HomeMy WebLinkAboutAvendale MCU-09-002 DES-09-026CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF E IDIAN~-'
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request to Modify the Conditional Use Permit for Avendale (fka Silver
Oaks/Umbria) to Change the Building Elevations and Site Plan Approved with the
Previous Time Extension of the Conditional Use Permit, by Ten Mile Development, LLC.
Case No(s). CUP-09-002 & DES-09-026
For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 1, November 5, and
December 3, 2009, and January 21, and February 11, 2010 (Findings on March 4, 2010)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 11, 2010,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 11, 2010,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of
February 11, 2010, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of February 11, 2010, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the '`Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified
Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps
thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the
Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6,
2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-SA.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT. CONC[.,USIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MCU-09-002
Page 1
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy
served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works
Department and any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report
for the hearing date of February 11, 2010, incorporated by reference. The conditions are
concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition
of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City
Code ~ 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein
adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's Conditional User Permit Modification as evidenced by having
submitted. the site plan and building elevations attached in Exhibit A of the staff report
dated. February 11, 2010, is hereby conditionally approved; and,
2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of February 1 1, 2010, incorporated by reference.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a
maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,
and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or
structures on or in the ground.
For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded
within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen
(18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is
made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be
constructed within successive intervals of one (l) year from the original date of
approval If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the
conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request
and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-
6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use
CI"I Y Oh' MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FAC"T, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION 8r ORDER
CASE NO(S). MCU-09-002
Page 2
not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to
eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted.
With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use
comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat
or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis.
Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request
for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for
Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 67-6521 an affected. person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 11, 2010.
CITY OF MF,RIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASF, NO(S). MCU-09-002
Page 3
.~ f ~
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the _~'
day of ~'~}'~~'t! ~~ ~~ , 2010.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED _~~~~-'.-~~/
(Chair)
COMMISSIONER SCOTT FREEMAN VOTED ~ ~G
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED /~- GC,
COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED~i:~,
COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED
L,~
C AIRM M ~.
-- .
~ ~~_ _~ ~~; ~ , . ~ t .: ~. f ,. 5 ~1 GL-
Attest:
ity Clerk
Copy served upon Applicant,
Attorney.
TFQ
aIEAL
~,~ -_
`' o
i~~~ ~g~3 ~ ~, Public Works Department and City
~'~~~, ®UNT~ ~ ,,~~`
r!rr~~r n r~~~~~~~
By: '~~.,? ~`V:.~ ~ i~o ( L~j `~~ . ~~~ C Dated:
City Clerk's Office
Y
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MCU-09-002
Nage 4
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: February 11, 2010
(Continued from October 1, November S, and
December 3, 2009, and January 21, 2010)
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
~.~Vl E IDR IAN,:..,
~J
SUBJECT: MCU-09-002 & DES-09-026 - Avendale (flea 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 cormnercial lot.
The applicant is requesting approval to modify the building elevations and site plan approved with the
previous time 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.
IL SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending denial approval of the DES and MCU application with the conditions
listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit B C of the
Staff Report.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 11, 2010. At the
public hearing, they moved to approve MCU-09-002 & DES-09-026.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Becky McKay
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters
vi. Other staff commenting on application: Pete Friedman
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. The proposed phasing of the development.
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
Page I
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MCU-09-
002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of rr,,.,°.,,i,°,- c ~nno February 11, 2010
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 ,.r,,..°,.,i.°,. , n ~nno March 4, 2010.
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number MCU-09-002,
as presented during the hearing on "'~~~°m'~°~ c ~nno February 11, 2010, 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 Neer 'ten,-Z'L9(~9 March 4,
2010.
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 '/ of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West.
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
Page 2
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 anti 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 commerciaUoffice 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
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 15,
2009. With the time extension request, the applicant at that time, proposed a site plan consistent
with the previously approved plan but with condominiums 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
Page 3
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: (sta f~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
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
mix {~} of residential types/styles ofmulti-family structures ,
r+J~r~~}-te consisting of 4-plex, l2-plex, and 16-plexrnulti-family structures with I, 2, and
3 bedroom units which will 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.
