CC- Commission Recommendation to Council Staff Report 5-11 STAFF REPORT C�
W IDIAN -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 05/11/2021 as I '---}� 0
DATE: '
TO: Mayor and City Council �s 55
26
FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning �■■■
Supervisor
208-884-5533 EONE
SUBJECT: ZOA-2021-0001
:�I�
UDC Text Amendment Legend �.
LOCATION: City wide M AOCI —
rCounty — ss
■ Line
Future
Road
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Meridian Planning Division has applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC)text amendment to
update certain sections of the City's code as follows:
• Standards in the Old Town District(O-T) in Chapter 2;
• Ditches,Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3;
• Comprehensive Map Amendments in Chapter 5;and
• Common Driveway Standards in Chapter 6.
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
City of Meridian Planning Division
33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite#102
Meridian, ID 83642
Page 1
III. NOTICING
Planning & Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification
published in newspaper 3/26/2021 4/23/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet NA NA
Public service announcement 3/24/2021 4/21/2021
Nextdoor posting 3/24/2021 4/21/2021
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan)
A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https://www.meridiancity.or / pplan):
3.01.01B -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to
accommodate the community's needs and growth trends.
Many of the requested code changes below reflect the desire of the Community and maintain the
integrity of the plan.
3.04.01B—Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to
implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
This round of code changes is being expedited to implement the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. In
general, the proposed changes support the redevelopment of downtown, minimize conflicts with other
agencies, limit CPAMs to twice a year and improve the design standards of common driveways.
V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDCI
In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5,the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the
Unified Development Code(UDC). The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections that
pertain to the following:
• Standards in the Old Town District(O-T) in Chapter 2;
• Ditches,Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3;
• Comprehensive Map Amendments in Chapter 5;and
• Common Driveway Standards in Chapter 6.
The Planning Division is expediting these few changes at the request of the Mayor and City Council
in order to support redevelopment in downtown; eliminate code conflicts with the applicable
irrigation districts; limit the submittal dates of CPAM applications to twice a year to maintain the
integrity of the plan and further improve on the design standards for common driveways. Staff has
received comments from some members of the UDC Focus Group regarding the proposed changes
(see public record).
Exhibit VII below includes a table of the requested changes/additions and supporting commentary
explaining the purpose of the change to the UDC. Many of these changes have been vetted with City
Council before the application submittal and the draft changes were shared with the UDC Focus
Group and others to solicit feedback. As of the print date of the staff report,Planning staff has not
presented the proposed changes to the BCA however,the changes will be shared with the BCA at
their April 131}i meeting.
Page 2
hi summary, Staff believes the changes proposed with this application supports the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided
in Section IV and V, modifications in Section VII and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
listed in Section VIII.
B. Commission:
The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 15,2021.At the public
hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject ZOA request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Planning Division
b. In opposition: None
C. Commenting:None
d. Written testimony: David Bailey,Cornel Larson,Laren Bailey and Dave Yorgason
e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. Reducing the number of units taking access from common driveway(6 down to 3)
and approving more through the ALT process.
b. Height increase in the Old Town District.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Commission recommended no more than 3 dwelling units take access from a
common driveway.
b. Commission modified the height standards in 11-2D-4A based on new language
proposed by staff.
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. City Council:
Enter Summary of City Council Decision.
Page 3
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Table of Proposed Text Changes
Proposed UDC Text Amendments
U¢estdu ropy wmson mr ono®& A-"adg
Increase OT hLight Allow for talLer buildingsinnty core area o vie The standards for developmeur in the Old Town District am set[or&in this section as follows:
masmum Town District
A. Buildimg Height In the area defined as the rites core in chap=1,acy new mnstrurtion shall have a.
minimum MEM Dflof hiM-file feet(350 and amammum height ofone hundred feet(100' A0 other
areas m the district,thL Xmaaimum building height is seventy-five feet[75'}
R Number ofsmries.MinimumnumberofsturiesfornewconstructianisWo(2)amdforassetforthin
the r0ty offMeridiau Architectural StaudaodsManual'.
es lateralS.canals even came to a SAW IL at n¢gmag A,p'urpose,The purpaseofth-ssemomisto limit the Ong and piping Of natural.a¢dman-made
Ordrabagecvurses aotalwaysbedesuSAWed Dogepeawaterwaysbgthe waterwaysconrlLiimng nrtnntl=;tedtn.ditchesCanals,lateraks,s]Dughsaoddratuswhe3epuhhesafery]
itr4;atioD drstruR,specifira0p as rtrelatestD not accaimrn as well asimprove-protectand i¢corparabe rreekoorriden(FiveMde,Fight Mil%Nme
maiionaanren to ei sure iheUDC i ces t ingt�s }.�.Tea Mik South 5lougb andjacUDm and a-a¢Drains]as anammitpinallresideotial.commercial
section of code to ensure the UDC does¢at conflict with
irrigation districtstandasds as request&d hp the Crty and indusiial designs.lb'ben pipiugand fencing ispsnposed,the following standards shallapply.
Council.
Surrounding property owners don't need tD be noticed IL Piping—
as the eas em enton ehuildiaglat(s]dDmitaltecS 1.Naturalwaterwaysimtersecting,cinssmg,arlginowithintheareabeiq;dev�elopedshaLLremaunasa
them-aCouncilwaiverissnf5de¢t'l'hiswatildaLLow ¢aturAl me¢iry and shallaDtbe piped orather isecovered.SeeaLrosubsectionQ(2)ofthissection.
the processes do trequeeawaiverdmingthefinalplest 2.lrrigationditche�laterals,caaalssloughs and drains may be left open when used asawateramenity
process and not require a public hearing.
or linear ape¢space,as defined in venting 21-1A-1 of this We.See also s¢hsettio¢(C](2]of this section.
