Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMessina Meadows Subdivision MFP-08-005 VAR-08-005CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER (~i1~~E IDIAN~-- IDAHo In the Matter of Final Plat Modification to the previously approved final plat for Messina Meadows (FP-OS-076) by removing the requirement fora 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 1. 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 (LC. §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-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MFP-08-005 and VAR-OS-005 -I- 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. 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-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 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-OS-005 and VAR-OS-005 _2_ By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the % ~ day of 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA C E COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) Attest: Jaycee Hc~11nan, City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, The Attorney. Public Works Department and City By:~~l Anc c i ~It~l!M'~D~f.~-~ Dated: ~ //' ~~d City Cler s Office / r~i- VOTED VOTED VOTED (~~.Q~~ VOTED ~Iayrm Taminv/db Weerd ~p>~~ FO BEAL ~~ 9~'~'~ST tat ' 1 `ZG~.`~ ,~P CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MFP-OS-005 and VAR-O8-005 -3- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: August 26, 2008 (Continued from July 22, 2008) E IDIAN~-- TO: Mayor and City Council IDAHO 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-OS-076) by removing the requirement fora 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 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 [o 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-OS-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 cazs parked in front of garages aze 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 azea is within ACRD right-of--way, if the subject request is approved by the City, the applicant should also coordinate with ACRD 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 a-mail from ACHD which outlines ACRD 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 hazdship because of characteristics of the site; • The vaziance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfaze. 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 [o 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 12 lots taper from ] 00 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 hazdship. Staff also believes that granting the subject variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. hi 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. The iri Council heard these items on Julv 22 and AuQUSt 26.2008. At the ouhlic hearine the Council aooroved the subject MFP and A7. reauest $, ummarv of Ciri Council Public Hearine: i< In favor: Trent NieffeneQ¢er IL In oooosition: None iii. Commenting: None jy, Written testimony: None y, taff nresentine annlication: Anna Canning yj, Other staff commenting on anplication: None lt. ev Issues of Discussion by Council• Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-OS-005 and VAR-08-005 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 1. Pedestrian movement thronch the oorNon of the develonment reanestinn removal of the 4-foot detached sidewalk. 11. Th int nt of th recarditt>; the measurement of the front setback from the property line- back of sidewalk and from the back of curb as requested by th iiL The impact of the oronosed extension of the driveways would have on the operation of the 8-foot wide d_rainace swages adjacent to E. Deerhill Street. L Kev Council Chances to Staff Recommendation L None 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- OS-005 and MFP-OS-005, as presented during the hearing date of August 26, 2008 and direct Planning Staff [o prepare findings for approval based on tonight's hearing, with the specific following changes: (State any changes.) The applicant must also obtain ACRD 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-SA- 2), apublic 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-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 Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-OS-005 and VAR-OS-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 19 20 VICTORY ROAD 20 21 30 29 ~ 9 28 MESSI GO EN L a TATE O W J O C~ ~ tNGSBRID (n ~ W Q O J 0 30 29 A R 29 31 32 33 N VICINITY MAP LYING IN THE SE i/4 OF SECTION 29 T, 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN, ADA 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) '. ; rwn ymn . 