Page 4
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). Twelve-plex and sixteen-plex structures are also proposed (see Exhibits
A.10 - A. 13). A revised site plan is also proposed (see Exhibit A.3). The applicant intends to
construct ~9 14 four-plex structures, (4) twelve-glex structures, and (ll) sixteen-plex
structures, and submit a preliminary plat for ~9 29 multi-family lots with the same
amenities, the same or a greater amount of open space, and revised 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; 3 types 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 one 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 3 types 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.
As previously stated, the applicant is also proposing 12-glex and 16-plex structures
consisting of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, which contribute to the variety of housing types
Page 5
available within the development, consistent with the TMISAP (see Exhibits A.10 -
A.13). Each of these structures only has one floor plan but has two different variations
in elevations. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations provided that at least two
color schemes per elevation are used to add variety.
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 ~
'°"°r ~ n __'1~~~~ °° r'` °^ °~°'''°*. The site is ne-leis planned to develop with di-fferent
"~~g1~b 6ttitXyiiS"; *i- n~'~'-rr~~rfcri-n~i-vPv~c`1 1",•ley-pcS-crr-°cziv^~d--puan"icd the 4-plex
structures in a "neighborhood" on the southeast portion of the site, with the 12-plex and
16-plex structures te-be interspersed throughout the site as shown on the revised 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.
Per UDC 11-5B-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~epesecl
a°.,°1°~.,.°... a°°., ti°~.,,°°..i,° ~ 11°..,:~,. °>1:°,..:.,°~ following:
• "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 Trot 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)
~ The applicant is proposing a mix in multi-family residential
Page 6
housing types consisting of 4-plex structures with 2 and 3 bedroom units; and 12-plex
and l6-plex structures with 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units i?-~. This will result in a
non-homogeneous looking neighborhood ~ and allow for
a greater variety in housing types within the development.
• "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 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, and again to review revised plans on February 3, 2010. At the
meeting on February 3, 2010, the committee found the following to still be outstanding
issues with respect to the four- Alex structures:
- ,
~acPiciirrc-crcrgrrvrn-nvvQ-rccnzuu~~ccrnv~r
• 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 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.
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 °~~-^~~^^r*'~~'°^~ variety in the housing types proposed
de ° ~'. °a ~ .^'^' ^~ z~ ,~:r-~ ^* . ^*; ° with 4-plex,
12-plex, and 16-plex structures consisting of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units; as
op~
°a *^' *~^^~ ^'^^ ~ ~~*'~ ~ i...;'a:~,- *~~~°~ ^ °a with 3 different
variations in elevations for the 4-plex structures and 2 different variations in
elevations for the 12-plex and 16-plex structures although only 1 floor plan is
proposed for each of the different types of structures;
Page 7
• 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 the revised plans addressed the majority of the above listed items (crossed out
items), except for some items specifically related to the design of the 4-plex structures,
the committee felt that with some slight modifications to the elevations, the 4-plex
structures could be consistent with ~*'~° ~ ~°*°^^~°~ ^^'°a ^'~^~~°''°'~°°°~ `'~°
° ,,,1., „ ,°a °1°.,.,.;^~~i~;.° .,1.,., .,^,a *>,° ~ °a °1°.,.,.;^„~i~;+o „1°„ ~na the design
standards contained in the Design Manual and TMISAP_; Therefore, the committee
recommended deal ^r *'~° ~ °a "~r'r r l,~°°~' ^^ *'~° ~''^~~° ~'~'°~ r ° the 4-plex
structures be revised to incorporate more quality in design as stated above with the
following suggestions:
Plan/building modifications:
• Additional shade devices could be shown above stairs/entry and/or decks to
provide more articulation. (At "A" type buildings);
• Second floor bedrooms could "pop out" as on original plans to provide
articulation of side elevations and provide additional roof element
(gable/dormer/hipped roof) at side elevations. (At "A", "B", and "C" type
buildings);
Elevations modifications:
Type A-1 (Prairie style
• Extend siding at center mass full height;
• Provide brick wainscot at side elements as in original scheme;
• Second floor "pop outs" as referenced for plans.
ape A-2 (Mediterranean style)
• Extend stonework at center mass to bottom of siding;
• Provide stone wainscot at side elements as in original scheme;
• Second floor "pop outs" as referenced for plans;
• "Divide" windows at sides to provide more graceful proportions and
emphasize vertical orientation.
