HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Hearing Date: November 5, 2009
(Continued from October 1, 2009)
Planning & Zoning Commission
Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
(~E IDIAN:---
MCU-09-002 & DES-09-026 Avendale (fka Silver Oaks/Umbria)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Ten Mile Development, LLC, has applied for a modification to the conditional use
permit (MCU) for Silver Oaks. Silver Oaks was approved as a 28.6 acre planned development
consisting of 70 multi-family (4-plex) structures totaling 280 individual units with a clubhouse and
park on one lot and one commercial lot.
The applicant is requesting approval to modify the building elevations and site plan approved with the
previous titne extension of the Conditional Use Permit. Administrative Design Review approval of
the proposed multi-family structures and site is requested concurrently with the MCU application in
accord with UDC 11-SB-8C.1. See Section 10 of the staff report, for more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending denial of the DES and MCU application, based on the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in Exhibit B of the Staff Report.
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number MCU-09-002,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 5, 2009, for the following reasons:
(you must state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to obtain your approval in
the future). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be
considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 19, 2009.
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MCU-09-
002, as presented during the hearing date on November 5, 2009 with the following modifications:
(Add any proposed modifications.) Ifurther move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings
document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 19,
2009.
Continuance
I move to continue File Number MCU-09-002 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The site is located on the north side of W. Franklin Road, approximately `/ mile west of N. Ten
Mile Road, in the southeast'/a of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West.
Page 1
B. Owner(s):
Ten Mile Development, LLC
1409 N. Main Street
Meridian, ID 83642
C. Applicant:
Same as Owner
D. Representative:
Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP
1029 N. Rosario Street
Meridian, ID 83642
E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a modification to the existing conditional use permit. A public
hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with
Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: September 14, and 28, 2009
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 11, 2009
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 19, 2009
VI. HISTORY OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
- In 2005, the subject 28.6 acre property was granted Annexation and Zoning (AZ-OS-016)
approval by City Council with R-15 & L-O zoning districts. A Development Agreement was
approved with the annexation (Instrument No. 106002636). Concurrently, a preliminary plat (PP-
OS-023) consisting of 1 large multi-family residential building lot and 1 commercial office
building lot was approved. A conditional use permit (CUP-OS-026) for a planned development
consisting of 70 multi-family,4-plex structures containing a total of 280 units with a private
clubhouse, park, and pathways. A waiver of the minimum lot frontage requirement for the L-O
zoned commercial property was also approved.
Initially, one building elevation and floor plan was approved with the CUP/PD which consisted of
two and three bedroom units of 1,030 square feet and 1,185 square feet respectively. That
building elevation and site plan is no longer valid; the building elevations and site plan approved
with the time extension in 2008 replaced the. former plans.
- On March 21, 2006, a final plat (FP-06-011) was approved by City Council consisting of 1 multi-
family residential building lot, 1 commercial/office building lot, and 1 common lot on 28.65
acres. This plat has been recorded.
- A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-06-046) was approved on April 28, 2006 for 24 multi-
family buildings, 1 clubhouse, and a fitness center for a portion of the first phase of Silver Oaks.
A revision to the CZC was approved on May 2, 2006. This approval was only valid,for 12 months
and has expired.
- In 2007, the Planning Director approved a one year time extension (TE-07-004) to record the
final plat and commence the use approved with the CUP. As conditions of approval, the applicant
Page 2
was required to convert the drive aisles proposed to serve the multi-family portion of the
development to private streets and provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit in a carport or
garage in compliance with current UDC standards for multi-family developments.
- On April 3, 2007, tentative approval for private streets (PS-07-003) within this development was
granted subject to several tasks being completed within a one year time period. However, because
the tasks were not completed within the required time period, final approval was not granted and
the approval has expired.
- In 2008, a second time extension (TE-08-003) for 18 months was granted by City Council to
record the final plat and commence the use approved with the CUP, to expire on October I5,
2009. With the time extension request, the applicant at that time, proposed a site plan consistent
with the previously approved plan but with condonuniums instead of 4-plex structures with rental
units. The site plan called out three specific "neighborhood" areas with a certain number of units
and architectural style and colors for each area to provide a variety of architectural styles within
the development. Three types of building designs were proposed, "Mediterranean," "Prairie," and
"Cape Cod" with three different variations within each of those designs for a total of 9 different
looks within the project. A total of four different floor plans were proposed. The City Council
strongly favored the revised plans in comparison to those approved originally. As a condition of
approval of the time extension, the applicant was required to develop the site consistent with the
concept plan and building elevations submitted with the application. These revised elevations,
floor plans, and site plan were included in the existing CUP and replaced the original site plan,
floor plan, and elevation approved in 2005; the original site plan, floor plan, and elevations are no
longer valid.
