Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC - Commission Recommendation and Staff Report for 11-19
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/19/2024 Legend DATE: I-L ® Project Location RUT TO: Mayor& City Council Area of Impact O Analysis R1 FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 R 2 R-8 lritter@meridiancity.org " 7 APPLICANT: Laren Baily,Conger Group C-G R-15 C-C SUBJECT: H-2024-0022 FRR-- Skyranch AZ,RZ,PP and MDA R-4 LOCATION: Located in the S%2 of the SW 1/4of Section 31,Township 3N,Range 1E, RUT parcels: S1131336050, S1131336031, C-2"`A - S1131346925, S1131346935, S1131346941, S1131347001, S1131347101 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 20.039-acres of land with R-15 zoning;rezoning of 24.53 acres of land from R-4 to R-15;modification of the existing development agreement to create a new one to develop the proposed single-family residential development and Preliminary Plat consisting of 285 building lots(284 new and 1 existing),28 common lots and 8 common drives on 43.82 acres of land zoned R-15. B. Issues/Waivers Applicant is proposing a single use development which is not consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional FLUM designation. The proposed development lacks key design elements required by the Comprehensive Plan such as: • Function integration • Outward-facing design • Physical integration and shared features Support for local services • Design integration,purposeful open space • Pedestrian connectivity and • Limited reliance on arterial roads The applicant is suggesting they utilize the property to the south as the commercial component of the mixed-use development,while their own proposed development would provide some of the residential units. However,the issue is that there are currently no conceptual plans illustrating City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview how these two properties would be integrated to create a cohesive mixed-use development. This lack of detailed planning makes it unclear how the two sites would work together to meet the requirements and function as a single,unified project. The applicant has the option of applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment in order to develop the property as proposed. C. Recommendation Staff. Denial D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R-4,RUT VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation MU-RG,Med-High Density Residential VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 5/28/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/28/2024 Site posting date 10/4/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.G • Comments Received Comments were not received prior to issuance of this staff - report • Commission Action Required No - • Access E. Lake Hazel Road - • Traffic Level of Service Better than"E" - ITD Comments Received Yes,Letter IV.I Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer available from the east along the future collector street • Impacts or Concerns No- Must provide stub to S 1131346650 Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water available at the site • Impacts or Concerns Yes o Only the first phase of the development can be constructed with a single connection to east.Before any additional phase are developed a second water connection is required. o Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. o Engineer to verify if there is a well onsite.If a well is located on the site it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements and proof of abandonment must be provided to the City. o Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained -Locate meters and fire hydrants so they are at least 5' from trees or other permanent structure. School District(s) West Ada School District IVY • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—550 - Victory Middle School— 1,000 Mountain View High School—2,175 • Number of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary—494 Victory Middle School— 1,079 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Mountain View High School—2,512 Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Skyranch AZ,MDA,RZ,PP H-2024-0022 (copy this link into a separate browser). Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1131336031 Date Retrieved:2024/10/17 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 246 1,007 Surrounding Area 47% vot city 3fi8IRW ® City Limits ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:84.1°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses a% ■ Single-family 25% Multi-family ISO% 75% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 1000 2006 3000 0 0.5 1 1.5 ■ Single-family Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 2.00 500 Single-family y 01 1.50 (AResidential Parcel Diversity H 1.00 U 0 Parcel Count 0.50 L m Q.09 a Average Acres 0.00 0.00 16 0 R-2 R-4 8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 Residential Net Density 111.49 10.00 5.00 06.18 6.93 0 2.6Q 0.00Q.aQ Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Figure 3:ACHD Summary Metrics 0 S. Meridian Rd Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes m Existing Level of Service Notable r Comments Q (Primary roadway impact} Programmed IFYP Programmed CIP *Traffic counts are from October 2023. a E. Lake Hazel Rd Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes Existing Level of Service INV Notable r Comments Q (Primary roadway impact) Programmed IFYP im Programmed CIP *E.Lake Hazel Road is currently under construction and is being widen to S lanes from S.Meridian Road to S.Apex Avenue. The level of service listed above is for the existing 2-1ane road. Traffic counts are from June 2018. Figure 4: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . ls Ready Marginal Caution ocye 2��t °°a Fite q �a a��'•� �_0 ,e �rq Qa Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designates the area proposed to be rezoned as "Mixed-Use Regional," which is intended to encourage a balanced blend of employment opportunities,retail,residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in areas near major arterial intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live,work,and shop without needing to travel far. The area being annexed is designated as Medium Density High Residential. This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums,and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. However,the applicant's current proposal is limited to single-family residential development, occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area, and with no internal vehicle or pedestrian connectivity between the areas,which