Type A-3 (Cape Cod style)
• Provide stone wainscot at side elements as in original scheme;
• Provide additional window articulation at first floor windows;
• Provide shingle siding to either side of center mass at second floor, and
consider widening gable to cover wider area as in original scheme;
• Second floor "pop outs" as referenced for plans;
Provide at least 2 color schemes per elevation type on the 12-plex and 16-plex
structures to ensure variety in the elevations. The applicant could also consider
extending more material palettes to the larger buildings, as there is no brick or
shingles shown on them.
Page 8
UPDATE: ON FEBRUARY lOT~j, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED REVISED
PLANS FOR THE 4-PLEX STRUCTURES THAT ADDRESS THE
AFORMENTIONED ITEMS.
The Director has reviewed the proposed revised building elevations and revised 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 nearly cue-Het 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 deHi-al
approval of the DES application and subsequently recommending a-1 approval of the MCU
application with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map
2. Conceptual Site Plan Approved with TE-08-003
3. Proposed Site Plan (dated nip l/28/10)
4. Proposed Building Type "A" Elevations for 4-Plex Structures (dated 9/18/09) (& Elevation
Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
5. Proposed Building Type "B" Elevations for 4-Plex Structures (dated 9/18/09) (& Elevation
Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
6. Proposed Building Type "C" Elevations for 4-Plex Structures (dated 9/18/09) (& Elevation
Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
7. Prepesed .;~a;.,,.~~2st~. a ..a r :,, ~,.~,,.. in n~e~~'~^«rzsl Elevations have been
revised
8. Color and Material Samples for each Building (4-Plex Structures)
9. Proposed Floor Plan for 4-Plex Structures (dated 9 2/10/10)
10. Proposed Elevations for 12-Plex Structures (dated 1/15/10)
11. Proposed Floor Plan for 12-Plex Structures (dated 1/15/10)
12. Proposed Elevations for 16-Plex Structures (dated 1/15/10)
13. Proposed Floor Plan for 16-Plex Structures (dated 1/15/10)
14. Proposed Colors & Materials for 12-Plex & 16-Plex Structures
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 9
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map
Page 10
2. Conceptual Site Plan Approved with TE-08-003
~.~ a
.~... ~ ~
~ ~~~ ~
~~.i~
r, i .s .
- e-o NG~ PTU f'~- _ ~ vNC'-~~9~~ iS ~~'c
Yr~.x. vh~ ~'>Icu,`~ ix%~. iJLt C.~Pci}'l.Y1s5
~A
l \ 1 E'.Y F~~ l h ~-\y:,~'lLJ 6r ~"L~uC~S ~ 1 ~1~ .,.
~- ExGG'~ ~OCc.~~or~rj ~ ~'.~ ~e~2pYtlA7L:~ ,
Ck~'C~..~,-IZ c~~+..ty-c.-Q
l~
Page 2
3. Proposed Site Plan (dated X183 REVISED 1/28/10))
~~"-' NOT APPROVED ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ,,,,;
E ~ ;
~
1
2 1 __ - 'B
.
_.. r----- _._--__--- . 1-"8tazwrr I 1 +ire F
MY4'~"t ;
_.. _ F ~ .. o rp ~
•,
~ 11~p $ YF ~
C
1 r
~
nor o- Y.~+
'; ~i. ...c
. M 45{~.c$-~~ r- - ~, p .s ~~ I
,~~ ~ Il :A ~ "~ 1y ~X Y~ 3 Q I L
_ __ -
.. il~~
F
~ ^I
~I ~ ./i
'Q} Y, x _ S MS b r' 'i .~. ~ I _ fix` ~ 9~~
I b g ~ F1
Y
I
~ ~ \,T~~j• ~n ~(~~ 4 Y
IiVI' _~~
~
k ~ `!
~I
'
"
"
~ `~F
f
~
m
~!$
;A, Y {
I RSP.I
RifiFR..A7' 8A7i A
r.s ~s~~~~~
.s ~ ~
i
~
I ~~ ~ ~.a. ,~ a
f~
~ ~ ~
i
;I 6
uxuzarrr 13
,
••.. ~~
L
. mxm F
__ _ ..
~
~ 1 .:._ _.&16
I - ....~~.' ~. ~
N.q ~ lilt i ~. ~x
... .. ,
PRE
~ ~"
~ ~i~e
y
~'~~
~9~~
r..,.. ~.~~ .,.. E Y
x ~§~
>~ j
,~...~,~.~,F. -_ = LL Fail
0
.. .. .. ,e .~~ ,..... ~y~j 6~
® j=
~~_ ~
_;,~:' _.