VII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Transfers and Modifications: Per UDC 11-SB-6G, all modifications to the CUP that were the
subject of review during the original public hearing are required to be considered by the Planning
& Zoning Commission at a public hearing. The Commission may modify the conditions,
limitations and/or scope of the permit, in accord with the limitations and requirements of UDC
11-SB-6F.
B. Design Review: Per UDC 11-SB-8B.2, administrative design review of the site and proposed
multi-family residential structures is required in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3A-19, the guidelines in the City's Design Manual, and the recommendations in the Ten Mile
Interchange Specific Area Plan.
VIII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in the area subject to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan
(TMISAP). The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the TMISAP designates the property as
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR).
Staff reviewed the recommended design elements for MHDR designated areas in the TMISAP and
found the following elements applicable to this development: (staff analysis of compliance with these
elements is included in italics)
• Usable porches should be a dominant element of residential buildings and should be located along
at least 30% of the front facade of the buildings. A higher percentage is recommended as is the
location of porches on one or more side facades as well (page 3-33). Front porches are not
proposed.
• Development should incorporate a human scale design through continuity of building sizes, how
the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing is treated, roof forms, rhythm of windows
Page 3
and doors, and general relationship of buildings to public spaces such as streets, plazas, other
open spaces, and public parking (page 3-34). The proposed elevations and site design provide
interest at different scales, including pedestrian scale.
All residential neighborhoods should be developed in consideration of traditional neighborhood
design principals and concepts and the standards established by the City of Meridian for the
Traditional Neighborhood Residential District. Residential neighborhoods should incorporate
basic fundamental principals found in traditional neighborhood designs such as mixed housing
stock, architecture and design, streetscapes, and streets (page 3-36). The applicant is proposing a
small miz (3) of residential types/styles ofmulti-family structures with 2 and 3 bedroom units;
there is no diversity in housing types offered (i.e. single-family attached/detached, duplex, or
townhomes) to allow residents to move to different types of housing within the same
neighborhood. The gross density of the development is 9.8 dwelling units per acre, which is
consistent with the density of 8-1 S dwelling units per acre desired in traditional neighborhood
areas. A community center complex consisting of a clubhouse, court area, playground, fitness
center, swimming pool, and pedestrian walkways are proposed within the development to
encourage common use and gathering.
Primary building facades should be designed and detailed so that they represent the building's
most important elevation and include an entry into the building. Entries should be located so that
they provide direct access from adjacent public spaces, streets, and activity areas. Access from
sidewalks and pathways should be uninterrupted by vehicular traffic. The space between a
building facade and the adjacent sidewalk or walkway should be appropriately landscaped with a
combination of lawns, groundcover, shrubs, and appropriate trees (page 3-38). The proposed
elevations & site plan comply with this design element; landscaping is not shown on the proposed
site plan.
• Low rise buildings of 2-4 stories are recommended (page 3-38). The proposed two-story
structures are consistent with this element.
• Pitched roofs are recommended and should be, where possible, symmetrical hips or gables, with a
pitch between 4:12 and 12:12. All pitched roofs should have an overhang of at least 12 inches.
The overhang can extend to a maximum of 2 '/z feet beyond the facade of the building. Roof
brackets and rafter tail treatments are encouraged (page 3-41). The proposed elevations depict
pitched roofs with overhanging eaves.
• Public art should be incorporated into the design of the development. Developers are encouraged
to collaborate with artists to generate creative design solutions in any development project. Art
should be easily visible to the public (e.g. on the exterior of buildings or visible from the street or
publicly accessible open spaces). There is no public art proposed with this development.
IX. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
1. CUP Modification (MCU): After approval of the previous time extension (TE-08-003)
which included a revised site plan and building elevations, it was determined that the
condominium project was not viable in today's marketplace and financing could not be
obtained. Since that time, ownership of the property has returned to the original property
owners, Ten Mile Development, LLC.