does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. By focusing solely on an inward facing single-family home development,the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby. This lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan could raise concerns about whether the development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community, or meet long-term growth objectives. For mixed-use developments to be consistent with the plan,they need to demonstrate the following elements,which the current proposal lacks: I. Functional Integration: Developments must show that even undeveloped parts of the area can be functionally integrated, either immediately or conceptually. The project should prove that all planned components can work together cohesively. Local connectivity is required to limit local trip impacts to the regional network,both for traditional single-family homes and in mixed-use areas. The current proposal lacks such connectivity and is located near a major regional intersection planned for expansion to seven lanes with additional access restrictions.Although the developer claims the proposal integrates with the surrounding commercial areas, no conceptual plans have been provided to support this claim. 2. Outward-Facing Design: The development should not be insular or turn its back on neighboring properties or streets. Instead, it should engage with its surroundings,promoting interaction with adjacent areas and developments. The planned development does not setup or support any future physical, visual connectivity with the remainder of the mixed-use area. 3. Physical Integration and Shared Features: There should be tangible connections between different parts of the development, such as shared amenities,walkways, or spaces. This physical integration supports local connectivity,making the area feel cohesive and accessible. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 4. Support for Local Services: Developments must intentionally create opportunities for local services such as office,gyms,retail, employment, or public uses. The current single-use proposal fails to support this objective, as it does not include any local services within the development. 5. Design Integration: There should be visual corridors or clear lines of sight connecting points of interest throughout the development. This creates a sense of openness and visual connectivity, making it easier for residents and visitors to navigate the space. The proposed development, however, is essentially isolated and does not provide connections to the property to the south. It is presented as a single-use development without the commercial component required by the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Purposeful Open Space: Open spaces should not be incidental but purposefully designed to enhance connectivity and functional integration. They should serve as common areas that bring people together and provide opportunities for interaction. The open space provided is solely for the purpose of the single-family residents and is not designed to integrate. The open space was not designed to integrate with commercial. 7. Pedestrian Connectivity: Pedestrian pathways and connectivity must be prioritized. Mixed-use areas should encourage walkability, allowing residents to move easily between homes, services, and public spaces without relying on vehicles. Pedestrian connectivity is crucial in mixed-use developments to encourage walkability. The absence of such connectivity in this proposal would force residents to walk along busy arterial roads to reach services and public spaces or depend on vehicles to access them Further UDC II- 3B-9 requires pedestrian connections between residential and commercial areas. 8. Limited Reliance on Arterial Roads: Vehicle connectivity should be designed so that local traffic does not depend entirely on arterial roads. Instead, developments should incorporate internal street systems that distribute traffic more effectively within the area. Staff and the Ada County Highway District(ACHD) are concerned that the short entrance road into the development could cause traffic backups along E. Lake Hazel Road.Additionally, the proposal lacks connectivity to commercial areas without requiring residents to cross a major arterial road, effectively isolating the development as a single-use area. The applicant indicates that residential uses will comprise between 10%and 30%of the development area, with gross densities ranging from six(6) to forty(40) units per acre within the residential portion. The proposed Skyranch Neighborhood in the Mixed-Use Residential(MU-RG) area would occupy 11%of the 219 acres,providing a density of 6.5 units per acre, aligning with the Comprehensive Plan's vision. However, the applicant did not account for the Comprehensive Plan's requirement that mixed-use areas bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate, independent areas for use and design integration, and will be evaluated as such.As a result, the applicant's approach of using theirproperty as a single-use area does not align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use development. It should also be noted that there are no discrete office or commercial areas left for development in south Meridian. All of these future uses now or later(with more roof tops)are intended to be provided within mixed use areas. The proposed project disproportionately impacts the ability for future services to be provided to local residents. Staff very regularly have trouble finding places for many of these users outside of industrial areas as they are not preserved for within the intended mixed-use areas. The area preserved for non-residential uses and the access and connectivity to these future uses fall well short of the text and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Given these requirements,the current proposal for predominantly and disproportionately large single- family residential development does not meet the intent of the mixed-use designation. The developer City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis would need to revise the project to introduce more uses, foster greater physical and functional integration, and prioritize connectivity for both pedestrians and vehicles in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan or submit for a Comprehensive Map Amendment to move forward with the plan as submitted. Examples of an integrated mixed-use development below are Bown Crossing,Boise and Bethany Village, Oregon. 1 1 1 C'. 