Staff ReportItem #41: UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-13-001)
Application(s):
- Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Summary of Request: The Community Development Department requests approval to amend the text of certain
sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to block length, multi-family parking, storage facilities,
bicycle parking facilities, street knuckles, and other miscellaneous clean-up items as detailed in the staff report.
Written Testimony: Becky McKay (objects to the proposed language in 11-6C-3F.4 which states, "In no case shall
a block face exceed 1,200 feet in length." She proposes adding the following language, "... unless a variance is
approved by the Meridian City Council."
Note: A variance only applies to requests to vary from the requirements with respect fo lot size, width and depth;
front, side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions affecting the size & shape of a
sfrucfure or the placement upon properties; and the placement and/or number of access points fo state highways.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 19, 2013
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
~E IDIZ IAN,*-
~J
SUBJECT: ZOA-13-001 Unified Development Code Text Amendment
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The Planning Division of the Community Development Department has applied for a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to amend the text of certain sections of the Unified Development Code
(UDC) pertaining to block length, multi-family parking, storage facilities, bicycle parking facilities,
street knuckles, and other miscellaneous clean-up items. Please see Section VII below for a complete
list of the proposed UDC amendments.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the UDC based on the analysis
provided in Section VII 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 ZOA-13-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 19,
2013 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 ZOA-13-001 as presented during the hearing on March 19, 2013 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 ZOA-13-
001, to (insert specific hearing date), and direct staff to make the following changes: (insert comments
here.)
IV. APPLICATION FACTS
A. Site Address/Location: NA
B. Applicant:
Planning Division, Community Development Department
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102
Meridian, Idaho 83642
C. Applicant's Statement/Justification: See applicant's narrative for more information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a Unified Development Code 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 4, and 18, 2013
C. A public service announcement was broadcast faxed on March 8, 2013 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. Staff finds that the subject Unified Development Code
Amendment complies with and furthers the goals and objectives of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan.
The specific objectives and actions that support the proposed amendment are listed below:
"Amend the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement this plan."
Staff finds that the intended purpose of the subject ZOA application is harmonious with and in
accordance with the applicable objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
"Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions
of this plan."
The proposed UDC amendments reflect the current trends in development, so as to implement the
intent of the Comp Plan, while not compromising life, safety or the general welfare of the
community.
"Review and analyze City codes related to lighting standards to insure appropriate levels of outdoor
lighting in both public and private installations; to assure the "the right light for the right use" is
installed."
One of the UDC provisions proposed to be modified with the subject application has to do with
lighting of pathways within new projects. The proposed amendment clarifies that lighting of
pathways is required when they are not visible from a public street. Working with Police and
Parks, this revised standard is more appropriate than what is currently required.
"Promote transportation choices, facilities, and alternatives such as car and van pooling, bicycle
racks/storage and telecommunicating."
Staff is proposing to amend the bicycle rack standards of the UDC. Staff has received
complaints/concerns from cyclists about the siting and construction of some racks. Further, the
ACHD Bicycle Advisory Committee sent a letter to the city requesting standards be adopted.
VIL UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
The applicant has identified specific sections of the UDC that should be amended for the code to
function efficiently and to more appropriately meet the needs of our customers and the City. This
application includes changes to the following sections of the UDC:
Chapter 2, Article A: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Chapter 3, Article A: STANDARD REGULATIONS IN ALL DISTRICTS
2
Chapter 3, Article C: OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS
Chapter 4: SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
Chapter 5, Article B: SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Chapter 6, Article C: SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
The proposed changes are noted below in double strike-out/underline format. The column marked
"Reason for Change" indicates the intended purpose or reason for the text amendment.
Section Text Reason for Change
11-2A-3 g, Minimum Street Frontage: ACHD & the Fire Dept. prefer
2. Properties with street frontages on sStreet knuckles not to have planter island
within the right-of-way.
shall be a minimum of thin feet 30' measured as a chord measurement.
11-3A-8 PATHWAYS: Clarify when and where this
H. All pathways through +oternal common areas that are not visible from a public
' requirement applies and
when it doegn t. During site
) tall bollard style or other
street shall be illuminated with a four foot (4 Plan review, Police, Parks
appropriate lighting source, unless otherwise waived by the director. Such and CD staff will determine
lighting shall be shielded from adjoining residences. whether the pathways are
visible.
11-3C-5 C. Bicycle Parking Facilities: Bicycle parking facilities shall meet the following To clarify design and security
location and design standards: standards for bicycle parking
1. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located as close as possible to the building facilities. Complaints have
been received from cyclists
entrance(s) and shall not obstruct pedestrian walkways public sidewalks, or racks as well
w
l
in
b
t l
-
y
g
ou
o
a
building entrances. as their placement being
inaccessible and hidden
.
3. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the bicycle parking
facilities meet all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
4. Bicycle parking facilities shall support the bicycle upright by its frame and
allow the owner to lock both the frame and front wheel with one lock.
5. Bicycle parking facilities abutting a structure, street furniture or landscaping
shall be installed to maintain a minimum clearance of three feet (3').
6. Bicycle parking facilities shall be a minimum of thirty four inches (34") in height
and shall be securely anchored to the ground.