For this reason, the applicant is requesting approval of revisions to the building elevations
approved with the time extension to convert the design of the structures from a
condominium single-family appearance and use to more of a 4-plex appearance. (see Exhibit
A.4, A.S, & A.6). A revised site plan is also proposed (see Exhibit A.3). The applicant
Page 4
intends to construct 70 four-plex structures and submit a preliminary plat for 70 multi-family
lots with the same amenities, open space, and site plan configuration as previously approved,
after approval of the MCU.
The elevations approved with the previous time extension contained units consisting of 2 and
3 bedrooms consisting of 1,200+ to 1,500+ square feet; 3types of building designs with 3
different variations within those designs for a total of 9 different "looks"; row houses & 2
different concepts as far as condos; 4 different floor plans -two of the floor plans consisted
of 2 units upstairs & 2 units downstairs, and the third building type consisted of vertical
ownership. Building materials consisted of a mix of stucco, horizontal siding, shingle siding,
stone veneer, and brick with asphalt shingle roofing.
The proposed elevations incorporate substantially the same design elements and mix of
materials (although not quite as much brick & stone veneer is proposed as before) as the
previously approved Cape Cod, Prairie, and Mediterranean designs; however, instead of
individual entrances to each unit from the main level resembling single-family units, the
proposed entries for each unit are from a central stairwell consistent with amulti-family
structure (see Exhibits A.2, A.3, A.4, and A.5). Only 1 floor plan with 2 and 3 bedroom units,
and 3 building types with no variations within those types are proposed now, as opposed to 4
floor plans with 2 and 3 bedroom units, and 3types of building designs with 3 different
variations within each of the designs as previously proposed. Color and material samples for
each of the 3 building types are included in Exhibit A.8.
The previously approved site plan called out three specific "neighborhood" areas with each
neighborhood consisting of different architectural styles (Cape Cod, Mediterranean, and
Prairie); three different variations of each of these styles were planned to provide
architectural variety within the development.
The overall building layout is not changing on the revised site plan as underground utilities
have already been installed on the site; however, the location of each building type is
proposed to change. The proposed site plan depicts the location of each building type by
letter (A, B, or C) on each lot. The site is no longer planned to develop with different
"neighborhoods"; the 3 different proposed building types are now planned to be interspersed
throughout the site as shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit A.3.
In order to approve a CUP, the Commission must base its determination on the CUP request
upon eight specific findings detailed in UDC 11-SB-6E. One of the findings requires the
proposed use to be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Development in this
area of the City is governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Please see
Section VIII above for Staff's analysis on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan to
determine this finding.
2. Design Review (DES): Because the applicant is requesting CUP approval of modifications to
the building elevations approved with the previous time extension, administrative design
review is required concurrent with the CUP application (UDC 11-SB-8C.1).
Applications for DES are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
19, the objectives of the guidelines contained in the City of Meridian Design Manual, and the
recommendations in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan.
Staff has reviewed the application for compliance with the design standards listed in UDC
11-3A-19 pertaining to architectural character, color and materials, and pedestrian walkways,
and found the proposed changes to be in substantial compliance with those standards.
Page 5
Per UDC 11-SB-8D, in order to grant approval for an administrative design review, the
director shall determine that the proposed structure and/or site design conforms to the
standards and meets or exceeds the intent of the "City of Meridian Design Manual." Staff has
reviewed the application for compliance with the objectives of the City's Design Manual for
the urban suburban and residential development contexts, and found the proposed
development does not meet the following objectives:
• "Plan for access and connectivity to future transit facilities, including, but not limited to,
park-and-ride locations, pullouts, stops, and shelters." (#C- 1.2.3.4, pg. 59 & #E.1.2.3.3,
pg. 123) The site plan does not depict plans for access or connectivity to future transit
,facilities.
• "Residential developments are encouraged to provide a mix of housing types to promote
non-homogeneous neighborhoods capable of accommodating a wide range of residents."
(#E-1.1.3.2, pg. 120) Only four Alex structures with a single floor plan are proposed
within this development; no mix in horsing types (i.e. single family detached/attached,
duplex, townhomes) is proposed. This will result in a homogeneous looking
neighborhood only serving apartment dwellers.
• "Residential roadways are encouraged to incorporate detached sidewalks with parkway
planting strips to accommodate canopy-producing street trees." (#E-1.4.3.5, pg. 129)
Detached sidewalks are not proposed; attached sidewalks are shown on the site plan.
