Loading...
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.