The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff ReportPage 1 of 1 Tara Green From: Bill Parsons Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:46 PM To: Tara Green; Machelle Hill; Bill Nary; Ted Baird; Jaycee Holman; trent@westparkco.com Cc: C. Caleb Hood Subject: Messins Meadows MFP and Variance Staff Report for the July 22, 2008 CC MTG Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green Attachments: Messina Meadows MFP VAR.doc Attached is the Messina Meadows staff report (MFP-08-005 and MI-08-005). This item is scheduled to be on the City Council agenda for July 22, 2008. The meeting will be held at 33 E. Idaho Avenue beginning at 7:00 pm. Please call or e-mail with any questions. Trent - Please submit any written response you may have to the staff report to the City Clerk's Office greent@meridiancity.org, hillm_ a meridiancity.org, and myself (e-mail of fax - 888-6854) as soon as possible. Bill Parsons Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 East Watertower Lane Suite 202 Meridian, Idaho 83642 PHONE: (208) 884-5533 FAX: (208) 888-6854 parsonsb@meridiancity.org 7/18/2008 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 22, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN~ FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner I D A H O 884-5533 SUBJECT: Messina Meadows • MFP-08-005 - Request to modify the previously approved final plat for Messina Meadows (FP-OS-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 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 121ots. 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 11-2A-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 developrnent. Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-OS-005 and VAR-08-005 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 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-SB-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 ACHD's requirements for the removal of the sidewalk and parking plan. Because the 121ots 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 subj ect 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. 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 July 22, 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. Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-08-005 and. VAR-08-005 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 2008 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 July 17, 2007 and direct Legal Staff to prepare the appropriate fmdings 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-SA- 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 deternuned by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, Article A (Table 11-SA-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 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 12, 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 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map vi c ~ ~ ~~ r~AP LYING IN THE SE t/4 Of SECTIQN 29 T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M. MERIDWN. ADA COUNTY, IDAtiO Exhibit A - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 2008 2. Final Plat Map (referencing the lots subject to the modification) ~ °t ,- ~. _ _ . _ ._ . ~~ ,- .____~...__. ---. _. ._ _____-~ - . :~ - - :L: - - _4"'!' - arw~+:.«~:' _ _ -'Ji- ~ 1 N a~ ' ~~ sa ~~ ~'j'T=I' ~'~ ~ ~q~ ~~ ~ 76 ( ~ ~~. - ! - -~ - ~,~a ~ i ~ i ~A,} ' .~ ai . ~~ ' ! ~ ~' trk I ~ ~. r~ bs~ ; i J~ ~ .n'tii l A.000 Y ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ y,~fi ,~ 9~ ~~ ~~ ~. . ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~, ~ ~~a . ~ '. ~~ ~ ~ . ~, , ~ a p a ~- --a~-, . - ~_ - • ' j ~~ ~ ~ :~ ~ e,a ~ I ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~! ~ i ~ ~~tf~~~ ~~; - ------ I i~ ~~~~~~~ ~ _~~la ~ ~.. a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 's~l ~ , ; ~;~ ~~ ~~a~ ~ a~ . o. ~ ~ ~ ea. ~* kr I . ~ ' _ ' _ _ ' _ - ,- _ _ n~w •.ic~ew•_ _ ' .' _ ' ' _ _ ' _ _ ' ' ' ~ ~~~~ I ' ~ ~- - - - R-.; ~ ~ ~~ • ~. ' ~' ' 1 ~ ~ J~ ~( . ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ I ~w $ ~~ _ ~ _~` ~! ~ ~~~ ( ~3. ~ ~ ~ ' , ~~ ~ i~l 3 !~ ~ ~s1 E ' ~ ~ ' ~~ (~ ~~ • . - ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ; + ~ - -~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ ? ~ ~ _ ~ w , ~~ ~~ , r ? ~ ~ f i~.. , _ ~, ~~~~'~~;~ .• ~ ~ , i ; ~; j_• _~ _ , ~~, ; p } , . ~- ~ , ~~ - ~~ ~ ~~I ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ` ;, ~ ~ ~ , ..... ~ ~ ~I ,~, Q ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ - ..,~ ..., . ' i- . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~ . ,. ~ , ~ , p~ . ; !.. ~r~' ~ ~ ~ - ~ : ' ; r ~~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ + , i~ ~ ~ ~ { O + ~ •' • _ ' -~ ' ' y~ . ;~ : Y~ ,~r • t ,nu A j~ 1 • ' ~ `.,ci~i `/rT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '• ' ~ ~. • ~ . , ~ o ~~ -' _ ~_ ~ .th _ - ' ~ ~ ' • ~ - t ~ ~ " ~- Y ~ ~ ? : n~ ~.~.; -. - • ..~.... , ~' ~ ' ~. -.+: ^~~ Afi~{ ` I • ~ ~$ _ yl~ ~ ~ a s'~: ' ,~ "' qj{ ~ , /,,. mN . ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ *i; ~ O ~ ~ ~"'t~~ ~ „ '~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 9~ ~ ~ 1S~b: •O q ?; 'r ~ -~ .~` , 3 v~ ~~~~~~ ,,j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~/ _'i ~l ~ a ~ ~ p ~~ ~ ~"'" ~ „~ ~• ~ - - - -.i._ • Q ~ '9 . ~~ ~ A ~~ ~ ~ , ~ / -' t 4~ w ~ ( ' ~ •~ • ~• ~~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ . t ~; -s I ° •~ ` . , ' Z ~ ~ ~ i ~,~ ~. ~ ~ ~R ~ ` • _ f '~~~~~ ' a~ 1 U(/~] ~' ~ ~ '`__`,'.. ' ~ `a ~~~r ! W ~_a~e ~s..