Commission Recs to Council - CCSTAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 25, 2014 E IDIAN~----
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: ZOA-14-001 - Medium High-density Residential District (R-15) Unified
Development Code Text Amendment
L SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Tahoe Homes, has applied for a Unified Development Code Text Amendment (ZOA)
to modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district. Please see Exhibit A Uelow for a
complete list of the proposed UDC alnendr~2e~2ts.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed UDC amendment based on the analysis provided in
Section VII, VIII and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Exhibit D. The Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 2U. 2U14. At the public hearing.
the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject ZOA request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor:.Tim Conger
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimonv:.Tim Conger
v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Kev Issue(sl of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
c. Key Commission Change(sl to Staff Recommendation:
i. Commission modified the text in Exhibit A to allow a 1-foot encroachment if the
d.
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number ZOA-14-
001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014 with the following
modifications: (add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number ZOA-14-001
as presented during the hearing on March 25, 2014 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-14-
001, to (insert specific hearing date), and direct staff to make the following changes: (insert comments
here.)
IV. APPLICATION FACTS
A. Site Address/Location: Citywide
B. Applicant:
Tahoe Homes
1627 S. Orchard Street, Ste. 24
Boise, Idaho 83705
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 and Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 3, and 17, 2014 (Commission); March 3. and
17, 2014 (Council(
C. A public service announcement was broadcast faxed/emailed on February 10, 2014 (Commission)
and March 14.2014 (Council( regarding this application.
VL 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. The City continues to upgrade conununity design
standards for landscaping and site design through the adoption of updated ordinance criteria that
ensures development occurs in a compatible, attractive manner. Staff believes the applicant's
proposal to reduce the side setbacks supports many key design characteristics of an urban
development as identified below:
L Streets and other public spaces are framed by buildings;
2. Housing types range from small, narrower single-family lots dominated by driveways and front-
loaded garages to attached residential and multi-family dwellings with alley access or rear
garages. Yard and landscaped areas are reduced.
3. Smaller front and side setbacks with a tighter building spacing;
4. Most conducive for pedestrian activity and interaction;
5. Higher densities allow for additional amenities otherwise not cost effective in lower densities.
Other specific objectives and actions that support the proposed amendment are listed below:
1. "Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the
provisions of this plan."
The proposed UDC amendment reflects the current tre~~~ds in the development comrm~nity and
may provide greater flexibility and i~zcreased de~zsity in the R-1 S zoning district. E.ramples of
t/zis sty°le of development are occ~~rring in the other pcr~7s of t/ie Treasure Valley.
2. "Provide a walkable community through good design."
The change to the dimensional standard is meant to s~rpport eornpact development and mane
of the traditional nelg)tborhood concepts noted above.
3. "Elevate/enhance quality of residential site and subdivision planning."
The modifications to the R-1 S dimensional standards presented in this application may
encourage increased densin~ and itzn~i~ative residential site design.
4. "Offer a diversity of housing types for a greater range of choice."
The redalction to the setbacks mati~ lead to more compact development thereby providing more
affordable housing choices in the Cite.
5. "Provide City Services in an environmentally sustainable and cost effective manner."
These changes are intended to facilitate infill development and provide a more efficient use of
Citti~ infrastructure by~ utilitin~g infrastructure that maybe already constructed.
VII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
The applicant is requesting the specific sections of the UDC that should be amended for the code.
This application includes changes to the following sections of the UDC:
Chapter 2, Article A: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
The proposed changes are presented in Exhibit A in strike-out/underline format.
VIII. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The applicant is proposing to amend the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district.
Specifically, the requested change is to reduce the interior side y~u•d setback from 5 feet to 3 feet
(see Exhibit A). The applicant has provided a street scene rendering that depicts the difference
between the current interior side yard setback and proposed setback (see Exhibit B).
The applicant contends that the proposed changes would benefit the conununity as follows
• Provides for medium high-density projects in urban areas that will provide an opportunity
for single family detached home ownership in lieu of apartment living.
• Will minimize commuter traffic by putting greater density closer to the City's core
services.
• Will allow landowners more flexibility in developing future parcels.
• Higher density projects minimize the per house cost of tax dollars required for
replacement and maintenance of sewer, water, parks, roadways and emergency services.
• The reduced setback requirements will allow medium high-density projects in the City of
Meridian core. These types of projects generate more revenue in building and impact fees
to help pay for City infrastructure, i.e. parks, fire, police, water and sewer.