1 1 1 - �i 1 1 11 111 9 11 1 rr LEGEND 1. Points of Interest Primary Local Corridor (Visual and Physical) Secondary Local _ r, • Corridor(Visual and Physical) Ar City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis Building modulation with --- Shared additional outdoor spaces Outdoor space r ---' Multi-story _ structures _ --_-}F Eastsid._ Y _ LLI �� Landscaped s Median is '�. Pedestrian scale architecture and features irr On-street Parking - Street Furnishings Nib Ilk Connected 1 Amenities j Commercial Anchor r Backage Road ,..' . Hold the Corners Central Commons I I Street View, iew r , Reference , Lac.UP Local"Main Street" Dedicated Pedestrian 'Connectivity air' ty of non�42sidential' :. ., building types Secondary Tier Commercial (e.g.-day cares,karate ' Essential studios,spa,etc.) Services (e.g.-grocer) Y ® E 1 1 ! 1 1 1 Ag 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Per the Comprehensive Plan `In developing the Comprehensive Plan, the City has typically designated Mixed-Use in areas of higher visibility(such as along arterial roadways). These Mixed-Use areas identified on the Future Land Use Map vary in size, intensity(both residential and commercial), and consider the visibility of the planned transportation network, number of residences planned within mixed use designation service areas, and location relevant to other commercial opportunities. The locations are intended to provide Meridian residents with a variety of opportunities for housing, leisure, activity, and commerce.Attractive and convenient prioritized elements such as multiuse pathways are paramount to functionally reducing impacts to the transportation network through proximity and density of services. Contiguous Mixed-Use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and desi,-n integration and will be evaluated independently of each other." Again, the applicant's proposal does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use development as it does not provide a mix of uses. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-H-2015-0019,DA Inst#2016-007088 Phasing Plan 6 phases Residential Units 284 detached single-family residents i Open Space 7.49 acres/17.1%/0.72 non-qualifying Amenities Required: 9/Proposed: 30 - Physical Features Rawson Lateral Acreage 43.82 Lots 284 Buildable Lots/28 Common Lots/6 Common Drives Density _ = 6.50 dwelling units per acre City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis B. History In 2015, the City, at the request/consent of the property owners, annexed approximately 1,322 acres of land with the R-4, R-8, R-1 S and C-G zoning districts. It was envisioned that some of the subject properties will seek re-zoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations in the future.At the time, no development was proposed with the subject annexation request and therefore a vast majority of the property(1,241 acres) was proposed to be annexed as R-4.All of the subject property owners signed a Development Agreement(DA) that was executed upon approval. Within each DA is a requirement that any proposed development plan be reviewed and approved as an amendment to the executed Development Agreement. Upon development/re-development of all these properties in the future, adherence to the characteristics of their respective land use designation described above will be required. During the annexation properties were assigned zoning districts as placeholders until the property owner came in to develop the property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The current use of the property is agricultural with one (1) residential properties existing. The existing structure will remain but will be required to hook up to the city's water and sewer system. The existing well and septic system will be abandoned as required. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached dwellings which are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-1 S zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The future land use map identifies this area as medium-high density. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of eight(8) to twelve(12) dwelling units per acre. Per UDC 11-2A-7, R-1 S is considered Medium High Density. Per the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, this designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality ofplace and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The proposal covers forty-three(43) acres, of which twenty-four(24) acres are designated as Mixed-Use Regional under the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). However, the current design proposes a single-use development of single family detached residential homes across the site. This approach disregards the Mixed-Use Regional designation, which is intended to promote a blend of residential, commercial, and public uses, rather than focusing solely on one type of development. By limiting the development to single-family homes, the proposal fails to meet the objectives of the Mixed-Use Regional designation, which aims to create dynamic, interconnected communities where residents can live, work, and access services in the same area. This mixed-use concept encourages economic growth, reduces reliance on external roadways, and supports walkability and community cohesion. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.06.02B encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity, thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis To comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant needs to redesign the proposal and incorporate a mix of housing types (e.g., multi family units), local services (retail or office spaces), and public amenities (parks,plazas) within the Twenty-four(24) acres of the Mixed- Use Regional area. This would not only align with the FL UM designation but also enhance the functionality and integration of the development with the surrounding area. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a mix of dwelling types within the residential area such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 8(lots 2-17 and lots 19-34) and Block 9(lots 2-17 and lots 19-34) of the proposed development as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 and 11-213-1 Commercial District for the Mixed-Use Regional and the R-15 zoning districts. The proposed lots and public streets for the R-15 zoning district appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. However, the proposal does not comply with Mixed-Use Regional designation. As mentioned above, the applicant needs to redesign the proposal to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Eight(8) common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided common drive exhibits which demonstrate no more than three(3) units are served whereas a maximum of 4 units are allowed. The common driveway meets the minimum width of twenty (20)feet and does not exceed the maximum length of one hundred and fifty(150)feet. