PZ Recs/Staff ReportSTAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Apri123, 2013
Mayor & City Council
Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
~E IDIZ IAN+~-
~J
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.
The Meridian Plannins & Zoning Commission heard this item on March 21, 2013. At the public
hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject ZOA request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearin:
i. In favor: Caleb Hood
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Beck y McKay
v. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Ke y Issue(s) of Discussion b y Commission:
i. None
c. Ke y Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
d. Outstanding Issue(s) for Cit y Council:
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number ZOA-13-
001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 23, 2013 with the following
modifications: (add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number ZOA-13-001
as presented during the hearing on April 23, 2013 for the following reasons: (You should state
specific reasons for denial.)
1
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 (Commission); April 1, and 15,
2013 (City Council)
C. A public service announcement was broadcast faxed on March 8, 2013 (Commission) and March
28, 2013 (City Councils 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 ca+rrently 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
ACRD Bicycle Advisory Committee sent a letter to the city requesting standards he adopted.
VII. 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
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
not to have planter island
2. Properties with street frontages on sStreet knuckles °"~'~ "° °n~r(++°,~ fry„
.~~ within the right-of-way.
shall be a minimum of thirt feet 30' measured as a chord measurement.
11-3A-8 PATHWAYS: Clarify when and where this
H. All pathways through +~t~rnal-common areas that are not visible from a public requirement applies and
when it doesn't. During site
street shall be illuminated with a four foot (4') tall bollard style or other 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 about low-lying racks as well
building entrances. as their placement being
~,,,.~° norLinn f~niliti°c inaccessible and hidden.
~
~„w,
° nn 4rl+T.
3. It is the res onsibilit of the applicant to ensure that the bic cle arkin
facilities meet all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
4. Bicycle parking facilities shall support the bicycle upriaht 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 secure) anchored to the round.
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
provide. This current standard
Dwelling, multi-family3 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at often makes emergency
(triplex, fourplex, least 1 in a covered access requirements, utility
apartments, etc.) carport or ara a & general site
easements
,
2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at layout planning problematic.
least 1 in a covered Further, this requirement is
carport or ara a often met with carports which
aren't typically attractive.
4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at
least 2 in a covered
carport or gara 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
accord with dimensional
.
standards for zone
.
G It's difficult to determine what
,
ho ro,~„~o~ +^ fon foot r' n~~ 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 rovidin 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
~ I-requ+re-the-+~ew specific use standards.
~
,~ „
11-6C 3 F. Block Face: R~ ~ ~ ~~ " ~' ` `" '~ `'""`~~""~" The intent with the block face
1. In the residential districts, no block face shall be more than seven
hundred fifty feet (750') in length without an intersecting street or alley,
except as allowed in subsection F3 of this section.
2. In the TN-C and TN-R districts, no block face shall be more than five
hundred feet (500') in length without an intersecting street or alley, except
as allowed in subsection F3 of this section.
~~* ~^~ ~+r°°+ ~ m;+°,~
nstr~i~ed
t
h
~
+~
~
i
~
Wt
~
d
3 length standard is really
three-fold: 1) to allow
interconnectivity between
pod S, blocks and other
residential development so
motorists and pedestrians can
eeSlly maneuver, 2) to create
integrated neighborhoods
with "friendly" and inviting
t
-
,~
a
n9
-
es
~n
s co
,ere
e
. shorter blocks
and 3)
design
a
~ ~ ~ ,
,
ff
f
t
t
D
ra
ic
ac
o
e
to act as
E calming measures (drivers
a ~ tends to slow when there are
~ intersections and short blocks
~ ) There has been
with turns
~ .
!~ ;+°d wccocs h•,.ti,.,^"~ Exceptions Although block face lengths are
~~~~~-~~~~
allowed to exceed the maximum length as set forth below it is anticipated confusion on how to measure
block face and the intent of
that most blocks will not exceed the requirement.
a Where a pedestrian connection is provided the maximum block face may the Current Standards. The
modifications clarify that the
standard is still 750'/500' but
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
ns and
ti
it
within the subdivision to one or more of the following: a qualified open y prov
s
o
connec
v
space as defined in subsection 11-3G-3B a street or a common open
space area or public meeting area within an abutting development. design elements may be
added, or there are external
b The City Council may approve a block face uo to one thousand two site constraints making
explicit compliance
hundred feet (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 ,
be
block face ma
street railroad tracks, steep slopes in excess of ten percent (10%), an y
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
uirement
the re
and TN-R districts the applicant shall provide written justification as to ,
.
q
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
help
it doesn t necessaril
than seven hundred fifty (750') in length Where an applicant proposes a y
ninety degree (90°) turn to break up a block face additional pedestrian connectivity. Therefore,
and/or roadway connections may be required.
ed~l~e-~a~+~,~~-as-set
4 pedestrian Connectivity will be
evaluated using the Pathways
section of the UDC (11-3A-8).
.
e This section of the
NOTE
:
~
' ~
th'° °,~-~,+~^^. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two
hundred feet (1 200') in length. UDC was amended in 2010.
The proposed revisions are a
hybrid combination of the
current UDC standards and
the previous/original UDC
5. Block face shall be measured from the centerline to centerline of streets ~ standards for block face.
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Required 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;
The Commission 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
The Commission 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.
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.
7