11-3C-6 REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING S PACES: While having 2 covered stalls
TABLE for 2 and 3 bed units is often
Use and Form Number of Bedrooms Required Parking nice for the tenant, it is often
(per unit Spaces difficult for a developer to
Dwelling, multi-family3 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at Provide. This current standard
often makes emergency
(triplex, fourplex, least 1 in a covered access requirements, utility
apartments, etc.) car ort or ara a eneral site
nts
&
easeme
,
g
2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at layout planning problematic.
i~s~t 1 in a covered Further, this requirement is
carport or ara e often met with carports which
4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at aren't typically attractive.
least 2 in a covered
carport or ara e
11-4-3 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS: Remove requirement for
sound attenuation wall and
11-4-3-34 STORAGE FACILITY, SELF SERVICE: require a landscape buffer in
ner--lea~E
arki~
area accord with dimensional
~-
-
e;-p
a standards for zone
ec .
G It's difficult to determine what
.
~e,+,~„n,+ +n ton foot /1n'1. A minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer shall be constitutes a sound
provided where the facility abuts a residential use unless a greater buffer width attenuation wall. Also, it
is otherwise required by this Title Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in doesn't seem like the use is
11-3B-9C. intense enough to require a
sound attenuation wall;
landscaping can do a nice job
of providin the buffer.
11-56 6 G. Transfers and Modifications: Clean-up: Numbers 1 & 4 of
1. Conditional use permits are an entitlement to the specific property on which this section conflict; 1 states
CUP are an entitlement to the
the approval was granted and upon property sale the entitlement transfers to the specific property & subject to
new owner(s) without further application or approval, provided, however, the new the same conditions as the
owner(s) shall be bound by the same time limits and conditions of approval as original permit holder-2
the original permit holder(s). A conditional use permit is not transferable from states the new owner is
one property to another. required to comply with
ecific use standards
s
. .
p
•„
11-6C 3 F. Block Face: ~Iesk f-,as~~ ~rtaalr~m~~~ rc~~crr°ccr-r.or7 from~nter~;„e~€ readw~ys The intent with the block face
afad~er p~tt}w~pr+at~
length standard is really
1. In the residential districts, no block face shall be more than seven
ll
' three-fold: 1) to allow
interconnectivity between
ey,
) in length without an intersecting street or a
hundred fifty feet (750
except as allowed in subsection F3 of this section. pods, blocks and other
residential development so
2. In the TN-C and TN-R districts, no block face shall be more than five motorists and pedestrians can
hundred feet (500') in length without an intersecting street or alley, except easily maneuver, 2) to create
as allowed in subsection F3 of this section. integrated neighborhoods
with "friendly" and inviting
3. ~^,~~ o,~re~~Gee~ des ~stra r+~~+,,~,~ot-1+a~+ted
+~~-'s ce ~adutt`~~~"
± + + CI q I -+4 -+ f!/ -~ lorno irr'no+i..n design, and 3), shorter blocks
~____._,_
r r ~ to act as De facto traffic
calming measures (drivers
h
h
~ ~ ere are
en t
tends to slow w
' intersections and short blocks
' with turns.) There has been
confusion on how to measure
I+ .Exceptions: Although block face lengths are block face and the intent of
allowed to exceed the maximum length as set forth below it is anticipated The
the current standards
that most blocks will not exceed the requirement. .
modifications clarify that the
standard is still 750'/500' but
a Where a pedestrian connection is provided the maximum block face may
be extended up to one thousand feet (1000') in length in residential there are some
districts and up to seven hundred fifty feet (750') in length in the TN-C circumstances when other
and TN-R districts The pedestrian connection shall provide access from
i
i
d
i
i
within the subdivision to one or more of the following: a qualified open ons an
ty prov
s
connect
v
space as defined in subsection 11-3G-36, a street, or a common open design elements may be
space area or public meeting area within an abutting development added, or there are external
b The City Council may approve a block face up to one thousand two site constraints making
explicit compliance
hundred (1 200') in length where block design is constrained by site when a longer
impractical
conditions such as: an abutting arterial street or highway a limited access ,
b
k f
bl
street, railroad tracks steep slopes in excess of ten percent (10%), an e
ace may
oc
abutting urban project with no adjoining alley or street connections a appropriate and allowed.
public or private education facility or park a large waterway and/or a large Although some exceptions to
irrigation facility.
c Where an applicant proposes block faces that exceed seven hundred fifty block length are allowed, the
revisions reinforce that most
block lengths will not exceed
feet (750') in a residential district or five hundred feet (500') in the TN-C Further
the
ment
i
th
and TN-R districts the applicant shall provide written justification as to ,
.
e requ
re
why explicit compliance is not feasible or the proposed block layout is change also allows a 90-
equal to or superior to the block face requirements of this section. degree turn in a roadway t0
d A ninety degree (90°) turn in a roadway may constitute a break in the constitute a break in block
length. While the 90-degree
block face However overall pedestrian and vehicular connectivity will be turn helps with traffic speeds
considered when evaluating the appropriateness of block lengths greater ,
hel
t doesn't necessaril
than seven hundred fifty (750') in length Where an applicant proposes a p
y
I
ninety degree (90°) turn to break up a block face additional pedestrian connectivity. Therefore,
and/or roadway connections may be required.
a pedestrian Connectivity will be
evaluated using the Pathways
section of the UDC (11-3A-8)
,
f .
f th
Thi
ti
NOTE
- e
s sec
on o
:
f ~ UDC was amended in 2010.
' The proposed revisions are a
+h•~z1 ~,~~,.+;,,.,+;,,.,. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two
hundred feet (1,200') in length.
5. Block face shall be measured from the centerline to centerline of streets hybrid combination of the
current UDC standards and
the previous/original UDC
standards for block face.
and/or alle s as a ro riate.
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Rec)uired Findings from the Unified Development Code
Exhibit A -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 zoning ordinance amendment complies with the applicable
(limited) 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.