3.Ftceptas alined above,all other itrtatia¢ditctes,laterals,sloughs or canals,i¢terAcdag,c Dssmg
orlyiu;withi¢the arna being devetoped,shall be piped or otherwise covered.This requirement does no
appty to Property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an
adjoining property.
a.Thedecisim-maw;body maylwaivetherequirementbarc Twin;su&dit*lateral,eauaLslough
or drain if it Suds that the public purpose mquiriq;such will not be served and public safety eau be
preserved.
C.FenCia
1,Fencing along all oaturaiw"nways 3ha11 oat present access tDthewatrsway,]¢limited ircumstance
and in the mterest of public safety,larger open water systems may require fencing w determined by the
City Caimciit Director and/or Public Works Director.
2.Ditches,laterals:canals,sloughs and drains do not require fenrigg if it can be demonstrated by the
appgcanttothesatisfacdoo oftheDirector diatsdd ditch lateral eanabsloughs or drain serves as Drwil]
'ae improved as a part of the development to be a water amenity or linear open space.1f designed as a
-crateramenity. ustruetian draAmp and relevant caku]abons prepared by a qualified licensed
p^ofessia¢al registered in the State off Idaho shall be submitted to both the Director and the authorized
&presentative of the water facility for appmasal
3.Fsceptas allowed above,all other open irrigatiDa ditches,Iaterats,canals sloughs and drains shall be
fenced with an opeu vision fence at least s¢(6)feet in height and having an li-gauge.two(2)inch mesh
or ether co¢shvrtioa equivalent in ability to defier access to said di6dy lateral,canal slough or drain,
which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being
subdivided touches either or bath sides of said ditch,lateral,cana4 slough or dram.
D.Improvements,Improvements related to piphg,fencing or any encmadcment as outlined in
subsecdans(A),M.and(C]DftbissectionrequireswTtamo appmaval finmtbeapprDpriateh,d atiDn Dr
drainage entity.
F.Fesements In Restdeat a=Districts irrigatiao easements Crider than ten feet(10�shall be ioduded in a
common hotthatisanimiTumofSweaty feet[20'wide and outsideDfa fenced area,unle-'S-M ed
otiter,wise LwaLved by Cty Council
Page 4
- UJIAMamendments a opbano a[LEW ampre 97
I rt e The City Cound]shaR not consider ameadmentsto the Land me map olthe adopted c.mp:eheosiveplao
ftequencytowhichitcanbeamended Hate itcleardL7r mare
6 months-cut-offs.
all Huntx2ceoerraleod�r}�aLTheapphe3tiandeammesfox amendments tothe:a�du<eMad
montap ndmeots wtllbepracesedoaowrethanecety mpooentnfthemmpreheosiveplanshbeInne15andDeom&er15nfe4�eryyear
6
�0.mmandrrveways ootmtcaoo, nano aoPW is knugcanoeroswi D. CommonDrneways:
number ofunitsrtatn;access tram a common driveway.
Tbsimcts pathLEdemienufserkoes.p&Ttij3;andtrash 1, MaximumDwellin;Goits Served:Common drivewaysshallserveamasimumoftluees b]
servicaStaffisartprop"d�tnreduethenumber dwellinguoitr.
dwellings served.but tb expand m the requirements
whena greater number ofunits sloe access from a
cammoo driveway.This 3wilLakw the City Eogineerto S. Width standards:CDmmoo driveways shallbea minimum oftwenty(20)feet iawidth.uolcssa
require a wider cammundm-eway,ifaaapp[icamis ueaterwidthis required bythe4taEngneer.UMmmoo driveways shaRheonacvmmonlot
required to extend City mains underneath the driveway,
mast.s4eut with other easement requirements aftheCity. 3. MadmumleogthCommao driveways shaflheamodmumofooehuodredfdiy(LSD)feetioleogth
or less,nnle-nodie i.seapprovedbytheMeridiaoCityFireDepartment.
4, hnpmovement standards.Crmmon driveways shahbepaved with asmfare with the capabltyof
support na fi a vehicles and equipmena.
S. hbutwgproperdes..0 properties that abut a commoo driveway shalL take aeams fro®the
drirewag,however.it an abuttmg property has the required minimum street fraotage,that
property is not required to take access from the common driveway.[o this situation,the abutting
property's driveway shad be on the opposite side ofthe shared property line;away from the
oommom dr veway.Solid fencing adjacent to comman driveways shall he prop hired,unless
separated by a minimum five-faot wide landscaped buffer olad frithnrhs.lawn ar other
veeetative eraundcover.
6. 1lrraing radius,Common driveways shall be straight or proride a twenty-eight-foot ioside and
forty-eight-foot outside turning radius
7. De"Dal For aoy plats ukaga common driveway.the setrarlts...fendnabuildmgeovelope,
laadscapmE and orientation of the tots and stnrrbares shall be shown on the prehminarp plat
and/or as an eahhit with the Sna]plat appkatiom
VIIL FINDINGS
1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E)
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;
The Commission finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals,
Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information.
B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare; and
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved as
submitted. It is the intent of the text amendment 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.
The Commission 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.
Page 5