.,
`S~~E
Page 3
mad ~_~___, ,, +an
APPROVED - - - ~,._~
4. Proposed Building Type "A" Elevations for 4-Plex Structures (dated 9 2/10/10) (&
Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
Page I
~~' 'a~
NE.ICN~iECi4 EFNCE E
SR4ER QANS
816801YIS10N
I F!
I l I i ~...
A5.01
E~i~~.~,.~ r;a+E:as
E.E_:~~E~..~~~,~
Page 2
Y8'=1-'
• c4.1~ E'P't~~AA-•
Proposed Building Type "B" Elevations for 4-Plex Structures (dated 9 2/10/10) (& Elevation
Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
Page 3
APPROVED
~' ;%
TNF u~CMlrecra wptf
SAYER OAKS
BUNOIMN70N
.attx., ~.. ,, '.I
~iJ0.'
A(Hf L'A'1 I':
~~~~
,;
x ~ Y ~
REAR ELEVATION - BUILdN6 TYPE'A-2'
A5.02
10.:1 k1':~I~ieAl l>A.i
6.4:~rcr; ,.~R.,~a~
Page 4
FRONT ELEVATION - BWLOINB TYPE 'A-2'
LEFT ELEYpTgN-BUILDING TYPE'A-2' RgNT ElfYA110M - NUIIDNIG 7Y-E 'A-E'
6. Proposed Building Type "C" Elevations for 4-Plex Structures (dated ~S/89 2/10/10)
(& Elevation Previously Approved with TE-08-003)
Page 5
Page 6
'~'~- ~'
~~ac.~r~w-L'
~, n.-,,..,.~„a ><z,.;>I,~;.,,.~ m.,,,~~ ~ u .,a r ;., r„~,.r in a~.,., c+,...,.+....,.~~ Elevations have been revised
FRONT ELEVATION - BUILOIN6 TYPE'B'
FRONT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE 'C'
Page 7
FRONT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE'A'
8. Color and Material Samples for each Building (4-Plex Structures)
SIDING BODY COLOR
~ >, ~;
~,
F. Y
STUCCO BODY COLOR
SIC.VER OAKS SUBDIVISION
1=RANKLIN & TEN MILE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
COLOR AND MATERIAL SAMPLE BOARD
SIDING BODY COLOR
STONE COLOR
BUILDING A SCHEME BUILDING B SCHEME BUILDING C SCHEME
FIBERGLASS
ASPHALT SHINGLES
VINYL WINDOW
FRAMES
Page 8
9. Proposed Floor Plan for 4-Plex Structures (dated ~S/89 2/10/10)
iLDUR PLAN -BUILDINGlYPE W1','ll-r a'ea'
REVISED
I'~~
iws awcnrt[ns awx[ ~
fIIMER OIIRE
EUWIYpIRR
wx:hn~~n W,:
Rwk'
i+ggaa F`A~1[1
A2.0
Page 9
10. Proposed Elevations for 12-Plex Structures (Building Types B-1 & B-2) (Sheets
A5.1 & A5.2, Dated 1/15/10)
FRONT ELEVATIBN - BUILOIN6 TTPE'B-1'
REAR ELEVAT~N - BU&DIN6 TTPE 'B-1'
SB)E ELEVATION - BUILgNG TYPf'B-1'
~,, ~~:
THE AflCHI iC f, TS ^Fi~C
ua+ii~.;~.-
6q5[ L"ur. FF'Z'
r Wy x~ta~
Nw,tY~eK/T.V
SILVER OAKS
SUBDIVISION
iaanKl Iva -rt MUt
RUk~
MtNILYhII. IUaraO
a~
uqw+• ~ ric
A5.1
tKithlUh l... t:.i.fJ\5
8UI '4„>.vc,. ~P
Page 10
~,, ~~.