In making a determination of compliance with the standards contained in the Design Manual,
the director may convene a committee of design professionals to provide a recommendation
on the interpretation and application of the guidelines contained in the Design Manual.
Because significant changes are requested to the previously approved building elevations and
site plan, and because new design standards are not in effect that weren't previously, the
director determined that a recommendation from the committee was necessary prior to
formulating a recommendation to the Commission on the DES & MCU.
A meeting took place with the design professionals to review the proposed plans for this
project on October 7, 2009. At the meeting, the committee found the following:
• The variety of plans have been lost;
• The separate neighborhood feel has been lost;
• The quality of the building elevations has been sacrificed in the form ofnon-separate
entries; low roofs have essentially been lost; the quantity of the higher quality
materials (i.e. stone, brick, etc.) has decreased;
• There is a monotonous repetition in the appearance of the structures, regardless of
material types;
• A single floor plan eliminates the ability to provide variety in the appearance of the
structures;
• There is no longer modulation on the front sides of the elevations; and
• The basic quality of the elevations has been lost.
Further, because a CUP finding listed in UDC 11-SB-6E requires the proposed use to be
harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the Director also requested a
recommendation from the design committee on compliance of the proposed changes with the
standards contained in the TMISAP.
Page 6
Based on the standards contained in the TMISAP, the committee found the following:
• Front porches are not provided on the proposed structures as desired in the Plan;
• There is significantly less variety in the housing types proposed from 4 different floor
plans with 3 types of building designs with 3 different variations within each of those
designs as was previously approved for a total of 36 different variations, as opposed
to 1 floor plan with 3 building types as now proposed;
• There is no access to the railway corridor proposed; and
• Detached sidewalks are not proposed as desired in the Plan; however, detached
sidewalks are not really feasible at this point due to adjacent parking structures.
Additional trees could be provided in front yard areas.
Because of the inconsistencies noted above between the previously approved elevations/site
plan and the proposed elevations/site plan and the design standards contained in the Design
Manual and TMISAP, the committee recommended denial of the proposed MCU based on
the above-stated reasons.
The Director has reviewed the proposed building elevations and site plan submitted with the
design review application and the recommendation of the committee. The Director has
determined that the changes proposed to the plans do not conform to the standards and meet or
exceed the intent of the Design Manual as required by UDC 11-SB-8D to grant approval of
administrative design review. Therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the DES application
and subsequently recommending denial of the MCU application.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map
2. Conceptual Site Plan Approved with TE-08-003
3. Proposed Site Plan (dated 9/17/09)
4. Proposed Building Type "A" (& Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
5. Proposed Building Type "B" (& Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
6. Proposed Building Type "C" (& Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
7. Proposed Buildings Types A, B, and C in Color
8. Color and Material Samples for each Building
9. Floor Plan
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 7
Page 8
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map
2. Conceptual Site Plan Approved with TE-08-003
~..~., a
.... ~,~ ~
~.'~'~ ~ II'WIIlI~LJli~1,_L~llf~ A
~ ~\ 1~~
~ ~ \ l ~ ~U
~V~~ ~ ~,
~~ < ~ ~~ ;~
CtY Cpl i-~'L`11t'.. ~ `~ w'~ ~j~ ~~~
Yl ~ .4~ ~Q\~`\
~~
~ ~
-GvNe-~~F'TUP~-~ [ c~-C'-fi~ ~~S ~~
l ~. V E. 4~ er'1"~ h ~-AG.~'i4~ pr ~-~c'~~,r~ S ~- 1 E' .
~~ ~-'~G1G'r ~ O G c~~, ra n~ YU ~-=~ G~'~=~''U"ri~a~GL~
G~~1~u-Fc c~~-~:.P
-- - ~~ ~ 2
~R~F,~«
_-_~_ ;;
~)
~.~~ -. -~
~ ~;- ,
~~,
-= -~~ ,
;% ~~
J 0 /r A\
.~:,
p
rv~° : \
j~r
. ~~~ ~~~
~ -- ~ ~
r. ~
~i~
`\ ~~,
~~) \ /~~.
