The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMessina Meadows Subdivision MFP-08-005 VAR-08-005CITY OF MERIDIAN ~~~~j~E IDIAN~-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 1~AN~ DECISION & ORDER 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-OS-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 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 L 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 11 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. 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-OS-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 Deparhnent 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-08-005 and VAR-O8-005 -2- By ction of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) Mayq~ Tammy \`\\`\"111 1111///////// Attest: / _l ,~~~~'~ ~qy Jaycee Holman, City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Attorney. VOTED VOTED~CL~- VOTED~C.G~ VOTED The ~'Iaz~~e a~(m~nt, Public Works Department and City //~/nnlllu,n By: VC.~~y~R1L ~~!'~'~Ol/t~Dated:~// ' ~~~ City Clerk Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MFP-08-005 and VAR-OS-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 9DAHO 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 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 fmal plat was approved by City Council on February 7, 2006. The fmal 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 I50 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 V AR-OS-005 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FORTHE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 In addition to the removal of the sidewalk, the applicant is requesting a vaziance, 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 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 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 chazacteristics 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 ACI-ID's requrrements 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 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. The Meridian City Council heard these items on .lulu 22 and Aunust 2fi. 200R. At the nuhlic hearinn the ouncil anoroved the suhiect MFP and A7, reaues ;1, ummarv of City Council Public Hearin: h in favor: Trent NieffenegQer 11. In oooosition: None 111. Commenting: None iv. Written tesNmonv: None y, tall nresentine aoolication: Anna Canning yi, Other staff commentin¢ on apolication: None lt. ev Iss ~e of Pis ~ ion by .o .n il• Messina Meadows Subdivision MFP-OS-005 and VAR-O8-005 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 2b, 2008 i. Pedestrian movement through the nortion of the develonment reouestinu removal of the 4-foot detached sidewalk. ii The intent of the LIDO regarding the measurement of the front setback from the orooerty line. back of sidewalk and from the back of curb as requested by th a l jjl, extension of the driveways would have on the ooeratio of the R-foot wide drainage swales adjacent to E. Deerhill Street. s, Key Council Channes to Staff Recommendation L lY4Ile 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 heazing date of August 26, 2008 and direct Planning Staff [o prepare Findings for approval based on tonight's hearing with the specific following changes: (SYate any changes.) The applicant must also obtain ACHD approval for the proposed sidewalk removal Denial Afer 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 heazing 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 vacanC 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-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-OS-005 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map is 20 VICTORY ROAD 20 21 30 29 y 28 MESSI GO EN L o TATE m N W O ~ INGSBRID U W J 30 29 A R 49 31 32 33 N VICINITY MAP LYING iN THE SE 1/4 DF SECTION 29 T. 3 N., R. ~ E., B.IA. MERIDIAN, ADA COUNtt, 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) ae ~ S H i i ~~ ~ ~~ 7 ~~ ~ •+s 9 ! ~ I~ $ ~. $ ~ y9 i +, V~ ~r a ' [ ~y g~grJ~ Y ~.:~s~~A~eE I' ~ i ~ i~~`~ ~ ~>i~ ~ 31 ~ a~ I -~ ~ ~ ' • i F p F +S `e ! ~u I ^! „ i~~„'`¢~"sg9'ti '~ ~ i _ : ~ ~' ' ~~ i ®~ _ ~ 1 .N~ ~ F ! _ .i $y ' . ~ ~~ I~~ ~ t-T ~*'-~-Y 'a ~ E~ I v , 3 c ^I -_ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d x A04 ~ i , I 3I i >I ~ . .~ i~.l ~ .~A` -Y ~ ' - - - ~ ~s ed , ~ - ~ II ir! , ~ l ~.~~ s ~ 1 L LL ~ t ~. ~ _ TR I l dR. y9 OitR I .RF6 n pp '. t ~ ~ H~t ' _ _ _ _ __ i .Yr I ~ y~'!~ i.9 ~~ ~~s ^` ~j r' ~; ig ~ ________ __________ ___ __ ; e male _ __ . P R, I Exhibit A - 2 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 3. Map showing proposed changes Exhibit A - 3 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 4. Street Section Map illustrating ACRD Right-of--Way I__. ,~'~ ~~- It mjfa~ I I oo#u ~~ _±- ~~IZ ~' W( ~~z j g ~\ `~~ ~~ ~ r v ~y ~ ~y n .Y~ n _,S e 1 i I 1 uu f~j ~ ^ 1,~ ~p ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ i ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Ii fi~ _ I ~~~~~ I ~ a ~~ ~ ~ i ,es g ti-\ ~F ~$ ~~ o~ ~ a g .= h ~ ~~ ~~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I >c _~~~ ,~ I I ~ h ~ h ~ ,~~~~ 1 1 ~~ ~~~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ h I ,1 1 1 ~ M j 'I ~ ~j ~~ .. 1 00 11 ~'~ ~ Mf I 1 (1 1~ ~ ~~ ~t ~~~~ Exhibit A - 4 - C[TY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2008 5. Applicant's Letter The To Meridian Planning and Zoning Departrnent Inc. Tuscany Development lne. (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 gazage lots. Tuscany sold alt of the alley loaded lots on Deefiill Street [o one builder. The builder started to build nn the east side in block 4 where the lots have a depth of 102'. The builder proceeded to design all of the houses €o fit on. the 102' depth. The lots in block 5 taper from 100.22' to 97.20' in depth and wi[I 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. Curtently there is a sidewalk that can take [he place of the one that is desired for removal in the cottnnon 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 Tlrscany Development Inc. Thank you, Trent Nieffenegger The Wesryark Company President 208.870.1843 Rd (1240. PO Box 344, Meridian, Idaho R36R0 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 Bitl Parsons From: Anne Cenninp 8snt: Thursday, June 28, 2808 9:00 AM To: Bill Persons; C. Cabb Hood Subject: FW: Messina Meadowe Sdewalk on Daerhill Or. Aaachments: Messina Meadowst.pdf; Messina Meadowstapdt; Messina Meadowst b.pd/ Cdy of Meridian Planrang Department (308) 884-5433 phone (206) 888-6844 faalmlk From: Damn Carroll (maiao:dcarroll~achd.ada.id.u3] Sant: Thursday, May Ol, 2008 5:52 PM To: Trent Nienerregger u: Mna Canning; C. Caleb Hood SubJacti: Messina Meadows Sidewalk on Deerhiil Dr. Hi Trent, ACRD 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 Deefiill 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 97.2-feet). A single builder has purchased all the lots fronting Deerhill Or. between Genoard Dr. and S. Cubola tn. and the shorter lots do not fit their house plan sized for a full 102-feet given Me 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 onty 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 walk? H the City of Meridian will only 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 bts. b. ACHD would require amin. 2-toot rfbbon 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 streeU at sidewalk termini. i untlerztand Anna is out this week and I will be out next week. 1 took a guess at Mna's email address and hope it is right. If not, maybe Caleb can help out. Daxrio c.x:ou ACHD OevabpmeM Revbw 5upervww 3773 Mama St-0aNen OHY, ID 83714 once: floe) ~tE183 oeH~. (ZOB) 8806831 hx (20e) 3976383 d carro Il~achd,ada. id. us 6/26/2008 Exhibit B - 1 - CITY OF M ERIDIAN 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-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 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 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. Exhibit C