TIIC pRC x~iC Cifi (IF FICE'
FRDNT ELEVATION - BUILOIN6 TTPE'B-2'
REAfl ELEVATION - 9UILDING TYPE'B-2'
SSE ELEVATION -BUILDING Tl'PE'B-2'
~aF+W :mr
tnec r..~.' e~-s
v iaa ~r!~mi
Nvs,~u~'. ~c~%u
SILVER
$UBDIVISI6N
W~xKi 14 8 -t 1 AIU I
FOLD
MERigtx, luw+o
Kr6f ~ n aw • ...... i.. ~.
a.e
.u a,,,
A5.2
rxcHlUli herA+l~is
eldl nlxr, -v=r aa~
Page 11
11. Proposed Floor Plan for 12-Plex Structures (Building Types B-1 & B-2) (Sheet A2.1, Dated
1/15/10
~ ~ ~
7NE 4NC NOTE CTS OFl~LE
e4~ :a
Nth: I:~..v t
.. .~i~tA: i,x~ v
SILYER OAKS
SUBDIVISION
f~NARKI IN d ? i MCI l
N(10.?
MEN~LHAN, ~Qh-v
A2.1
Page 12
FIRST FLOOR PLAN BUILDIND 'B-P & 'D-2'
1...__
2SECOND FLOOR PLAN BUILDING'S-1' d~'6-2'
12. Proposed Elevations for 16-Plex Structures (Building Types "C-1 & C-2" (Sheet A5.3,
Dated 1/15/10)
~~ ~ ,:T
TNF 1FCN~TFGTB OFFN;E F
„'~
u ;.~B mtnn
FRONT ELEVATION - BUKMNC TYPE'C-i' (NEAR SINL~
SILVEN QANS
SUBBNISION
~~+aNKi L'~ a rvk uh.i
RUiD
uFWgnN, Inu+4
SIRE EIEVATN)N-BURBIMBTVPE'C-1'
SpE ELEVATION - BUILBINC TYPE'C-2'
4:.
J_J
FRONT ELEVATION - BUttBINS TTPE'C-Y' (REAR SINL~ A5.3
Page 13
13. Proposed Floor Plan for 16-Plex Structures (Building Type C-1 & C-2) (Sheet A2.2, Dated
1/15/10
~ ~~ ~ o°m
rN¢ Axc Nlr[crs aerl[E a
weE rsc u.:=
SILVER OAKS
SOBOIVI510N
fNANK1IN 8 a!A UIIJ
RU0.7
Nd:NI~MAx, luAno
Ft00R PLAN NUROINO'C-0' 8'C-2'
1 . , ....
A2.2
Page 14
14. Proposed Colors & Materials for 12-Plex & 16-Plex Structures
FRONT ELEVATION -BUILDING TYPE 'B-1'
ELEVATION
Page 15
SIDE ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE'C-1'
SIDE ELEVATION -BUILDING TYPE 'C-2'
SCALP tf8' _ t~-D^
Page 16
B. Conditions of Approval
1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this site
and the provisions of the development agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 106002636.
1.2 The site plan (prepared by Engineering Solutions, LLP, dated 1/28/10, Sheet 1 of 1, attached
as Exhibit A.3) is hereby approved with no changes.
1.3 The site shall develop in accord with the phasing plan shown on the site plan in Exhibit A.3.
The community center complex shall be constructed with the first phase of development as
depicted on the site plan.
1.4 The building elevations for the 12-plex and 16-plex multi-family structures shall consist of a
minimum of two different types of elevations per building type as shown in Exhibits A.10 &
A.12 and shall have at least two color schemes per elevation type. The applicant shall
submit color samples with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application demonstrating
compliance with this requirement.
1.5 The building elevations and floor plans for the 4-plex, 12-plex, and 16-plex multi-family
structures shown in Exhibits A are hereby approved with no changes. All structures on the
site shall be constructed in accord with the aforementioned building elevations.
Page 17
C: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC ll-SB-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit
modification request upon the following:
a. 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;
The Commission 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;
The Commission 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.
~
no~Ef,~}}}p~h~-I}EE-WTtI~ !f ••f ~}}-~@@vcctl9 ~7TTT l T-. rh
~rcuSe-rrv~i
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions of
approval listed in Exhibit B, the proposed use will be harmonious with the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC.
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;
The ComTission 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;
The Commission has determined the proposed uses will not 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;
The Commission 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;
Page 18
The Commission finds the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements
at public cost and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
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;
The Commission 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.
The Commission finds there are no natural, scenic, or historic features considered to be of
major importance on this site.
2. Design Review (UDC 11-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 Commission has reviewed the proposed revised building elevations and site plan
submitted with the DES application and has determined that the changes proposed to the
plans cue--ne~will conform to the standards and meet or exceed the intent of the Design
Manual if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. See
Section IX of the staff report for more information.
Page 19