«.. ' ~ - - ~ i _. _ ~ 's~~ i .~i ~' ~`~ ~ ~ ~ iCbp Exhibit A - 2 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 2008 3. Map showing proposed changes Exhibit A -3- Eachibit A - 4 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 2008 5. Applicant's Letter The Westpark Company, Inc. Real Estate I)evelapment To Meridian Planning and Zoning Department: Tuscany Devetppment Inc. (Tuscany) is proposing the removal af the sidewalk within the Messina Meadows subdivision and on tt~e south side of Deerhill Street between Montague Way and Genoard Ave through a final plat modification. More specifically for Iots 54-66 of block 5, which are alley loaded garage lots. Tuscany sold a11 af the alley laaded lots on De~rhill Strcet to one buiider. The builder started to build on the east side in block 4 where the lots have a depth of 102'. The builder ptocceded to design all of the houses to fit on the 102' depth. The lots in block 5 taper from 1~.22' to 9'1.20' in depth and witl not accommodate the builder's design. The punwse af this modification is to raquest for removal, the sidewalk on De,erhill Street. This is to allow the cars to park on the driveway and not pose a probiem for pedestrians using the existing sidewalk. As part of tt-is proposal the houses will nced ta have a setback of twenty (20') feet from the back af the ribhon curb versus from the front of sidewalk. Currently there is a sidewalk that can take the place of the one that is desired far removal in the common area on the $ont of each lot and adjacent to the common area. Included is a landscape plan showing this alternative sidewallc in orange. Also shown on the landscape plan are strategic crasswalks that 'I`uscany is willing to install to allow for a continued flow of pe~iestrian traffic. Tuscany feels this is a good solution to a problem that was unforescen by the custamer who bought the lots. This solution will prevent the buitder firom spending large sums of money to redraw the plans and continue towards generating a pmfit on these houses. Please feel free to call me if there is a nced for further ciarification or resalve on behalf of Tuscany Developmen3 Tnc. r ~/~~"„'~ /~' ~ Trent Nieffenegger The Westpark Company Presicient 20$.870.1843 660 E Frankiin Rd #240, PO Box 344, Me~ridian, Idaho 83680 E}chibit A - 5 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 2008 B. Agency/Department Conditions 1. Ada County Highway District Page t af 2 BiN P~s From: Mns Canrdng s~r. TnuBdey. .xme ~, ~os ~:oo ~t Tos Bi9 Paraar~; C. Caleb Hood 8n~act: FW: Me~i~ Moadaws Sidewalk on DearhiN IN. Atiachrn~mts: Messina Meedc~rsl.pdf Mesaina Meadowslc.pdf; Meseina Meadowsl b.pdi Cityr of Aieridi~ Plapmi~ Depa~tment E2c~e) eea-ss~ ~hone (za~ e~r~,sa fau~ f?roa~: fl~r~ C~roH [ma~:dcarmli~achd•ada.id.~] S~ia "thurscl8y. M8y 01, 200a 5:52 PM To: Trent Nie:~ger C~ AnteB CAnnin4; C. f~leb ti00~d ;4db,Nc~ (Nesshta IMteadaws Sidervaik oo DeerhNl Dr. Hi Trent, QGHD has evaluated the request to remove Me existing concrete sidewaik along Deerhili Dr. in Messina Meadows 1. tt is air understandt~g thero was an error in the flnal piat because Reerhill shffts soutfi making the lots on the west end of the phase 5-feet shorter than th~e at the east end {from 102.17-feet to 97.2-feet). A ~ngle build~ has purd~ased ail tMe bts frontfing DeerhlU Or. between Getr~rd br. and 5. Cu~la ln. artd the shcxtec tou da not fit their house pian sized for a fu0 102-feet given the 20-foot aetbadc required by Ciry of Meridian. 1-Would the City consider relaxMg the setback requirement to R/W flne or back of curb to rctain the existlng sidewaNc4 Our preference is ta only remowe the s-dewaik if it absolutely has to be done, wbject to the cnrtdkions below, 2-1f not, we need some more help justifying the remnval of the new sidewatk. Wouid ~e City of Meridlan send ACHD a~tter recommending removal of the waik? If the Cityr of Mertdian will only albw the setback with sidewaHc removal, we have a few other items to dean up. a. Wcwki need to vacate the sidewaCk easement fra~ting the lots. b, ACHO would require a min. 2-foot Mbbon wrb or a 2-€ooYpaUon af the sidewalk remaln to act as the tibbon curb atthe back side of swale to delineate the dratnaga sa+ale. c. W~Id need new ped ramps to aoss the puWk sueets at sidewaik termi~i. I under°sWrsd Anna is out this week and I will be ait next week. I took a guess at Anna's ematl address and hope it is right. if not, maybe CaHeb can hetp out. n~rria~- cn~ssron ACFl~ DlwbprM~ it+wbw Sup«v~r 3775 /~arrs ~t-Ci~MM C~y, ID 83'T14 t~1ia: C2~?'.~7-8183 oeN: (2q8) ~tA9~i4 RDt: {20~ 387-0393 dG~1TOt~~qldx~S1~.~l.,~!S 6I26/2008 Eachibit B - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 22, 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 fmdings 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: 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 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 ACHD 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 Staff finds granting the variance would relieve an undue hardship. C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public healtb, safety, and welfare. Staff 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. Exhibit C - 1 -