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited, unless separated by a minimum five (5) foot wide landscaped buffer. D. Design Standards Analysis The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in I I-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. Stafffinds that while the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 zoning district, they do not meet the intent of the mixed-use designation due to the single-use nature of the proposal. Some block lengths exceed the 750 foot requirement and will necessitate a waiver from the Council.Additionally, the existing house that will remain as part of the proposed development abuts two streets, which is prohibited by the Unified Development Code(UDC). Furthermore, the lots to the north do not transition to align with the large estate-style lots zoned RUT within Ada County, which have a Future Land Use Map (FL UM) designation of Low Density Residential(LDR). Therefore, the applicant needs to revise their plat map to address the identified issues and demonstrate the necessary corrections. 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 3.07.00, Comp Plan 3.07.01A, UDC 11-3A- 19): The current use of the property is agricultural with two (2)residential properties existing. The 6285 S. Tarrega Lane house will remain and potentially redevelop at a later date. The structures at 520 E. Lake Hazel Road will be removed and existing wells and septic systems will be abandoned as required. Per UDC 11-6C-3A.1, through properties are prohibited except where it is shown that unusual topography or other conditions make it impossible to meet this requirement. Through properties shall be limited to one(1)street access on one (I)frontage, designated by a note on the final plat. The applicant needs to revise the plat to remove one of the frontage roads for Lot 40, Block 5. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.0 encourages compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.OIA requires all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.01B, UDC 11-3G): Based on the standards in UDC Table 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15% (or 12.05-acres) of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VIT F, that depicts 17.1% (or 7.49-acres) of open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of nine (9) amenity points are required to be provided. The amenities proposed are a park with a community pool,play structure, seating benches, climbing dome, swing set; two (2)pickleball courts; dog park with waste station and sitting benches; and pathways. All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover per UDC 11-3G-5B.3. Although the applicant is proposing a berm, landscaping and fencing around the sports court, stafffeels the location would be better if relocated to Lot I Block 10 or Lot 1 Block 7 away from the primary entrance to the subdivision which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan polices below. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.00 requires the applicant to plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.0IB requires the applicant to evaluate open space and amenity requirements for consistency with community needs and values. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-6 requires a thirty-five (35)foot wide buffer along entryway corridors (N. Meridian Road and twenty-five (25)foot wide buffers are required along arterial roads (E. Lake Hazel Road). A twenty(20)foot wide buffer along all collectors is required. ii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-3B-10,the applicant shall preserve existing trees four-inch caliper or greater from destruction during the development. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees).Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall add a mitigation section to the landscape plan for trees meeting the criteria above that are removed. iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. iv. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on the proposed streets. i. Residential parking analysis The proposal will be required to meet the standards.for parking as setforth in UDC H- 3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C,Architectural Standards Manual): Four(4) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VII.I. The applicant states the homes in the Skyranch Neighborhood will include 284 homes with a mix of different product types, two-story and single-story detached single-family homes. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing E. Lake Hazel Road will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs), bays, banding,porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single-story homes are exempt from this requirement. Design review is required for single-family attached and townhomes. Design review will have to meet the requirements outlined in the City's Architectural Standards Manual. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. To support this policy staff recommends the applicant provide additional housing options (i.e. townhomes, single family attached) in the development. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan 3.07.01 C, UDC 11-3A-17): Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.01 C requires appropriate landscaping, buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc). Per the UDC the minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8) feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of the street section within the right-of-way;the parkway width shall exclude the width of the sidewalk. Class II trees are the preferred parkway trees. The applicant is proposing parkways along the entrance to Street A, Street F, Street N and Street P of the subdivision. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02B, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Per UDC 11-3A-3,the intent of these standards is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to collector and arterial streets and ensuring that motorists can safely enter all streets unless waived by City Council. Comprehensive Plan policy 6.01.02B requires the reduction in the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. Access to the property is proposed from E. Lake Hazel Road. Per the Idaho Transportation Department, no direct access to the State Highway System is approved. Due to the type and proximity of this development to SH-69, ITD is requesting a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)for the proposed development. Access is also proposed from the east side of the property via the future collector road. As the property is within close proximity to SH-69, the applicant will be required to provide noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4D. Noise abatement could include but not limited to a berm or a berm and wall combination to help reduce the traffic noise. Staff has concerns about the length of the entrance off of E. Lake Hazel Road. The potential for traffic to backup when trying to access the site is greater with the short distance. 