality of Anchorage Traffic." He noted that through dialogue with the Community Planning and the Mayor's Office and the community, WalMart now understands the concerns of the community and wants to create a development that not only addresses those concerns, but fits into the surrounding community and environment. CHAIR PHELPS asked for clarification of the changes to conditions requested by the petitioner. MR. ADAMS proposed to delete condition 5.b and reword condition 5.d to state “Resolve with MOA Traffic Department the construction and final configuration of the roadway and medians for the Old Seward/56 th Avenue signal, prior to recording the final plat.” CHAIR PHELPS asked the source of the site plan requirement. MS. O’BRIEN replied that the large retail establishment ordinance requires site plan review. BOARD MEMBER CARESS asked if the driveway referenced in condition 5.b is to the east across the Old Seward Highway. MR. ADAMS replied that it is on the west side of the Old Seward that serves as access to a business. The petitioner understands the concerns with respect to the driveway and will work to resolve the matter. BOARD MEMBER CARESS asked if 56 th Avenue is a driveway at present. He asked what the owner of that lot has to do with this platting action. BOARD MEMBER KREGER did not see a driveway across the Old Seward Highway. MR. RINCKEY thought the driveway in question is just south of the extension of 56 th Avenue and perhaps the proximity to the intersection is too close. MS. O’BRIEN clarified that the lot at Old Seward and 56 th Avenue, on the west side, takes driveway access to 56 th Avenue at the corner of the intersection; when that intersection is signalized they might have difficulty accessing their property. Traffic probably wants to ensure there is at least a 75-foot separation distance. BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked Staff’s position on the revision to the conditions as proposed by the petitioner. MS. O’BRIEN was concerned with the revision because Traffic told her the TIA had not been accepted. She wanted to ensure that however the motion is crafted, the issue of the driveway is addressed. She preferred the original
Page 1 and 2: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Z.J. Loussac
Page 3 and 4: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 3 May 4
Page 9: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 9 May 4
Page 13 and 14: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 13 May

PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?