Touchmark MCU H-2016-0058CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0058
Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for a Modification to the Conditional Use Permit for Touchmark
Cottage Units, Located South of E. Franklin Road and East of S. Eagle Road on the North Side of
E. Putter Lane, East of S. Touchmark Way in the L-O Zoning District, by Touchmark at Meadow
Lake Village.
Case No(s). H-2016-0058
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: June 23, 2016 (Findings on July 7, 2016)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 23, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 23, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 23, 2016,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of June 23, 2016, 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 (I.C. §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 April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
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
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0058
Page 2
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 June 23, 2016, 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-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant’s request for a modification to the conditional use permit is hereby approved in
accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of June 23, 2016,
attached as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1.
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
signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years 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 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.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board 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 June 23, 2016
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: June 23, 2016
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU (H-2016-0058)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village, has applied for a modification to the existing
conditional use permit/planned development (CUP-99-039) to remove the alley that was depicted on
the conceptual development plan for access to seven (7) of the single-family residential homes in
Meadow Lake Village. See Section IX Analysis for more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MCU with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on June 23, 2016. At the
public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject MCU request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Tamara Thompson
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson
v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-
0058 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 23, 2016, with the following
modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0058
as presented during the hearing on June 23, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state
specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to gain your approval with another
application.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2016-0058 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located south of E. Franklin Road and east of S. Eagle Road on the north
side of E. Putter Lane, east of S. Touchmark Way in the north ½ of Section 16, Township 3
North, Range 1 East (Parcel #S1116121050).
B. Owner(s):
Meadow Lake Village Retirement Resort, LLC
5150 S.W. Griffith Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
C. Applicant:
Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village
4037 E. Clocktower Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit modification. 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: June 6 and 20, 2016
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 2, 2016
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 9, 2016
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned L-O.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned L-O
East: Single-family homes, zoned L-O
South: Open space/recreational area for Meadow Lake Village, zoned L-O
West: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned L-O
C. History of Previous Actions:
1n 1999, a comprehensive plan map amendment was approved that changed the land use on
the property from single family residential to a mixed use designation (CPA-99-004).
In 2001, this property along with the larger Touchmark Living Centers (aka Meadowlake
Village) property was annexed (AZ-99-021) and zoned L-O and granted conceptual approval
as a planned development (PD) to house a mix of office, retail, single-family residential, and
multi-family residential uses in the L-O district (CUP-99-039). The project was proposed to
develop in multiple phases. A development agreement (DA) was recorded (Instrument No.
101048096) which outlined the requirements of construction for each phase. Each phase
requires detailed CUP approval. Subsequent amendments to the DA have been approved since
2001 (Instrument #’s 102143308 and 103137119).
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
In 2003, a modification to the PD (CUP-03-005) was approved and later modified with a
subsequent modification in 2004 (CUP-04-014).
In 2007, a modification to the conceptual development plan approved with the PD was
approved (CUP-07-008) (see Exhibit A.2). The modification did not affect this site but did
change the overall concept plan for the development.
A property boundary adjustment application was recently tentatively approved for this site
which modified the north and east property lines of the subject parcel to facilitate the
proposed cottage lots (H-2016-0164).
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains to provide service to this project currently exist
in E. Putter Drive.
b. Location of water: Water mains to provide service to this project currently exist in E.
Putter Drive.
c. Issues or concerns: None.
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No waterways exist on this site.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site.
3. Flood Plain: This site is not within the flood plain.
VII. ANALYSIS
The applicant requests a modification to the previously approved conditional use permit/planned
development (CUP-99-039) to remove the alley that was depicted on the conceptual development
plan for access to seven (7) of the single-family residential homes in Meadow Lake Village.
The previously approved conceptual development plan that depicts the alley access is included in
Exhibit A.2. The proposed site plan is included in Exhibit A.3 and depicts front-on street access to the
7 homes via E. Putter Lane. Staff is unsure what type of dwellings are shown on the concept plan on
the north side of the alley; however, with removal of the alley, these units will also need to be
designed to have front-on access from the future street they face to be determined by a future
development application.
There are existing landscape islands in E. Putter Lane that these units will be accessed from which
restricts the width of the street for on-street parking. However, “cut-outs” have been constructed for
parallel parking along the street and there is also a parking area across the street at the recreation area
that can accommodate extra vehicles when needed. Each unit will also provide off-street parking for 4
vehicles – 2 in the garage and 2 on a 20’ x 20’ parking pad outside the garage.
Staff has no concerns with the applicant’s request and recommends approval of the proposed
modification per the site plan in Exhibit A.3 with the conditions in Exhibit B.
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Previously Approved Conceptual Site Plan
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
3. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 5/6/16)
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Division
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Service Company
6. Ada County Highway District
7. Parks Department
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
Exhibit A.2: Previously Approved Conceptual Site Plan
Site
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
Exhibit A.3: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 5/6/16)
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 Development of this site shall be consistent with the site plan included in Exhibit A.3 of this
report.
1.2 The applicant shall obtain final approval of the property boundary adjustment application
tentatively approved for this site prior to submittal of building permits for the proposed structures
(A-2016-0164).
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Public Works has no comment on this application.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Fire Department has no comment on this application.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department has no comment on this application.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Republic Services has no comment on this application.
6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
6.1 No comments have been received from ACHD on this application
7. PARKS DEPARTMENT
7.1 The Parks Department had no comments on this application.
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit 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 proposed
use and comply with the dimensional & development regulations of the district per the
previously approved planned development.
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 use of the property is consistent and harmonious
with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan per the approved planned development.
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 Commission finds that the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the area
and with the intended character of the general vicinity and should 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 finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this
report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area.
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, and sewer.
The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are
currently available to the subject property. The Commission finds that the proposed use will
be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above.
f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The
Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and nor
will they be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare.
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 of the site will not be detrimental to any persons,
property or the general welfare of the area.
EXHIBIT A
Touchmark Cottage Units – MCU H-2016-0058 PAGE 10
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 that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems
associated with the proposed use. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed use will
not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major
importance.