PZ - Staff ReportUDC Text Amendment – Common Open Space 1
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: April 7, 2016
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: H-2016-0024 - UDC Text Amendment – Common Open Space
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, EGC Development, LLC has applied for a Unified Development Code Text
Amendment to modify the standards for open space and site amenities set forth in UDC 11-3G-3A.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis
provided in Section VIII and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Exhibit B.
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City
Council of File Number H-2016-0024 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7,
2016 with the following modifications: (add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City
Council of File Number H-2016-0024 as presented during the hearing on April 7, 2016 for the
following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number H-2016-
0024, to (insert specific hearing date), and direct staff to make the following changes: (insert
comments here.)
IV. APPLICATION FACTS
A. Site Address/Location: Citywide
B. Applicant:
EGC Development, LLC
13601 McMillan Road
Boise, Idaho 83713
C. Applicant's Statement/Justification: See applicant’s narrative for more information.
D. History: The proposed UDC text amendment is requested due to the recent approval of the
UDC Text Amendment – Common Open Space 2
Birkdale Estates Subdivision which received annexation (AZ) and preliminary plat (PP) approval
to develop fifteen (15) single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on
approximately 10.06 acres in an R-2 zoning district. The applicant for this project has proposed
the amendment to allow the development to move forward without losing a buildable lot to open
space. If approved the code change will go into effect City wide.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a Unified Development Code Text Amendment as determined by
City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a
public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this
matter.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: March 21, and April 4, 2016 (Commission)
C. A public service announcement was broadcast via email on March 21, 2016 (Commission)
regarding this application.
VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The City’s Comprehensive Plan is a vision and policy document for guiding development and the
transportation needs in the City of Meridian. The City continues to upgrade community design
standards through the adoption of updated ordinance criteria that ensures development occurs in a
compatible, attractive and orderly manner. Staff believes the applicant’s proposal to modify the
common open space standards would allow the applicant to proceed with their development as
presented to the Commission and Council without the need of losing a residential lot and complying
with the current open space standards. Further, the primary residential zoning districts established in
the City is the R-4 and R-8, therefore the reduction to open space would only apply to low density
residential developments while still requiring that the developments meet the site amenity
requirements of the UDC.
Staff finds that the subject Unified Development Code Text Amendment complies with and furthers
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The specific objectives and actions that support the proposed amendment are listed below:
• “Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the
provisions of this plan.” (7.01.01A)
With the previous UDC text amendment, staff presented a proposal to both the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council to reduce the percentage of open space to 5% for residential
developments whose lots were 10,000 square feet on average. This proposal was not approved by
the City for various reasons, but one being the possibility of having several large lots that would
raise the average lot size of a subdivision, while allowing for a number of small lots within a
subdivision and still meet the open space requirements of the UDC.
This proposal is similar to that proposed by staff in fall of 2015 (H-2015-0011) in that it will reduce
the amount of required open space for large-lot residential subdivisions. The difference in these
two proposals is that in this proposal the minimum lot size is defined and applies to low density
developments (R-2), and is not based on an average lot size.
UDC Text Amendment – Common Open Space 3
VII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. The applicant is requesting the specific sections of the UDC that should be amended for the code.
This application includes changes to the following sections of the UDC:
Chapter 3, Article G: COMMON OPEN SPACE AND SITE AMENITY REQUIREMENTS
VIII. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting approval of a UDC text amendment to update section 11-3G-3A of
the Unified Development Code (UDC). Specifically, the requested change is to reduce the
percentage of required open space to five percent (5%) for a residential development that is
composed entirely of lots in excess of 16,000 square feet (see Exhibit A).
As mentioned above in the history section, the applicant recently received approval to develop the
Birkdale Estates Subdivision. At the time the application was submitted, the City was in the
process of proposing an update to the same section of code the applicant is proposing to modify.
Staff recommended a reduction to common open space based on the following criteria:
1. Residential lots had to be average of 10,000 square feet or more; or
2. The development had to be within a quarter (1/4) mile of a City regional park or an eighth
(1/8) of a mile of a City community park.
The applicant was aware of this proposed change and proposed 6.6% open space for the
development contingent upon the City’s approval of the text amendment. That portion of the
amendment was not approved by Council and subsequently the project was approved to comply
with the common open space ordinance in effect at the time of final plat approval.
The applicant has elected to pursue modifying the ordinance rather than comply with the current
open space standards thus; a final plat application has not been submitted to the City for review or
approval.
The primary difference between the two (2) proposals is the applicant’s proposal specifies a
minimum lot size which staff’s proposal did not. Further, staff’s recommendation included a
minimum proximity of the development in relationship to a regional and/or community park.
Staff supports the applicant’s proposal and has analyzed the request with other provisions in the
UDC to ensure the proposed change does not conflict with other sections of the code. Based on
this analysis, Staff has concluded that this change will not affect any other sections of the UDC.
Based on this analysis, staff is supportive of the requested change and recommends approval of
UDC amendment as proposed in Exhibit A.
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Requested Changes to the Unified Development Code
B. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code
UDC Text Amendment – Common Open Space 4
Exhibit A – Requested Changes to the Unified Development Code
Code Section Code Section (strikethrough and underline used for
changes)
Reason for Change
UDC 11 -3G -3A 1.The total land area of all common open
space that meets the standards as set forth in
subsection B of this section shall equal or
exceed ten percent (10%) of the gross land
area of the development; or provide five
percent (5%) common open space if the entire
development is comprised of buildable lots, a
minimum of 16,000 square feet.
2. One additional site amenity that meets the
standards as set forth in subsection C of this
section shall be required for each additional
twenty (20) acres of development area. (Ord.
10-1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010)
Common open space is
not as critical because the
larger lots typically
provide a large amount of
private open space, thus
lessening the need for
common open space.
UDC Text Amendment – Common Open Space 5
Exhibit B – Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Unified Development Code Text Amendments:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment
to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 6, of
the Staff Report for more information.
B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare; and
Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare. It is the intent of the text amendments to further the health,
safety and welfare of the public.
C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not
limited to, school districts.
Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant
changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City
departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will
continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service
provider(s) when making this finding.