~~
#~
1;;
r~
Page 9
3. Proposed Site Plan (dated 9/17/09)
1~8_
~r _-
i
I
i
I
I
I`
~~ i
~ i
i ~~
~~ ~~
~' a ~.~
G y ,, ~a'~
it d Vi
I
I
~S~
~ °
I
FKlF
I
I
~ _- ~
Ui ;,~~
ii i~
'~~
~~
~.~
,~
';: s,~
~-0
rm¢i~i=,...~~ cur :~.i.
~ k A-iC , z...A .x
.r ~~ e... .~, eanvwn
..rte ~ w.o.~,.-. ~.
.:~
~ _...~...~....,...~,m.n<.,.~.s.~ ,.~
..,~ ~
.x ,. ».a.
i~
F : F,; ~:E~..r, :^ m~e
~F~;
;~~.
~~ ~
~°~#
y
Cyys~i~
~ ypyE.({.
~~Wf
9
r ~~;
3 r3e
r ~~3
r#
O
~~F~~
~g
~ F ~~
ym ...
PRE
Page 10
4. Proposed Building Type "A" (& Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
cwdc ~'fW~A-^~
Page 1 1
5. Proposed Building Type "B" (& Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
~ ~~~
n~E ~ueFrFCa arrre ~
~~~:~
SAVER URNS
SUttIVtS10N
fgWRIHE IE4 NtF
fvYJJ
I,Ek]IAX SID
~\ ~
"~P~
'~Y
A1.2
CI(-Eft fc£Ya'bk[
Page 12
FRa1T ELkYAT1UN - tUIIOtIB TTPE't'
EBT El#YATI011 - BUN.WIH: iY-E't' Wl6WT Fl£YATlUM • lt1llDNiC TYPE !'
WkAR kIkYATION - tUN.tiN87Y-E't'
6. Proposed Building Type "C" (& Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
^
d-'A°L
Page 13
7. Proposed Buildings Types A, B, and C in Color
FRONT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE'B'
FflONT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE 'C'
Page 14
FRONT ELEVATION -BUILDING TYPE'A'
8. Color and Material Samples for each Building
SIDING BODY COLOR
~~
~: {a
~~~
STUCCO BODY COLOR
SILVER OAKS SUgDIVISiON
FRANKLIN & TEN MILE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
GtILQR AND MATERIAL SAMPLE BQARD
SIDING BODY COLOR
STUCCO BODY COLOR SHINGLE BODY COLOR
BUILDING A SCHEME BUILDING B SCHEME BUILDING C SCHEME
FIBERGLASS
ASPHALT SHINGLES
VINYL WINDOW
FRAMES
:. ,_e
- ~ ~ ;~~~~
°p°'
RMM
THE M1RCHiTECTS OFFICE
Page 15
BRICK COLOR
9. Floor Plan
,,,y
~ ~~. ~ :~
THE RAC HATE CTS 6ii~CE P
SILYEN OAKS
SUBDNISIOM
=t.l'.s x~~dt
~~'~~
a,
O
F100H PIAM - BUILgBG TYPE'A','B' S'C'
A2.0
:~:~,
Page 16
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-SB-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit
modification request upon the following:
That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the approved use;
however, a planned development was previously approved that allowed for modifications
to specific development standards.
b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
and in accord with the requirements of this title;
Staff finds that the proposed multi-family residential subdivision, with a gross density of
9.8 dwelling units per acre, is generally harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan future land use map
which designates the site for Medium High Density Residential uses.
However, there are several development guidelines within the TMISAP that the site is not
in compliance with (for more information, see Section VIII). For this reason, Staff finds
that the proposed use is not fully harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan.
c. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
Staff finds the proposed multi-family residential development will be compatible with the
adjacent church and rural residential properties in the general vicinity and will not
adversely change the character of the area.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staff's
analysis, and other agency comments when deternlining if the proposed uses will
adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer;
Staff finds the proposed use will be served adequately by the essential public facilities
and services as listed above.
f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community;
Staff finds the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the conununity.
Page 17
g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons, property, or general
welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff finds there are no natural, scenic, or historic features considered to be of major
importance on this site.
2. Design Review (UDC ll-SB-8D)
In order to grant approval for an administrative design review, the director shall
determine that the proposed structural and/or site designs conform to the standards and
meet or exceed the intent of the "City of Meridian Design Manual."
The Director has reviewed the proposed building elevations and site plan submitted with the
DES application and has determined that the changes proposed to the plans do not conform to
the standards and meet or exceed the intent of the Design Manual. See Section IX of the staff
report for more information.
Page 18