HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindingsCITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
E IDIAN�- AHO
In the Matter of Final Plat Modification to the previously approved final plat for Messina
Meadows (FP-05-076) by removing the requirement for a 4-foot detached sidewalk along
Lots 54-66, Block 5, on the south side of E. Deerhill Street between Montague Way and
Genoard Avenue and Variance to UDC 11-2A-6, which requires building setbacks to be
measured from sidewalk or property line; applicant requests to measure street setback
from back of ribbon curb for 12 lots for Messina Meadows, by Tuscany Development Inc.
Case No(s). MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005
For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 22 and August 26, 2008 (Findings on the
September 9, 2008 City Council agenda)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 26, 2008
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 26, 2008
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August
26, 2008 incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of August 26, 2008 incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
I . 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 City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code
codified at Title 1 i 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 August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-5A.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005
-1-
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 Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon
the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August
26, 2008 incorporated by reference.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council'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 Variance is hereby approved.
D. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 26, 2008
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005
-2-
BY action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ! -t�' day of
2008.
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED_—Ljg:��--
C E
VOTEVr—
COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED_Ig,2�—
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED Vj4:=a --
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
Attest:
Jaycee HoAnan, City Clerk
Copy served upon Applicant,
Attorney.
Naym-Taman Weerd
Of M l'0
F
_ � a
SEAL
,y
The P1arfi7r P ent, Public Works Department and City
By: Dated:
City Cler s Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE BEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: August 26, 2008 ERIDIAN*,-----,
(Continued from July 22, 2008)
TO: Mayor and City Council 1 A H
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
884-5533
SUBJECT: Messina Meadows
• MFP-08-005 - Request to modify the previously approved final plat for
Messina Meadows (FP-05-076) by removing the requirement for a 4-foot
detached sidewalk along Lots 54-66, Block 5, on the south side of E. Deerhill
Street between Montague Way and Genoard Avenue.
• VAR-08-005 — Request for variance to UDC I 1-2A-6, which requires
building setbacks to be measured from sidewalk or property line; applicant
requests to measure street setback from back of ribbon curb for 12 lots.
1. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Tuscany Development, Inc., has applied for a final plat modification to remove the 4-foot
detached sidewalk along the south side of E. Deerhill Street, adjacent to Lots 54-66, Block 5, between
Montague Way and Genoard Avenue for the Messina Meadows Subdivision. Concurrently, the applicant
is requesting a variance to UDC I 1-2A-6 to allow the street (front) setback to be measured from the back
of ribbon curb, instead of from the sidewalk (which is proposed to be removed) or the property line.
The Messina Meadows final plat was approved by City Council on February 7, 2006. The final plat
consists of 310 residential lots and 49 common lots on 88acres of land; zoned R-8.The subject site is
generally located approximately a half mile south of E. Victory Road, west of S. Eagle Road, and
approximately a half mile north of E. Amity Road in Section 30, T. 3N., R.1 E..
The current builder/owner of the site owned all of the lots along Deerhill Drive and began designing and
constructing homes on the lots. Construction of the homes began on the east side in Block 4 where the lot
depths are 102 feet plus; thus the builder proceeded to design all of the homes to accommodate a102-foot
lot depth. The depth of Lots 54-66, Block 5 (west of Montague Way) varies from 100 feet and tapers
down to 97 feet at Montague Way. A lot depth of less than 102 feet makes it impossible to accommodate
the builder's design without the removal of the sidewalk. If the final plat modification is approved, it
would allow the builder to construct the homes as designed without having to spend additional time and
money to redesign the plans.
The Unified Development Code (UDC 11-3A-17D) requires sidewalks on both sides of the street unless
the average width of the lots exceeds 150 feet. The lots proposed for modification do not meet this
requirement (40 feet); however the future homes on the subject lots will have access to an existing
common lot (open space) which includes a 4 foot sidewalk located at the rear of the subject lots. This
pedestrian pathway on the back (south) side of Lots 54-66 is located approximately 100 feet south of the
subject sidewalk proposed for removal. Along the north side of Deerhill Drive is a 6-foot wide detached
sidewalk that provides pedestrian connectivity to additional amenities within the development. The
applicant is also proposing to install highlighted crosswalk locations to help facilitate pedestrian
movement across Deerhill which staff has illustrated in Exhibit A. Staff is supportive of the applicant's
request and finds the removal of the 4-foot sidewalk would not diminish pedestrian connectivity within
the development.
Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005
PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
In addition to the removal of the sidewalk, the applicant is requesting a variance, if approved that would
allow the street setback for the future homes to be measured from back of the ribbon curb instead of
measured from back of sidewalk or property line as required by UDC 11-2A-6. Because the adjacent
street section (see map attached as Exhibit A4), the property line is located along the front side of the
sidewalk which still leaves the lots short of the 102 feet lot depth needed to accommodate the builder's
home design. Thus, the request to measure the setback from the ribbon curb, not the property line. The
requirement for the front setback being measured from the sidewalk or property line is to ensure that cars
parked in front of garages are not blocking pedestrian facilities. In this case, if the sidewalk is removed
pedestrians shouldn't be walking on the south side of the street. This area will instead be used for
driveways, parking and drainage facilities. Because there is a pedestrian easement granted on the subject
sidewalk and because the area is within ACHD right-of-way, if the subject request is approved by the
City, the applicant should also coordinate with ACHD on approval of the sidewalk removal and the
vacation of the underlying pedestrian easement, and approval to have driveways/parking within the right-
of-way. Staff has received an informal e-mail from ACHD which outlines ACHD requirements and is
attached in Exhibit B of the staff report.
UDC 11-5B-4 states to grant a variance, the Council needs to make the following findings:
• The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the
district;
• The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
• The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff finds that granting a variance would not allow a right or special privilege that is not otherwise
allowed for properties that are in an R-8 zoning district. The applicant would still be required to maintain
a 20-foot setback that doesn't interfere with parking or pedestrian ways, and provide parking as required
by city code. The applicant will also have to comply with ACIID's requirements for the removal of the
sidewalk and parking plan. Because the 12 lots taper from 100 feet to 97 feet and E. Deerhill is already
constructed, it is difficult to modify the lot depths to accommodate the 102-foot depth required for the
home design; therefore staff believes granting the variance would relieve an undue hardship. Staff also
believes that granting the subject variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare. In fact the applicant is proposing highlighted crosswalks to mitigate the concerns for pedestrian
safety. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of the Variance application (see Exhibit C for
required variance findings).
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the applicant's final plat modification (MFP)
request to remove the requirement for the 4-foot detached sidewalk along Lots 54-66, Block 5 and
the variance (VAR) request from UDC 11-2A-6 for Messina Meadows Subdivision, as proposed by
the applicant in Exhibit A and based on the Findings of Fact in Exhibit C of this staff report. T M
Meridian
Council approved the •»biect MFP and AZrsQUCSL
as Summary of City Council PublicHear:
y In favor• Trent Nie_ff_enegger
& III nnocition• None
fiL Commenting: Nam
jy� Written testimony: None
y. Staff presenting application• Anna nning
yL O her staff commenting on application: None
Key Iccnes of DiscusdalL by _ 1U1Q :
Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
L _Pedestrian movement through the portion of the development requesting removal of
the 4-foot detached sidewalk.
iL The intent of the UDC regarding the measurement of the front setback from the
propert., lin back of sidewalk and from the back of curb as requested by the
AL The impact of the proposed extenjeon of the driveways would have on the operation
of the 8-foot wide drainage swats adjacent to E. Deerhill Street.
& Key Council Changes to Staff Recommendatioyt
L Ne
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers VAR-
08-005 and MFP-08-005, as presented during the hearing date of August 26, 2008 and direct Planning
Staff to prepare findings for approval based on tonight's hearing, with the specific following changes:
(State any changes.) The applicant must also obtain ACHD approval for the proposed sidewalk
removal.
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers VAR-08-
005 and MFP-08-005, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of August 26, 2008 and
direct Legal Staff to prepare the appropriate findings document for denial.
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers VAR-
08-005 and MFP-08-005, to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Existing homes and vacant land
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: A mix of single family residential and vacant
land, much of which has been approved for residential developments.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Messina Hills Subdivision; zoned R-4.
2. East: Kingsbridge Subdivision; zoned R-2.
3, South: Future Messina Meadow No.2 and No. 3; zoned R-8.
4. West: Future Phases for Bellingham Park Subdivision; zoned R-8.
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a variance as determined by City Ordinance. By
reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, Article A (Table 11-5A-
2), a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a final plat modification as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, Article A
(Table 11-5A-2), a public meeting is required before the City Council on this matter.
c. Newspaper notifications published on: June 30, 2008 and July 14, 2008
d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 27, 2008
Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
e. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 15, 2008
6. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Final Plat Map (referencing the lots subject to the modification)
3. Map illustrating proposed changes
4. Street Section Map illustrating ACHD Right -of -Way
5. Applicant's Letter
B. Agency/Department Comments
1. Ada County Highway District
C. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code (Variance)
Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-08-005 and VAR-08-005 PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
A. Drawings
1, Vicinity Map
VICINITY MAP
LYING IN THE SE I/4 OF SECTION 29
T, 3 N., R. I E., 3V
MERIDIAN, AM COUNTY, IDAHO
Exhibit A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
2. Final Plat Map (referencing the lots subject to the modification)
Exhibit A - 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
3. Map showing proposed changes
Exhibit A - 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
4. Street Section Map illustrating ACHD Right -of -Way
Exhibit A -
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
5. Applicant's Letter
The Westpark Company, Inc.