2. Pathways (Comp Plan 3.07.02A, Comp Plan 4.04.OIA, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. Pedestrian connectivity is crucial in mixed-use developments to encourage walkability. The absence of such connectivity in this proposal would force residents to walk along busy arterial roads to reach services and public spaces or depend on vehicles to access them Further UDC 11-3B-9 requires pedestrian connections between residential and commercial areas. The only pathway required for this development is along S. Meridian Road. Other pedestrian connectivity is limited except along the arterial roads which does not meet the Comprehensive Plan policies list below. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.02A requires pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.OIA ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. 4. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): There are no private streets proposed for this development. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred(500)feet except as allowed in subsection(b)of this section. The City Council may approve a dead-end street up to seven hundred fifty(750)feet in length where an emergency access is proposed; or where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope,railroad tracks,an arterial roadway, or a large waterway that prevents or City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis makes impractical extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. Cul-de-sac streets may serve a maximum of thirty(30) dwelling units. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac that exceeds the maximum five hundred(500) feet in length. The applicant needs to request a waiver from counsel for exceeding the maximum length for dead end streets. ii. Common driveways Per UDC 11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway. The applicant is proposing six(6) common driveways that meet the dimensional requirements as outlined in the UDC. iii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet,unless waived by the City Council. It appears that some of the block lengths exceed the 750 feet. The applicant did not submit a revised block face length exhibit for review as requested. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan 4.05.OID, UDC 11-3A-6): Per UDC 11-3A-6, requires limiting the tiling and piping of natural waterways, including, but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve,protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6B shall apply. The applicant needs to request a waiver from City Council to keep the canal open. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.05.OID requires improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial, and residential areas. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03G, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Staff is recommending denial,therefore there are no conditions of approval. B. Meridian Public Works See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&rgpo=MeridianCit X C. Meridian Park's Department See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=O&repo=MeridianCit X D. Irrigation Districts l. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=O&Mpo=Meridia nCi 2. Boise Project Board of Control See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nci E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=O&Mpo=MeridianCit X F. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) hgps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=O&repo=MeridianCit X G. Ada County Development See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancit .00LylWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=O&Mpo=MeridianCit X H. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Staff report issued prior to final ACHD report was submitted to the City. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions I. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orz/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) 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 an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: I. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the Applicant's request to annex and rezone the subject property to R-15 zoning for single-family detached dwellings does not align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Mixed-Use Regional(MU-RG) designation. The MU- RG designation is intended to foster a balanced blend of uses, including employment opportunities, retail, residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in high-traffic areas near major arterial intersections. By proposing only single-family detached residential development, the applicant's plan misses the mark on providing the necessary commercial and public uses that would support a mixed-use environment. This lack of commercial and employment spaces contradicts the goal of creating a self-sustaining, integrated community where residents can live, work, and access services locally, reducing the need for long commutes and external traffic reliance. To meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant would need to incorporate a more diverse mix of uses, including commercial spaces for businesses and public amenities, that would foster job creation and provide essential services. This would bring the development into alignment with the MU-RG objectives of functional integration, connectivity, and the provision of local services near key intersections. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Future Land Use Map (FL UM)designates the area as "MU-RG"which is intended to provide a balanced blend of employment opportunities, retail, residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in areas near major arterial intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live, work, and shop without needing to travel far. However, the applicant's current proposal is limited to single-family residential development, which does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. By focusing solely on single-family homes, the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with employment and retail options nearby. The applicant needs to revise the proposal to incorporate a wider variety of uses as identified above to better align with the vision for the MU-RG designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed map amendment is considered detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare because it fails to align with key planning and design principles that safeguard the well-being of the community. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 4. The map 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; and Commission finds without the design elements such as a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and public uses,functional and physical integration, and prioritized pedestrian connectivity, the development does not align with the Comprehensive Plan's standards for creating vibrant, integrated communities. The absence of these features can lead to missed opportunities for economic growth, inadequate infrastructure, and poor local connectivity, which are essential for the City's overall development strategy. For the annexation to be considered, the applicant needs to revise the development plan to incorporate the design elements listed above, thereby ensuring it meets the City's objectives for mixed-use, sustainable, and well-connected neighborhoods. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the annexation is not in the best interest of the City because the proposed development lacks key design elements (function integration, outward facing design,physical integration and shared features, support for local services, design integration,purposeful open space,pedestrian connectivity and limited reliance on arterial roads) required by the Comprehensive Plan. These missing elements are critical for ensuring that new developments contribute to the City's long-term vision and goals, especially in areas designated for specific uses like Mixed-Use Regional. B. Preliminary Plat and Short Plat(UDC-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Commission finds that the plat is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan as a portion of the plat is designated as MU-RG on the FLUM. MU-RG is intended to provide a balanced blend of employment opportunities, retail, residential dwellings, and public uses, particularly in areas near major arterial intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live, work, and shop without needing to travel far. However, the applicant's current proposal is limited to single-family residential development, which does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. By focusing solely on single-family homes, the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with employment and retail options nearby. The applicant needs to revise the proposal to incorporate a wider variety of uses as identified above to better align with the vision for the Mixed-Use Regional designation. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's Capital Improvement Program. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds the primarily single-family residential nature of the proposed development may not generate sufficient tax revenue to offset the costs ofpublic services.Mixed-use developments that include commercial and employment opportunities generally provide a better balance of revenue and service costs, something this proposal lacks. The development could also put a strain on existing services (e.g., schools, emergency response) without providing additional funding or resources to accommodate the increased demand. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Commission finds the proposed development is considered detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare because it fails to align with key planning and design principles that safeguard the well-being of the community. This could include several potential risks: • Increased Traffic and Congestion: Without proper mixed-use integration or necessary commercial services, the development may generate more traffic than the current infrastructure can handle. This could lead to unsafe road conditions and strain on the local transportation network,particularly if the area is heavily reliant on arterial roads. • Lack of Local Services: The absence of commercial and public uses in the development means that residents would need to travel farther for essential services such as groceries, healthcare, and employment. This not only increases reliance on vehicles but also reduces access to daily needs, negatively impacting public welfare. In light of these concerns, approving the development could undermine the city's efforts to promote safe, healthy, and well-balanced growth. A more integrated development plan would be necessary to ensure it meets the standards for protecting public health, safety, and welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Commission finds the development is preserving the Ransom Lateral by keeping it open as a natural feature. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff is recommending denial of the project because the current proposal does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. The proposal is limited to single-family residential development, occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area, and with no internal vehicle or pedestrian connectivity between the areas,which by focusing solely on an inward facing single-family home development,the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed- use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby. This lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan could raise concerns about whether the development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community, or meet long-term growth objectives. In order to develop the property as proposed,the applicant has the option of continuing the hearing and applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment before the December 15t1i deadline. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on October 17, 204. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject annexation,rezone and preliminaryplat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Hethe Clark,representing applicant City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Hethe Clark,on behalf of the applicant d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Linda Ritter f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. A lack of mixed-use and compliant with the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. Limited connectivity-limited interconnectivity. Limited transition from adjacent properties and pedestrian safety concerns. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ' 1 1 Locationct of Impact 0 Analysis .a7 s P 4�- • , - _ LAKE HAZE!Legend • ,• Z r�—■ Project LocationAnalysis LLI �■ Area of Impact ■ RUT �r ■- ••111111�I L�pHI � �� 111111111111:- ■ ■■� :11111»1»17�= 7�� ,1�,� r Illllil p i - �UC! LM1:J `1111� • LAKE HAZELRE - 11111 IIIIIF S 11111 IIIIIL _ III 1111"� 3. Future Land Use Legend * MU-C Project Location D Area of Impact -_ Low Density Residential O Analysis am Ilium Density . Residential --------- -High Density MU-1R f Residential I D ,Med-High Density Residential. 4. Planned Development Map Legend rt Project Location Area of Impact --- __ -1_' City Limits ; Planned Parcels � u O Analysis ® ILILJ I � I � I r I ' F D� r 1 , r I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 5. Map Notes [Kearby Recent Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years) H-2021-0020 H-2023-0041 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits within last 5-years) H-2020-0009 H-2020-0057 H-2020-0117 H-2021-0021 H-2021-0036 H-2021-0087 H- 2020-0056 H-2019-0097 H-2022-0050 H-2023-0041 H-2024-0014 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits B. Subject Site Photos r a. r '5 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits it •a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 5 k f �+ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1131336031 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 19 8th Percentile Description Location In City Limits REEK Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains 500-2,000 ft. from parcel YELLOIV Floodplain Either not within the 10C yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN r Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLOIV Pathways Within 1/4 mile of future pathways YELLOIV Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route M Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing (4 of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOIV School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing orfuture school IRED Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits A Preliminary Plat(date: 5/22/2024) ! )!I PFEUN INAWP rFOR - r�JYI'y\ ZY N,CH SUBDIVISION s xn - . �. o m raw�sMssnsm.wxni .mse 3 mr n Mnswx,aw[wxiv.oun Boa�v r vaevm sums. a �••�'•• SFO Hx Sul I.� dl Fes' 'R' Mw *9F"�l9t1� - - - - - - --- =_- -_ - -i - - -=-� PP1.0 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 5/24/2024) 1+14-ki OaM I o 0 L --- - - - - - - - -- SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION E',FEUT ' y PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIDIAN, ID nAl u.you tk e SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION ,E SENBELTS PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIDIAN, ID City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Phasing Plan PRLLI PLAT SI -- SKYRANC"CH SH661VISION s iR LTnc�i��Q�i�px 3i, IIOCIIL Rill¢I ---- gym¢ g um3 &e ii 3 s_ a z L---------- -- --- - PP1.0 G. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 6/6/2024) I r.. m ITII SKYIiANCH sumlV610H ..r •�A, ----- - OPfN SPACE E IF IT 1 MTI M . 43 M Ai Il QIIAUFYING CWFN SiAl1=.t7.39 AC 11].110 ----_- --_,-- _-_-_-_-_-._ wR-QlLwmnc ortn svn[[-an.n Ac ••�•�.� - [+Iw iMNG LPFH SPRLf VW - IMiN�IMLi11NG OPLII EIWL .._.�. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits H. Site Amenities A. Park (Block 7, Lot 1)-The one-and-a-half-acre park will contain the following recreation facilities: Community Pool and Changing Rooms Fenced Play Structure Swing set - Seating Benches � Climbing Dome Attractive Landscaping �„ ',� , , v '1Y• i CC _. 4 !s -+ t AF I i� I aR.=+14Y EFF Ir?r. L I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits B. Pickleball Courts (Block 1,Lot 1) the entrance to 5kyranch - will feature: Two pickleball courts Attractive landscaping — iL - — C.Dog Parks jelock 4, Lot 1 &Block 10,Lot 1)- both parks will be over ore-third of an acre and , 4 { feature. Fenced Area Waste Station -t I P, Sitting benches. J -Attractive landscaping �kG - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Pathways—The Skyranch Neighhorhood will include the following pedestrian pathways. 10`Regional Pathways will be constructed along lake hazel(1,200 ft),S.Meridian Road(5DD ft),and Future Collector(600 ft)for approximately 2,300 L.F.total. t. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits I. Common Drive Exhibit(date: 6/6/2024) LOT 3 TAKES DIRECT STREET ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF LOT, 12.00P REAR Typ SFrIBACK TYP 5.00' LSCP SUFFER BLOCK 11 20.00 fRDNT 10 g I SETBACK TM , LOT $ TAKES DIRECT STREET 2040 COMMON ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED Dprvc ON WEST SIDE OF LOT. c,,i L—————-- —— • - ------------------------------ y T V F0 Box 6U39 SKYPANCH SUBDIVISION 20 .0 20 40 801SE.IDMM7 LOTS 3—&BLOCK 1 COMMON DRIVE EXH IIRIT Ph: (209a'1"-3974 1 c9-h—kl—"lr—drq— I I City of Meridian I Department Report V11. Exhibits I I LOT ,0 TAKES DIRECT STREET I I I ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED I 3.00'SIDE x ;n ON WEST SIDE OF LOT. I SETBACK TYP I I r, I I I ID UTDIL FSETBACK SI T K I 1 01 I 6 JJ I ———————— I a 12.00' REAR SETBACK TYP I 8m s LOT 5 TAKES DIRECT STREET i' 00. F%osI ACCESS DRVEWAY LOCATED SETBACK VP ON SOUTH SIDE OF LOT. I C-�� SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION eo42m7o M7 LOTS 5-10 B LOCK 2 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT iraic �ehemsmrmginemng-mn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits og x< 23 26 27 x6 x5 ;° 3t 33 33 34 Ji--i II x I � I z9ev EBapir I $ �3s rrrs dnlrcr rnrtrr S -------I _,Y9V__61'AR____-- 2°'0poarYpN I 3L1PM6 rry I I } I ___ ms,:ma('malr I I 13 I iercK —- --- rn 'm�lmdn I zo.ar mover I 3x I -- 1 1-- sLrs.c.r+T 1x�m.Rcw I z°o BDw rn• —1 �'----- gg I � I � � I Bla I �.�sr mce or�.wurtn aN g zo:oRlv6°m I z ��26.00•cauuou 1 � I ��.. ,°. . .. VW a SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION LOTS 12-21 AND 35-39 BLOCK 5 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 4 LOT 46 TAKES DIRECT STREET i ACCESS.BRNEIMAY LOCATED ON I a3 I 42 WEST SIDE OF LOT. I I I I- I 1.20.00'FRDR 8--c 5 1 I 46 I SETBACK TYP————— 47 ————————1 i I $ 5.00 L",w I f— L� BVFFER I V \' I 45 m 44 I 41 \ I 20A0' COY•rA7N 1 REAR MA I \l OR1VE �T�K TYP-4 d LOT 43 TAKES DIRECT STREET ACCESS TO THE EAST. 40 c�viL SITE �•a 20 0 20 40 SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION eoLa,�o 8370, LOTS 4346 BLOCK 5 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT WAX: �ahemdnv�mg�nemng.m n City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1.7 3,00' SIDE LOT 43TAKES DIRECT STREET 1 D.DO' SETBACK ACCESS DRIVEWAY LOCATED UllL eWT r(P ON EAST SIDE OF LOT. KWOK 6 39 I 40 I I 41 I 42 I 41 44 45 39 7. LOT 36 TAXES DIRECT STREET ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF LOT- SEFRACK TYP C-9m 15 30 SKYRANCH SUBDNOON e6&k.