The applicant believes the requested change would align with other adopted City codes (e.g.
International Building Code, International Fire Code and International Residential Code}. Staff
has discussed the proposal with the City's Building Official and the Fire Marshall and both have
confirmed that the proposed changes would be allowed under the above-mentioned adopted
codes. The applicant has also provided a letter from the Builders Contractors Association of
Southwestern Idaho in support of the UDC text amendment (see Exhibit C).
While staff supports many of the statements the applicant has presented for justification of why
the change is good for the community, staff has analyzed the request with other provisions in the
UDC to ensure the proposed change does not conflict with other sections of the code. Based
on this analysis, Staff has provided the pertinent sections that would be affected by the proposed
change:
UDC 11-2A-3D Encroachments Allowed in Any Setback: Currently, this section allows
chimneys, pop out windows, direct vent gas fireplaces, entertainment windows, window seats and
other projections that do not increase the usable area and do not exceed 8 feet in width to
encroach up to 2 feet into the side yard setback. The applicant has proposed additional language
for this section to ensure adequate space is being provided between structures for Fire Department
access (see Exhibit A). The Fire Department recommends any proposed projections in the
required setback should be off-set a distance of 10 feet between another projection on the
adjacent dwelling. Based on internal discussion with the Building Division, staff believes
this would be difficult to administer. Therefore, staff is recommending that no projections
be allowed when the setback is less than 5 feet (see Exhibit A).
UDC 11-2A-3H Drainage: In no case shall a development propose less than a 5-foot setback
adjacent to a property that is not part of the development. City staff and the developer will have to
make sure the plat adheres to this requirement at the time of platting.
UDC 11-3A-7 Fences: Under this section of the ordinance side yard fencing is prohibited unless
the side yard setback is 5 feet or greater. The City's Fire Marshall has also stated that side yard
fencing would not be allowed. This would be conditioned as part of a project approval and stated
on the building restriction form to ensure the Building Division does not approve side yard
fencing with the home permits.
UDC 11-6C-3E Easements: Under the subdivision ordinance, utility easements must be
provided along all front, rear and side lot lines when deemed necessary by the City Engineer or
designee. It further defines that the easement width shall not be less than 10 feet unless
specifically approved by City Council at the time of final plat approval. With the reduction of the
side yard setback, the City and developer will have to coordinate closely on specific easements
width at the time of subdivision approval.
In summary, the aforementioned ordinance sections can accommodate the requested changes to
the UDC. Based on this analysis, staff is supportive of the requested change and recommends
approval of UDC amendment.
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Requested Changes to the Unified Development Code
B. Street Scene Comparison
C. Agency Comments
D. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code
4
Exhibit A -Proposed Changes to the Unified Development Code
Code Section Code Section (strikethrough and underline used for changes) Reason for Change
UDC 11-2A-3D.2 Chimneys, pop out windows, direct vent gas fireplaces, entertainment centers, window seats and other projections which do not increase the usable floor area and do not exceed Maintain fire department access between
eight feet (8') in width may project up to two feet (2') into any required setback. structures. The applicant's proposed
___ _ ' ~ __ _~ __ _ ___ ~ _ ___ ___ _ _~ .Where building setbacks are below five feet (5'1 encroachments into language is underlined. Staff's proposed
the required setback may nroiect un to one foot (1'i. language is in red font.
TABLE 11-2A-7 Street setback to living area (in feet}; Decrease interior yard setback to increase
Loca1:10 the density in the R-15 zone.
Collector: 20
Side setback: §3 The applicant has proposed to add note
Rear setback:l2 #2. This note in not necessary therefore,
staff recommends removal of the
proposed language.
Exhibit B -Street Scene Comparison
.e_
Single Family Residential
with proposed 3' side yard ~ _
setbacks
Single Family Residential
with 5' side yard setbacks
-_~ ---~
6
Exhibit C -Agency Comments
1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1.1.1 Side yard fencing that follows the side yard property line shall only be allowed where the side
setback is five (5') feet or greater.
1. L2 Where building setbacks are below five feet (5') encroachments into the required setback ar-e-nom
x~let~ma~project up to one foot (1').
1.1.3 In no case shall a development propose less than a 5-foot setback adjacent to a property that is not
part of the development application. Properties shall provide adequate area to maintain drainage
on the site in accord with UDC 11-2A-3H.
1.1.4 In accord with UDC 11-6C-3E, utility easements shall be provided along all front, rear and side
lot lines when deemed necessary by the City Engineer or designee. Total easement width shall not
be less than 10 feet, unless specifically approved by City Council at the time of final plat approval
or as approved through an easement vacation application.
2. FIRE DEPARTMENT
2.1 Side yard fences shall not be allowed and any pop outs, fireplaces, mechanical equipment within the
side yard should be off-set 10 feet from another projection constructed with the adjacent dwelling.
3. POLICE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Police Department has no comments related to this application.
4. PARKS DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Parks Department has no comments related to this application.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Republic Services has no comments related to this application.
6. BUILDERS CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO
~ = l~ittl~~l~.i~1~5 t..t~(Vd~~t'`~.t Is_)~~.r'~tS.~.'r__I.4Tlf.~i~d :.~ ~ ~ "i~`
i ~ ~ -~r,e~„~ °~.7~`` ~~`4.1"(~-!`5~1'~3 ~ R~' C~r`~.~-i~',~ l~i{_ ...e .. -u3"a `.'. ~ ; , ~"~~~ ..
y''f'0.x4s~" ~~ - .,,~ :.tlC~f -.`iF~..:~~t1C ~':£-rE'"_~ (, r:"_' i?; .. ~-;`'=;; b.'.. :tk .' y ',?:'C9. •. _~.
'C~e Ht~u~~t~t~lc a'~lay~r T"anrniy d~: '~`~~erd
I4lericji~a~ fait}' I~r~II
:3~1 ~ k~rnaclwa;; Ave;:ue, Suite 3E~0
~Ie~tidian, Ida}ra ~ ~2
Stthje~tz 'I°hc `€TDC F'tvposed Text Elmenw~n^ient fctr Sick:. Ward setbacks in the I~-I~ Zane
Dear a4tayoz "t'ammy:
The Buil~i;rg Cuut~actots Assrciaticrn of Stauth~re.5t;.zn ldaltc fBCA~~~TI continues to >;e pleased
with its relationship .r°itlt the ttfleridiazt f"crnarxnzuho L~zvc;l€eprrtettt Departxxt-~nt. Vie fec;I gcx~,l
alu,~tzt the lutes ~f ctammunicmtic~n taeing ~sen rr~uch leas ltesn ~•ery IYellsful tv atl parties.
~`~ lta~re di~usse~cl tltc sid~.~ yawl s~tk~aeks several times at +~ur regal~tr xn.Qttthl;: rneetin. Pleas
be ajvare, the i4C~.'~t~ I is i_n Tall curt ~+f t17e pzi~poserl III7C te:~t aznendn~.eitt tlut would zrt:~ce
side y"~+ril s~tl~a~clw:~ ~a the R-1 S aaon.c gc~ to ~' fr~.txn the ljrup€~rty sine. This se1L'taic:k %5 alltawcd by
ttse ira[ezt~~tit~~eat Resirler~tral Cede and *37an~ ether ~at:~te juxistiiclinrs ;}nd it ~~iil hrlp Pullders
mud r~evelvpers in the fi'ghtlt3 keep pausing af`ftszciable.
Tharik you f+~r your time anti - •iderativn of this letter and rsur ptssition.
1rax~rs truly, ~` ,,~
f ~ ~~ ~~
4~~~ ~ _
J~.f1'~'lY~rraxpsctn €#I§3ezzt `
Buildutg Ct~ratctiors :4.ssL~ciatian afSti~utlt~{~cstern Idaho
cc: ~te~•r Cw4artine~, Chair Fitylr`ler~ I7~w~e1'c~I,-ers ~iciverttt7tent .A fG'airs
CITY OF MERIDIAN BUILDING OFFICIAL
7.1 The request to change the allowed setbacks from 5 feet to 3 feet is allowed under the 2009 IRC.
Table R302.1 requires walls less than 5 feet from property line to be constructed as one (1) hour
rated fire walls. Projections that encroach between 2 feet and 5 feet must be protected on the
underside. Openings into the wall would be allowed provided they do not exceed 25% of the wall
area. As long as future homes are built to the code requirements of the 2009 IRC, I see no issues
with the City reducing the interior side yard setbacks to 3 feet.
Exhibit D -Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Unified Development Code Text Amendment:
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 Comnssion finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment complies with the
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Ple~ase~ 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 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.
9