Real Estate Development
To Meridian Planning and Zoning Department:
Tuscany Development Inc. (Tuscany) is proposing the removal of the sidewalk
within the Messina Meadows subdivision and on the south side of Deerhill Street
between Montague Way and Genoard Ave through a final plat modification. More
specifically for lots 54-66 of block 5, which are alley loaded garage lots. Tuscany sold all
of the alley loaded lots on Deerhill Street to one builder. The builder started to build on
the east side in block 4 where the lots have a depth of 102'. The builder proceeded to
design all of the houses to fit on the 102' depth. The lots in block 5 taper from 100.22' to
97.20' in depth and will not accommodate the builder's design.
The purpose of this modification is to request for removal, the sidewalk on
Deerhill Street. This is to allow the cars to park on the driveway and not pose a problem
for pedestrians using the existing sidewalk.
As part of this proposal the houses will need to have a setback of twenty (20') feet
from the back of the ribbon curb versus from the front of sidewalk. Currently there is a
sidewalk that can take the place of the one that is desired for removal in the common area
on the front of each lot and adjacent to the common area. Included is a landscape plan
showing this alternative sidewalk in orange. Also shown on the landscape plan are
strategic crosswalks that Tuscany is willing to install to allow for a continued flow of
pedestrian traffic.
Tuscany feels this is a good solution to a problem that was unforeseen by the
customer who bought the lots. This solution will prevent the builder from spending large
sums of money to redraw the plans and continue towards generating a profit on these
houses.
Please feel free to call me if there is a need for further clarification or resolve on
behalf of Tuscany Development Inc.
Thank you,
Trent Nicffenegger
The Westpark Company
President
208.870,1843
660 E Franklin Rd. #240. PO Box 344, Meridian, Idaho 83680
Exhibit A - 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
B. Agency/Department Conditions
1. Ada County Highway District
Page I of 2
Bill Parsons
From: Anna Canning
gent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:D0 AM
To: Bill Parsons, C. Caleb Hood
Subject: FW: Messina Meadows Sidewalk on Deerhill Dr.
Attachrrrtents: Messina Meadowsl.pdf-, Messina Meedowstc.pdF, Messina Meadowsl b.pdf
City of Meridian Planning Department
(200) 884-5533 phone (208) 80-68541acelmlle
From: Darrin Carroll imaoto:dcarroliCachd.ada.id.us)
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:52 PM
To: Trent Nieffenegger
Cc: Anna Canning; C. Caleb Hood
Subject: Messina Meadows Sidewalk on Deerhill Dr.
Hi Trent,
ACHD has evaluated the request to remove the existing concrete sidewalk along Deerhill Dr. in Messina
Meadows 1. It is our understanding there was an error in the final plat because Deerhill shifts south making the
lots on the west end of the phase 5-feet shorter than those at the east end (from 102.17-feet to 47.2-feet). A
single builder has purchased all the lots fronting Deerhill Dr. between Genoard Dr. and S. Cubola Ln. and the
shorter lots do not fit their house plan sized for a full 102-feet given the 20-foot setback required by City of
Meridian.
1-Would the City consider relaxing the setback requirement to R/W line or back of curb to retain the existing
sidewalk? Our preference is to only remove the sidewalk if it absolutely has to be done, subject to the
conditions below.
2-if not, we need some more help justifying the removal of the new sidewalk. Would the City of Meridian send
ACHD a letter recommending removal of the walk7 if the City of Meridian will only allow the setback with
sidewalk removal, we have a few other items to clean up.
a. Would need to vacate the sidewalk easement fronting the lots.
b. ACHD would require a min. 2-foot ribbon curb or a 2-foot portion of the sidewalk remain to act as the
ribbon curb at the back side of Swale to delineate the drainage Swale.
c. Would need new ped ramps to cross the public streets at sidewalk termini.
I understand Anna is out this week and I will be out next week. I took a guess at Anna's email address and hope
it is right. If not, maybe Caleb can help out.
Dasrta Carrall
ACHD DevelopmeM Review Superviea
3775 Adams St-oetden Clty, 10 83714
office: 06) 387.6183
ce". pM) 8e0.8831
fax: (208) 397-45393
dcar..roVachd ada.id us
6/26/2008
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008
C: Required Findings from the Unified Development Code (Variance)
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings
listed in Section 11-5B-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a
variance, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed
in the district:
The City Council finds that granting a variance would not allow a right or special
privilege that is not otherwise allowed for properties that are in an R-8 zoning district.
The applicant is required to maintain a 20-foot setback that doesn't interfere with parking
or pedestrian ways, and provide parking as required by city code. Further, the applicant
will have to comply with AC14D requirements for removing the sidewalk.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Because the 12 lots taper from 100 feet to 97 feet and E. Deerhill is already constructed
and the final plat recorded, it is difficult to modify the lot depths to accommodate the
102-foot depth required for the home design; therefore the City Council finds granting
the variance would relieve an undue hardship.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The City Council finds that granting the subject variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. In fact the applicant is proposing highlighted crosswalks
to help mitigate the concerns for pedestrian safety.
-t-
Exhibit C