1 ",. di ! ~ ~, ~ fi " ~ i ~ ~,gj ~~yp = g's.s.,M ' ~R I ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 - ~ a, ~1" a' ~1 7*_I ky~~a T ~a 1 - it I z ~ y, a wre. ms ___ 1 Z ~' - - 1...- ~ ~ ~. _ ~. I m 9i e~ ~ ®'~ 1 I k . y - •r I -'9~_ ~ 9a ~ • ~a I -- ~ VI pd ~~ a ~ v 9,. 1 ~ - A' se a ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ O ~_~~~ ~ ~ r L~ 1 i - - - ~© i~ +~ 9v A i~ ~ ~ . i. ay - z~~ W I~ I d` _° '~ -!a't as ' ~ ~! ,yf . • i I 6 k ~ ~~. ~ -- gx _ _ ,-----1 -+_1 Igo ~ ~p I ~ W ROR.w_am ~,/ ~ i -~ ~ - ~J ~, I j 5 l 'y,y~ .i i~~~f.ieso. ~~g - ~_ _ Q' _ ~ ~ 1 r F 'va ,' y_ Q ~ - 11 9 ~~ aY[i.nmm.Y. dp Y .. 5S~"cy ~ ~ ['~a as I ~ ~ a : ~ ~ i i Ns. I TYj .. I f ' 4 :1: :''` y4 rr.. ®~ A Niv i t; ~' ~~!' ~-___.____ __-'_____________'_r q~ 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 ,9 _l_ g~~ } Yg __~__ h i ~~ ~itZ~ ~ I - ~ ~~~ m~zr +t co{Ir ~,I ~I ~~o~ j ~EIE~~fi~ ~ @ ~ ~ t z ~ ~ ; ~ }y ~ ~ ~' ye ~i ~ ,ice 1 I ~ ~ A ~, .S [i ~ ~~ ~ I I 1 I h i ~ ~ ~ I 1 _._. I 0011 1 i i I ~ ~ ~ j 1~ ' ~ !:~j ~ ; ~ a}o h + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 1. I 1 ~ ---~ mrcl ~---- id- r~ ~nT ~ "~ $ 6 ~e~ _ ~~ b ~ b ~f ~ ~x ~ '~ ~s ~ g ~ ~€ ~~ h ~~ ~ ~ ~ g o ~+ n ati ~~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ i; V ~a~ ~Y~=~~~ ~ 1 I ~ ^ ~ h ~~~ M7 t. ~ I ~ + M7 ~ I! ~ , i ,f 1 .I y i ;_ ~~ ~R ~~11 _1_ ~~,~ I~ ~~~~~ Exhibit A - 4 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 5. Applicant's Letter The Westpark Company, Inc. 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 Genoazd Ave though 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 cazs 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 wmmon 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 Tots. 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 fee) free to call me if there is a need for further clarification or resolve nn behalf of Tuscany Development Inc. Thank you, Trent Nieffenegger The Westpazk Company President 208.870.1843 660 F Franklin Rd. N240. PO Boz 344, Meridian, Idaho Exhibit A - 5 - CITY OF MERIDIANPLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 200& B. Agency/Department Conditions 1. Ada County Highway District Page t of 2 BIII Parsons From: Anna Canning Sant: Thursday, June 28, 2008 9:00 AM To: Bill Paraorre; C. Cabb Hood Sutyect: FW: Messina Meadows Sidewalk on Deerhill Dr. AtlaehtTtents: Messina Meedowat.pdf; Messina Meadowstc.pdf, Messina Meatlowsl b.pdf City of Mendion Alarming Departmerrt (208} Ba4-5533 phone (208) BBa-6854 fa<f lmlle From: Darrin Carroll (ma0to:dcarroll~aohd.ada.id.us] Scut: Thursday, May Dl, 2008 5:52 PM To: Trent Nieffenegger Cc: Anna Canning; C. Caleb Hood Subject: Messina Meadows Sidewalk on DeerbNl Dr. Hi Trent, ACHD has evaluated the request to remove [he existing concrete sidewalk along Oeerhill Dr. in Messina Meadows 1. It is our undentantling there was an error in the Onal plat because Deerhill shifts south making the lots on the west end of the phase 5-feet shorter than those at Me east end (from 102.17-feet to 97.2-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. i-Would the City consider relating 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 jus[itying the removal of the new sidewalk. Would the Crty of Meridian send ACHD a letter recommending removal of the walk? if the City of Meridian will onty albw 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 nbbon curb at the back side of Swale to delineate [he drainage Swale. c. Would need new pad ramps to cross the public streets at sidewalk termini. I understand Anna is out this week and I will be out nett week. I took a guess at Anna's email address and hope ft is right. If not, maybe Caleb can help out. Dentin Carroll ACHD DswrbimaM Review 9uparvieor 3775 Adame 91-Garden CNy, ID 83714 a9b: (269) 38Td183 caN' (2087 886883/ hx: (2~) 397383 dcarrgil~achq.adR jd.us 6/2 612 0 0 8 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 standazds listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11-SB-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 ACRD requirements for removing the sidewalk. B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characterisfics of the site; Because the 12 lots taper from 100 feet to 97 feet and E. Deerhill is already constmcted 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 hazdship. 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. Exhibit C - 1 -