�b 61'.1 LOTS 36-43 BLOCK 6 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits LOT 8 TAKES PRECT STREET I od ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED I I 26 w I 4N WEST SIPS OF LOT. a I n I 12Q.O4' FRONT I r I SI" WK TYP o II— ——— ------ 17 i 1S I r---- - - w I 12.W REAR 19 BLOCK 11 21 SEMACK TYP I g I I I 5.00' LSCPI ---` —J CufFER 2o-.aa' 4ouu4N ———————— — DR(VE 22 p 4 k------------ --� 23 LOT 3 TAKES DIRECT STREET ACCESS. ORrYEWAY LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF LOT. -————————————— 24 c—cw C Iw IoL��=TE 15 8 15 34 1Oam6051� SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION 86AE.1ok3767 LOTS 18-23 BLOCK i 1 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT E V' N' Ph:(269)966--U74 [1f R WYIY�✓S W!f 1�M1!lY7119.tb11 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits J. Building Elevations(date: Click here to enter a date.) Skyranch Elevations AWL t _ i� L 1✓ - r ieq-:. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits K. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map 4LSawtooth Land 5urvoymej, I -` - - � F- (206)a$"104 F; (2O8)3a8-5105 2030 5. Wa5hingtom Ave,.Emmett,ra 53C 17 Annexation Boundary Description BASIS OF BEARINGS for this legal erhtrlption Is North 89°43'40"1Ne5t,I etwetn a 5f8"r mr with no rip marking the 51J4 corner of Section 31 and an aluminum cap,PLS 7323 marking the m�uthwest corner of Section 31,T-3 N., R- 1 E., 9-M.,Ada CourHLy,Idaho. A parcel of land being the 5112 of the SE114 of the SW 114 of Section 31,TOWShlp 3 North,flange i East of the Boisa Meridian,Ada[aunty,Idaho, more particularly dewibed as follows; BEGINNING at a 51R"reber with no tap marking the SSJ4 corner of said Section 31; Thcngc North 84°134t7"wtJt,coincident with the south ling of said SEV4 of the SW114,a dirt ++f t vm--q� feet to a 5}R'r,eyar wtl on il"Ible cap tmking fire WIJ16 corner of said Section 31; Thence Ieaal ng shld south line, h#orth 0°08'07"West cDinddiwt with the viest line of said SE 1J4 of tite 54'IN a distance aP 669-16 f4mA to a if2"rebarirap PLS 5359 marking the NW Darner of Bald 5112 of the SEiJ4 of the S1N119; Thence south 89"8'22"East,aoincldent with the north line of saki 5112 of the SE114 of the 5 iJa,a distance of 1304.93 feet to the each Iim2 of said 5E114 of the SWI/4; Thence 5auth b"14'33"tiYM coincident with sand east line,670-94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINPUNG. The above descnbed oar❑ei wntans 20.039 acres, more or less- L ` � yl 11574 +{0� }+1F P 'ti2020kl EMTk1 ?0O50-wILLEMAN SUB CG',Survinyk0rawingskDescr+jiIipnuk12OG50-Af1P5ex LegBl.dvcx Page City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits � 4/(iAJ01'Ati RC e rn I x�o'OItl�K dW.ns' �I a i i col ' I 8013 � f e- -s ar�•vru w ► 41WEX4TICUY BOUNDARY allLUr � EMME7T,ID83617 FZd6 398.8185 tadsd _ sir DAM i f �o- L fJ yVW4V.SA4S7kmT-huc� City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits L. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map A&k 5awtooth Land 5urvey,ng, LLC 57-1 F:(208)398-8104 f;(208)398-6 105 1.-�—a 2030 S. Washington Ave„ CmmCa. ID 836 17 Rezone Legal Description BASIS OF BEARINGS for this legal description Is North 89°43'40"West,between the southwest corner and the 51/4 comer of Section 31,T.3 N.,R.1 E.,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho. A parcel of land being a portion of Government Lot 4 of Settlen 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise PHeridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly desarlbed as.feilows: COMMENCING at a 5/8"rebar with no cop marking the S114 corner of said Section 31; Thence North 89043'4D"West,coincident with the south line of the 5W114 of said Section 31,a distance of 1300.52 feet to the W1/16 corner of said Section 31 and the southeast comer of said Government Lot 4,marked by a 5/8"rebar/cap illegible; Thence North 0010"r West,calnddent with the east line of Bald C,avemrnent Lot 4,a distance of 25.00 feet to a 510"rebar/cap PLS 2471 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 89°434D"West, parallel with said south sine,268,01 feet to a 5!9"rebarlcap PLS 11574; Thence North 00108'07"West, parallel with said east liner 2C7.59 feet to the centerline of the Rawson Canal, marked by a 5/8"rebaricap PLS 11574 witness comer, bearing South C01108'07"East,41,63 feet; Thence c❑incident with said centerline the fallowing three(3)course$and distances: Thence North 52"36'37"Westr 295.49 feet,marked by a 5/r r0aricap PLS 11574 reference monument,which bears North 321121r59"East,3111 feet;; Thence North 62113016"Westr 403.26 feet,marked by a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS 11574 reference monument,whkh bears North 27108'31"Last,33.00 feet; North 631303123"West,292.73 feet to the easterly right of way of S.Meridian Road,marked by a capper plug PLS 1194; Thence North OS114854"West,coincident wlth said easterly right of way,92.41 feet to an ldaha Transportati❑n Department brass cap; 7bence North OV.06'16"Wesk,coincident with said easterly right of way, 135.61 feet to a 518"rebarfcap PLS 1L574; Thence North 00'9737"West,mincident with said easterly right of way, 380.98 feet to an aluminum cap on the ' north line of said Government Lot 4; Thence South 891153'03"East,culncident with said north line, L129.32 feet to the northeast miner of said Government Lot 4,marked by a found chiseled X in a stone; P:%202p11 EMTt120D50-WiLLEMAN SUB CG%Survey%Drawin.3s1bescrlplrons1l2005a-Rezone Leg al.docx Page 11 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Thence South 00°48TW East,coincident with the east line of said Government Lot 4,a distance of 1313.33 feet to the P'oIrfT OP BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 24.530 acres, more or less. o 1157 G EAG� P �2i720ti1 EMT't124050-VV6LLi= MAN SUE CG'•SurveylDrawingF;�.Ue3cripi ions tiI20050-Relnne teyigi CIO" Page 12 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits !Yf1 wyrme aBVYR KRk a rs ar„r Pm �ID x N S It,WEE GOV'TLOr4 ISEC.31 r.3 IV,R!E.,Sm. . 1 1 f # CL- 11574 X.6 ifl1�.9f' N!1'�@4F YF d@IDI' �N Wa'oN N Im-Q b 2 i R!1�Hi SlL Im i'r'aww 1V,1d' $efilh GF'SEAk+ GNLEE318ff AWN Praoxaer I O VMEIUEVEWMa 20.W S.WASNINGT NAVE. Dt0 JF REZCWE 9OLlN 3�EKHTOrr ENNE7' IP$36I7 QfzS C016ER GROUP P: 208139"1004 PROAX70 �VD4{:OLINTY,IDAHO O P.ic;30-8105 u0m � 612U24 ad n rylr L CG WWW.5,4WTCCTHLS.COM City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they maybe for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts